Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

[armakraut]

How would I be able to make profit if I had no ability to protect my inventions and creations? Also, who would ever invest capital in a company or person developing any new product or concept without that protection? Capitalism exists only on paper without property rights.

Intellectual property (and every form of property rights, in fact) isn't a "philosophical" part of capitalism if you look at it as narrowly as you've done above, but it's a necessary element to allow a capitalist system to function. I don't see how this is even debatable. Nobody would want to spend resources creating new things and nobody would give them the capital to do it without those property rights.

There in lies the question, if Capitalism is regulated, how much regulation and who regulates it? Besides property rights, and the right of the federal government to coin money, the actual regulation of markets is better left up to the states who can determine what regulations or lack there of creates the best environment for economic success.

[VooDoo6Actual]

armakraut,

This is the first statement I was asking for a response to:

the current idiocy). The states would have taken action long before the feds against degenerate usury schemes.

Here is your response to my query:

Armakraut writes:

"Immigration didn't become a huge issue in Arizona until the tail end of Janet Napolitano's career. We were some of the first to go after employers hard at the state level. Thankfully through direct action at the state level, we are now beginning to see some major changes. The states used to have varying degrees of usury (interest) laws to protect idiots and idiot bankers, but the supreme court invalidated this, they said the interest rate of the credit card company in the state the bank is headquartered is the rate you pay."

I live in a border state as well. I'm well versed on the history and continuing escalation of a problem that's solution has basically been to place a bandaid on it for well over 20 years. I would disagree w/ your assertion that immigration has become a huge problem ONLY since the end of Napolitano's tenure. In 1993, Napolitano was appointed by President Bill Clinton as United States Attorney for the District of Arizona. She was aware of the immigration problems of border states even before that appointment. Those facts & stats are well poplulated all over google archived headlines. In fact, her career & Sherrif Joe's conflicts are epic regarding their difference of opinions and dealing with immigration issues long before the end of her tenure there.

Her approaches & the fed. gov.'s have been ineffective or else the current administration would not have felt the need to act w/ it's current newly passed law. As is California's, New Mexico's Texas's etc.

I know several BP Agents/ICE who can attest to the ineffectiveness after multiple arrests of same perps, kidnappings, murders etc. The stats are staggering. They won't go on record for fear of job retaliation etc.

Your second response to my query:

"Madoff essentially bribed everyone in charge of auditing him. If memory serves, one of the watchdogs ended up becoming a son-in-law. Ironically it was the federal government and not Madoff that was throwing up every roadblock they could in the end. Those people will never be punished for their very real misdeeds.

Regardless of how madoff accomplished his magnificent smoke & mirrors fraud, how did the state take action at all regarding your first statement of "The states would have taken action long before the feds against degenerate usury schemes." The bottom line is they did not.

Whether it is not their territory, jurisdiction, responsibility etc. The state neither did nothing or had the power to do nothing.

I agree that those SEC fed people will never be punished for their misdeeds.

That being said, the bottom line is, the FED who commands & oversees the SEC failed regardless of the ruse & those invovled.

Imo, even the states had not been taking action or else they would have collaboratively acted in synergy earlier. Only now after the murder of a Rancher (a US citizen & been there since 1907) etc. & crime stats have hit quantum critical mass. The states all have agendas to include monetary inducements such as FED funding, political alliances and allegiances etc. that curtail common sense efficacious solutions like finishing the wall(s) w/ surveillance and staffing.

I submit, the continuing financial drain coupled w/ the staggering crime stats on our structure are the catalyst for the recent immigration laws specifically Arizonia. Only in America can an alien (undocumented worker) et alia get medical care, produce offspring that entltles their progeny to get full benefits of a US citizen including tuition aid, medical care, food stamps etc. No other country in the world does this.

At what costs ? Do the ends justify the means ?

That is a continuing, growing problem & suck hole to those who are working hard, fiscally and financially responsible good citizens paying into the system.

Respectfully, I'm interested in discussing solutions to a ongoing problem that historically has proven to date ineffective. I appreciate the exchange & dialogue.

Conceptually, a free market/free exchange system isn't really "free" if it's controlled/sensored/regulated (51% or more) by one entity is it ?

[armakraut]

That is a continuing & growing problem & suck hole to those who are working hard, fiscally and financially responsible good citizens paying into the system.

Respectfully, I'm interested in discussing solutions to a ongoing problem that historically has proven to date inefective. I appreciate the exchange.

If you want solutions...

The very best thing you could do for the working poor, the working and the middle class is to get rid of no-fault divorce. I've had so many of my employees stripped to the bone because of it. It bankrupts people and destroys children, pretty much destroyed the middle class. You could effectively ban it overnight if you allow people the option to have a fault-based marriage contract that lets people out only by joint agreement or some sort of transgression proven in front of a judge and jury. The current systems turns successful middle class mortgage owners into apartment renting indentured servants. I've never seen an institution destroy people more quickly or reliably. You can do this as a state initiative. A lot of religious organizations would jump on it.

The AZ immigration enforcement law as the best most hopeful thing I have seen since prop 187.

Washington DC attracts a lot of weird types because they have a green light to regulate everything because of the twisted current interpretation of the commerce clause. Many of these people would return home to terrorize their own states if they went to DC and found out they could only negotiate treaties, set import taxes and manage the post office. We'd get better people up there if we got folks who were stuck fulfilling constitutional roles.

The states have to start nullifying federal law and fighting it with more than mere words. Historically this is the best way to make your voice heard when the feds refused to hear it. From the Whiskey Rebellions and Rebellions against debtors prisons, to the Fugitive Slave Act, and Tariff of Abominations, it generally got federal attitudes turned in the right direction. That means drafting and electing dynamic people like Joe Arpaio or Andrew Napolitano. People well liked who can articulate and act on their beliefs. Too many republicans have the Obama wine & dine mentality. If they came for the perks, they can enjoy the curb.

[RancidSumo]

The first part of that post sounds like one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Why not just get rid of all government recognition of marriage and the special privileges it entails? Make it a solely religious institution and don’t have the government trying to force people to live the lives they deem necessary or “moral”

[armakraut]

In a lot of respects, that might be even better.

[Paraclete comes]

America is a land of opportunity, not the land of entitlement!!!!!!!!!

The idiot in the white house is very foolish. All the wealthy people I know are first generation. They have worked there asses off to make something that will sustain there families. So it seems like such a slap in the face to take a higher percentage of there income just because they are successful! Our country is moving in a very bad direction very quickly!

not sure who made this statement but it went something like this. "when the government takes from daniel and gives to pedro, it can always expect pedro's support"

we all know this one "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants alike" RICHARD JACKSON commonly thought as a statement by Thomas Jefferson

[Gentoo]

I can't help but think you guys are arguing while missing the point.

The issue isn't that there is a problem with overdraft charges. We can all agree that they are spelled out in the contract and the bank is 100% entitled to charge them, per the contract. This is a settled point.

The issue is the order in which the bank processes the overdraft fees.

Suppose you have $100 in your account. Now for whatever reason, you make 4 charges: $10, $20, $30, and $95, all on the same day.

There are 2 ways the bank can process these charges:

Way One:
First $10, leaving $90
Second $20, leaving $70
Next $30, leaving $40
Last $95, overdrawing the account, and incurring an overdraft charge.

Way Two:
First $95, leaving $5
Second $10, overdrawing the account, and incurring an overdraft charge.
Next $20, overdrawing the account, and incurring an overdraft charge.
Last $30, overdrawing the account, and incurring an overdraft charge.


If the bank chooses to do via Way Two, they make three times as much money via the exact same set of circumstances. However, this method will strike most people as unfair. Now, there is nothing explicitly prohibiting this conduct and the contract doesn't speak to the matter. So you are left with a judgment call here: is Way Two an ethical way to treat your customers?

[bobvila]

Or if you know you live check to check and bounce checks/overdraft monthly, pay for overdraft protection. If your bank does not offer it find a new bank.

As others have said, just be responsible. Either keep a log of your cash flow, use checks and keep a log, or just use cash. Anyone that pays overdraft fees more than once is not learning the lesson and costing themselves money. I also want to point out that if you are a good customer that most companies will work with you on late fees and stuff like it.

[RancidSumo]

There is nothing ethically wrong with that. However, it isn't a good way to treat a customer if you want them to continue being a customer. What all of this comes down to is bad business practices, there is no ethical question involved. The only reason that these bad business practices haven't been weeded out is because most people are too stupid to see what is being done and take their business elsewhere.

[bobvila]

I do not see it that way. Banks are in business to hold your money and invest it, and they make money from that. The people that are constantly in the negative means they are not making any money, and they are just a free check cashing service.

Im sure the banks would rather those people just use check cashing places because they are not making them any money if they are responsible, the irresponsible ones do pay but that is thier own fault.