Half of US Households "Financially Fragile"

[esevans]

Well I tend to agree, but also do some math at the same time:

 

Single 100K income- Married with two kids

 

$3135 semi-monthly income (paid twice a month) at NJ Tax rates, without any insurance or 401K deductions- total is $6240 a month income

 

Mortgage payment with property taxes (house cost of 350K with 10K a year in property taxes at 5% intrest and 20% down) 2,386.43

Car payment $500 a month (for something in 40K range with 10K down)

Cable bill (with phone and internet) $150

Electric bill (budget plan which equalizes payments through out the year) $200

Just Adding that all up equals out to $3236, which is more then half of the monthly income. That's not including paying for gas, day care if needed, Food,etc that a family of Four would need.

 

I completely get what you're saying. However in your example, the family has instant savings of $70k by renting instead of buying, and another $10k by not buying a new car. With that $80k, they can be alot more comfortable financially by delaying gratification, or scaling back. I'm sure housing is much more expensive in NJ than NC as a rule. In most of NC $150k would get you a decent house in a decent neighborhood. A $40k car isn't a necessity. Having a financial cushion is a necessity (especially with kids) IMHO.

 

The problem is, at least according to the OP (haven't read the source material), that alot of $100-150k households are living paycheck to paycheck. I know people like that, I used to be one of them. Living paycheck to paycheck while making a decent living is ridiculous. A couple of unforseen events, a few missed payments here or there, your credit is dinged, and you're on a downward spiral. A friend of mine does collections/repo's for a chain of furniture stores. Countless times he's gone into the ghetto and repo'd flatscreens. A couple making $100k a year living paycheck to paycheck is no better off (nor more intelligent) than the clown in the ghetto that had his 60" LCD repo'd out of his 10x12 bedroom (true story).

[Ron W.]

However in your example, the family has instant savings of $70k by renting instead of buying

 

Been a renter most of my life, the monthly payment as a renter is higher than the monthly payment of a purchase.

Purchase means you can write off the interest on the morgage via taxs, and purchase almost ( I did say almost ) allows for equity to be built up. I will -never- rent again.

The only thing saved by renting is the down payment.

[akirby]

The only thing saved by renting is the down payment.

 

And maintenance.

[Ron W.]

And maintenance.

 

 

ok, you got me there, if you want to paint, improve, or whatever it's on the owners dime ..... still worth it to me.

[retro-man]

Rents are shooting up around here right now, and the only area where Architectural billings are showing an improvement is multi-family construction. My mortgage on a 2400 sf 4 bedroom 3 bath 2 car garage house on 3/4 acre is $900 / mo. - interest and principal. Taxes and insurance are another $500. Renting the same house in this area would cost me around $1,900 / mo. - much more if I were closer to town. The $1,400.00 /mo. I'm paying now would get me a 2 bedroom 1 bath condo rental with "covered off street parking" in the same suburb where I'm living. That actually would be enough home for me under current circumstances - but I could get that much home for much less by buying it. What's the rule of thumb for maintenance expenses? 1% of the value per year? Something like that.

 

I think the consensus is that housing will never again in our (baby boomers) lifetime be an "investment". It never should have been in the first place - it is far too important for that, and it is a shame that speculative activity moved a home of their own out of the reach of so many people. That last statement....... I am for sure a liberal. Those on the extreme opposite end of arguments here no doubt think of me as a "socialist", but what I am talking about is not public or communal ownership of housing. I am a strong believer in private ownership. What I am not a believer in is the commoditization of everything. I do not think "the markets" by nature or definition bless everything they touch. On the contrary, I think they are tremendously destructive in some instances. We are living through that right now.

[xr7g428]

On the upside, both of my kids are trying to get into a house right now (purchase). They are pretty thrilled with the prices and interest rates. I think that we will see some modifications to the down paymnet requirements and then the marekt will take off again. It probably won't be as high as it was, but right now prices, at least in my area, are artificially low.

[retro-man]

Better for your kids and mine than artificially high - and better for all of us in the long run.

[Trimdingman]

When I'm posted next year I told the wife I'm buying at least 10 acres. That will probably be my retirement posting so I want it the way I want it. Big barn/garages for the racecars, mudtrucks, shop for micro-distillery I want to start, lots of room for a massive garden, hopefully have running water I can put a waterwheel on and room for big solar panels.

 

Don't know about a war coming but I grew up on a farm and like being self sufficient. :beerchug:

 

 

The way I look at it, money is just paper. There is little or nothing backing it up. They just keep printing it. I am not going to trade a house, or anything else of real value for a pile of worthless paper. When the majority of people wake up to this truth, the monetary value of real estate will go to infinity. If you can trade worthless paper for real estate, especially on credit, you would be a fool not to.

[Edstock]

I do not think "the markets" by nature or definition bless everything they touch. On the contrary, I think they are tremendously destructive in some instances. We are living through that right now.

Precisely.

[Trimdingman]

I do not think "the markets" by nature or definition bless everything they touch. On the contrary, I think they are tremendously destructive in some instances. We are living through that right now.

 

"The markets" are not touching anything right now. The government, in cahoots with a monopolistic banking system are the ones running this left wing fascist Ponzi scheme. Fascism to a communist is right wing, just slightly to their right. Fascism and communism are both big government, far left wing ideologies. Free market capitalism is right of centre; small government, more individual freedom; far from anything we have seen in many decades.

Edited June 19, 2011 by Trimdingman

[RangerM]

Rents are shooting up around here right now, and the only area where Architectural billings are showing an improvement is multi-family construction. My mortgage on a 2400 sf 4 bedroom 3 bath 2 car garage house on 3/4 acre is $900 / mo. - interest and principal. Taxes and insurance are another $500. Renting the same house in this area would cost me around $1,900 / mo. - much more if I were closer to town. The $1,400.00 /mo. I'm paying now would get me a 2 bedroom 1 bath condo rental with "covered off street parking" in the same suburb where I'm living. That actually would be enough home for me under current circumstances - but I could get that much home for much less by buying it. What's the rule of thumb for maintenance expenses? 1% of the value per year? Something like that.

Housing around here is still somewhat reasonable, although certain areas have been inflated due to the number of northern transplants with a lot of money, but no common sense, who spend $300K-$500K on a home that's not brick on a quarter to half-acre plot.

I think the consensus is that housing will never again in our (baby boomers) lifetime be an "investment". It never should have been in the first place - it is far too important for that, and it is a shame that speculative activity moved a home of their own out of the reach of so many people. That last statement....... I am for sure a liberal. Those on the extreme opposite end of arguments here no doubt think of me as a "socialist", but what I am talking about is not public or communal ownership of housing. I am a strong believer in private ownership. What I am not a believer in is the commoditization of everything. I do not think "the markets" by nature or definition bless everything they touch. On the contrary, I think they are tremendously destructive in some instances. We are living through that right now.

There is little difference between investment and speculation, except one is for positive and the other often winds up being negative. Housing is still an investment, because after making payments, it's an asset. A renter will never own anything.

 

The problem with freedom is that sometimes bad comes with it. If you can't live with the bad, then you won't have the good, either. The market corrected and revealed the negative nature of speculation. The market doesn't "bless" but it does separate the good from the bad by maintaining (ie correcting for) a balance; although not necessarily before the bad can have an impact. You're only a liberal if you believe that government can abolish the bad without affecting the good.

Edited June 19, 2011 by RangerM

[retro-man]

...

There is little difference between investment and speculation, except one is for positive and the other often winds up being negative.

That's a good distinction.

 

Housing is still an investment, because after making payments, it's an asset. A renter will never own anything.

Exactly. I am definitely pro-ownership. It is a hedge against exploitation, which is the only way I can characterize skyrocketing rents in the face of skyrocketing foreclosures. Our system should be helping people who are in trouble. Instead, it seems to be kicking them while they're down. And as far as I can tell, the very people who engineered this fiasco are walking away counting their money!

 

The problem with freedom is that sometimes bad comes with it. If you can't live with the bad, then you won't have the good, either. The market corrected and revealed the negative nature of speculation. The market doesn't "bless" but it does separate the good from the bad by maintaining (ie correcting for) a balance; although not necessarily before the bad can have an impact. You're only a liberal if you believe that government can abolish the bad without affecting the good.

One kind of faith versus another: faith in human design and intention, vs. faith in Adam Smith's "invisible hand": an impersonal, unfeeling, celestial mechanism. I'm not enlightened enough to put my faith in the thinking of the Enlightenment age. The all too real aspect of our current "correction" is millions - and I mean literally millions of shattered lives and broken dreams. There is no excuse whatsoever for a system that allows that to happen. It is simply a failed system.

Edited June 19, 2011 by retro-man

[RangerM]

Exactly. I am definitely pro-ownership. It is a hedge against exploitation, which is the only way I can characterize skyrocketing rents in the face of skyrocketing foreclosures.

"Skyrocketing rents" are the result of supply and demand. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. Here's why.......

 

If two persons individually, cannot afford the rent of an apartment, they may choose to become roommates. This results in two positive outcomes. First, the two persons who formerly didn't have housing now do. Second, the second apartment that would have been unavailable to another party still is. Keep the rent(s) artificially low, and scarcity is the result.

 

If rents are so high that noone rents them, the landlord will be forced to reduce the rent. I know of no landlord who wants empty apartments because of the cost.

Our system should be helping people who are in trouble. Instead, it seems to be kicking them while they're down. And as far as I can tell, the very people who engineered this fiasco are walking away counting their money!

If our system is "kicking them when they're down" it's because the system isn't allowed to function. Given all that has been done (by the government) up to this point, is this what "recovery" is supposed to look like?

One kind of faith versus another: faith in human design and intention, vs. faith in Adam Smith's "invisible hand": an impersonal, unfeeling, celestial mechanism. I'm not enlightened enough to put my faith in the thinking of the Enlightenment age.

Perhaps if you could convince me that "human design and intention" could--without force or coercion--get a dozen cats to act in unison(one cat gets replaced with another random cat at random intervals) I would have more faith in government. Extend that to 300,000,000 free-thinking Americans.

The all too real aspect of our current "correction" is millions - and I mean literally millions of shattered lives and broken dreams. There is no excuse whatsoever for a system that allows that to happen. It is simply a failed system.

In the absence of failure, what does success look like? You speak of "millions". There are many "millions" more who are just fine. The ones who've succeeded didn't all do it on the backs of the ones who didn't. And you fault the entire system because a minority fail? By that standard (based on the number of failures over the years), you could say that professional sports, entertainment, or engineering/medical school are failed systems.

 

Where in the world would you rather fail than America? Where would you rather lose your job and your house, and go into bankruptcy than America? Now tell me how they're more free.

 

One of my favorite P.J. O'Rourke quotes: "The free market is a bathroom scale. We may not like what we see when we step on the bathroom scale, but we cant pass a law making ourselves weigh 165. Liberals and leftists think we can."

Edited June 19, 2011 by RangerM

[4d4evr-1]

"Skyrocketing rents" are the result of supply and demand. And it's not necessarily a bad thing. Here's why.......

 

If two persons individually, cannot afford the rent of an apartment, they may choose to become roommates. This results in two positive outcomes. First, the two persons who formerly didn't have housing now do. Second, the second apartment that would have been unavailable to another party still is. Keep the rent(s) artificially low, and scarcity is the result.

 

If rents are so high that noone rents them, the landlord will be forced to reduce the rent. I know of no landlord who wants empty apartments because of the cost.

 

If our system is "kicking them when they're down" it's because the system isn't allowed to function. Given all that has been done (by the government) up to this point, is this what "recovery" is supposed to look like?

 

Perhaps if you could convince me that "human design and intention" could--without force or coercion--get a dozen cats to act in unison(one cat gets replaced with another random cat at random intervals) I would have more faith in government. Extend that to 300,000,000 free-thinking Americans.

 

In the absence of failure, what does success look like? You speak of "millions". There are many "millions" more who are just fine. The ones who've succeeded didn't all do it on the backs of the ones who didn't. And you fault the entire system because a minority fail? By that standard (based on the number of failures over the years), you could say that professional sports, entertainment, or engineering/medical school are failed systems.

 

Where in the world would you rather fail than America? Where would you rather lose your job and your house, and go into bankruptcy than America? Now tell me how they're more free.

 

One of my favorite P.J. O'Rourke quotes: "The free market is a bathroom scale. We may not like what we see when we step on the bathroom scale, but we can’t pass a law making ourselves weigh 165. Liberals and leftists think we can."

 

What about Enron, was that the fault of the government, or is it ok for big business tp lie to its workers and markets?

 

What did Greenspan mean when he said the fraud was nor a reason for the government to use regulation in the CDO markets?

[retro-man]

If two persons individually, cannot afford the rent of an apartment, they may choose to become roommates. This results in two positive outcomes. First, the two persons who formerly didn't have housing now do. Second, the second apartment that would have been unavailable to another party still is. Keep the rent(s) artificially low, and scarcity is the result.

Well, then, why don't we go all the way: If 8 people are forced to live in a flophouse, then the outcome will be 4X as "positive" as in your scenario!!! Maybe we should shoot for that.

 

You speak of "millions". There are many "millions" more who are just fine. The ones who've succeeded didn't all do it on the backs of the ones who didn't. And you fault the entire system because a minority fail? By that standard (based on the number of failures over the years), you could say that professional sports, entertainment, or engineering/medical school are failed systems.

So, as long as half of us are still doing alright, then the system is working just fine? At the worst of the Great Depression, 3/4 of Americans still had jobs! That leaves me wondering what all the fuss was about after all. (Pardon my sarcasm - but really.) 2.87 million homes defaulted in 2010, and over 1 million of those were seized. It is expected that over 3,000,000 homes will be repossessed by the end of 2013. I'm not sure you are capable of even comprehending that much misery and hopelessness. I'm not sure I am. Regardless of whether those 3,000,000 households - and however many individuals they contained - are a minority, it is too many. It should never have been allowed to happen. The Yellowstone super-volcano didn't blow. We weren't hit by a meteor. Our system is just f*cked up.

 

Where in the world would you rather fail than America? Where would you rather lose your job and your house, and go into bankruptcy than America? Now tell me how they're more free.

I can name any number of other countries where I'd be half as likely to be unemployed at the present moment for one thing. That'd be a good start. (Admittedly I'd be far less likely to have a house to lose in most of those places.) And in virtually every one of the countries I'm thinking of, I wouldn't be getting *ss-raped for medical insurance premiums either (but we've had that discussion). As for what would happen if I did become unemployed, I think most of Western Europe has a pretty robust social welfare system. As for the old "freedom" canard, the only foreign country that I've spent enough time in to be intimately familiar with is Japan and I can tell you that, in any way that is of any consequence to me, Japanese enjoy every bit as much "freedom" as we do here. I have a feeling the same is true for most of Europe. Ask the Dutch.

[RangerM]

What about Enron, was that the fault of the government, or is it ok for big business tp lie to its workers and markets?

 

What did Greenspan mean when he said the fraud was nor a reason for the government to use regulation in the CDO markets?

Fraud is illegal, yet in the case of Enron, it happened anyway. Would you prefer that government tie the hands of honest businessmen? I wouldn't.

[RangerM]

Well, then, why don't we go all the way: If 8 people are forced to live in a flophouse, then the outcome will be 4X as "positive" as in your scenario!!! Maybe we should shoot for that.

BALANCE, is the keyword, Retro. You don't have to go "all the way", and force people to live in flop houses. Nor do I want people to be forced to double-up. But, with "green" taxes and rants about "urban sprawl", limiting people to living in small houses or apartments appears to be the goal of the left.

So, as long as half of us are still doing alright, then the system is working just fine?

No Retro. That's not what I said. I said that you were ignoring the "millions" who were ok, preferring to focus on the negative (maybe you will live to 200?).

 

The system works by correcting when things get too good (overheated as in the case of speculation) and too bad (oversupply). Example: The dollar is falling. It's cheaper to produce here. That's why VW just opened a plant in Tennessee. Hyundai/Kia is expanding production in Georgia/Alabama.

 

I also said that by your standard, medical school matriculation/graduation would be a failing system. What would be the state of medicine if everyone who applied to medical school was admitted, graduated, and given a license to practice?

At the worst of the Great Depression, 3/4 of Americans still had jobs! That leaves me wondering what all the fuss was about after all. (Pardon my sarcasm - but really.) 2.87 million homes defaulted in 2010, and over 1 million of those were seized. It is expected that over 3,000,000 homes will be repossessed by the end of 2013. I'm not sure you are capable of even comprehending that much misery and hopelessness. I'm not sure I am. Regardless of whether those 3,000,000 households - and however many individuals they contained - are a minority, it is too many. It should never have been allowed to happen. The Yellowstone super-volcano didn't blow. We weren't hit by a meteor. Our system is just f*cked up.

After the market crash, the unemployment rate rose, but gradually fell to 6.3% by June, 1930. Yet, this occured prior to the increased government spending of the Great Depression Era. Is it possible that the market was correcting itself?

I can name any number of other countries where I'd be half as likely to be unemployed at the present moment for one thing. That'd be a good start. (Admittedly I'd be far less likely to have a house to lose in most of those places.) And in virtually every one of the countries I'm thinking of, I wouldn't be getting *ss-raped for medical insurance premiums either (but we've had that discussion). As for what would happen if I did become unemployed, I think most of Western Europe has a pretty robust social welfare system. As for the old "freedom" canard, the only foreign country that I've spent enough time in to be intimately familiar with is Japan and I can tell you that, in any way that is of any consequence to me, Japanese enjoy every bit as much "freedom" as we do here. I have a feeling the same is true for most of Europe. Ask the Dutch.

Being unemployed "at present" isn't the metric. "Opportunity" is. And every dollar taken from someone's pocket to pay for those robust social welfare systems is lost opportunity. Many of those countries you could name would likely not let you emigrate, either.

 

As far as having "every bit as much freedom", it depends on which "freedom" you're talking about doesn't it? Start with the first one in our Bill of Rights: Freedom of Speech. Consider how many other countries (including those in Western Europe) have laws against blasphemy, insults, and "hate speech". Call me what you will. I may choose to ignore you, but I won't ask the government to put you in jail because you hurt my feelings.

 

I don't have enough time to go through every example, but the point is that you have more than you know, and seem not to appreciate it.

Edited June 20, 2011 by RangerM

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Well, then, why don't we go all the way: If 8 people are forced to live in a flophouse, then the outcome will be 4X as "positive" as in your scenario!!! Maybe we should shoot for that.

 

So, as long as half of us are still doing alright, then the system is working just fine? At the worst of the Great Depression, 3/4 of Americans still had jobs! That leaves me wondering what all the fuss was about after all. (Pardon my sarcasm - but really.) 2.87 million homes defaulted in 2010, and over 1 million of those were seized. It is expected that over 3,000,000 homes will be repossessed by the end of 2013. I'm not sure you are capable of even comprehending that much misery and hopelessness. I'm not sure I am. Regardless of whether those 3,000,000 households - and however many individuals they contained - are a minority, it is too many. It should never have been allowed to happen. The Yellowstone super-volcano didn't blow. We weren't hit by a meteor. Our system is just f*cked up.

 

I can name any number of other countries where I'd be half as likely to be unemployed at the present moment for one thing. That'd be a good start. (Admittedly I'd be far less likely to have a house to lose in most of those places.) And in virtually every one of the countries I'm thinking of, I wouldn't be getting *ss-raped for medical insurance premiums either (but we've had that discussion). As for what would happen if I did become unemployed, I think most of Western Europe has a pretty robust social welfare system. As for the old "freedom" canard, the only foreign country that I've spent enough time in to be intimately familiar with is Japan and I can tell you that, in any way that is of any consequence to me, Japanese enjoy every bit as much "freedom" as we do here. I have a feeling the same is true for most of Europe. Ask the Dutch.

 

UK is going to stage the biggest walkout since the great depression it's 6.5 million government workers (29 million employed total in the UK private sector/government workers) as the first batch got their marching orders facing a long time on the dole as a future this week as austerity cuts start to hit the UK. Government services are about to get massacred, folk like teachers will face huge cuts in their pensions early retirements at 55-65 are getting moved to 70 years old, folk like teachers will have to put loads more in, get less out their pensions will drop dramatically as Britains government employees get hammered to pay for the bailouts of failed British banks by the British government.

 

UK to come to a grinding halt.

LINK

 

UK Government employs 6.5 million workers, it is our biggest employer.

 

UK Top 10

1 NHS - 1,300,000 (UK Government)

2 Ministry of Defence - 400,000 (UK Government)

3 Tesco - 250,000 (Supermarket)

4 HSBC - 253,000 worldwide (Bank)

5 J Sainsbury - 150,000 (Supermarket)

6 Asda (Walmart) - 150,000 (Supermarket)

7 Barclays - 147,000 worldwide (Bank)

8 RBS Group - 136,000 worldwide (Bank)

9 Morrisons - 117,000 (Supermarket)

10 BP - 108,000 worldwide

 

 

Zero substance in UK top 10, no manufacturing. Just a service sector warehouse for Chinese imports & banks to lend you money at extortionate rates to buy their goods.

 

Bright news is most of the burger flippers that sit just outside the top 10 biggest employers like Mcdonalds who employ 85,000 are taking on another 4,000.

 

As a nation the uk is buggered you can't expect to pay for government services without any manufacturing base, something has to give and it will be public sector jobs.

Edited June 20, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds

[4d4evr-1]

Fraud is illegal, yet in the case of Enron, it happened anyway. Would you prefer that government tie the hands of honest businessmen? I wouldn't.

 

Fraud is illegal but Greenspan stated the CDO market still should not be regulated because the free market would take care of it. The free market has taken care of it partially, we're still going through it, but at what expense. Brooksley Born tried to begin the regulation of the CDO market but congress during Clinton in 1998 stopped it and she resigned. Six weeks later the ending began and culminated in 2008 and TARP under Bush saw the bailout begin.

 

Fraud is illegal but if no one knows about how can it be stopped.

 

Rape is illegal but without police to find the rapist it continues.

 

Murder is illegal but without cops who is punished.

 

With police there are costs and some innocent will have to pay a price.

 

Since you do not want honest businessmen to be bothered with regulation what about honest citizens who have to pay for police, DA's, judges, jailers, prisons and all associated cost for regular crimes.

 

What about the FDA? Do you want regulation of big pharma?

[Ford Jellymoulds]

Fraud is illegal but if no one knows about how can it be stopped.

 

Rape is illegal but without police to find the rapist it continues.

 

Murder is illegal but without cops who is punished.

 

With police there are costs and some innocent will have to pay a price.

 

 

 

 

UK Government just sacked 28,000 in the UK's police force as part of the government austerity cutbacks to pay for bailouts of failed UK banks who got into dodgy sub-prime US housing market mortgage loans .

 

Most of them got their P45 & unemployment notices late last week. So it early days to see if a crime wave will take over the UK. 3 Police Stations in 3 small towns in my area with a population of about 162,000 now have no police to police them, they come in from other areas when needed.

 

These Police positions have gone for good never to return, so everybody else thats left has been told they have to work a bit harder for less money, work a lot longer till they retire, age shifted from 55 to 65, on a reduced pension.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2011 by Ford Jellymoulds

[RangerM]

Fraud is illegal but Greenspan stated the CDO market still should not be regulated because the free market would take care of it. The free market has taken care of it partially, we're still going through it, but at what expense. Brooksley Born tried to begin the regulation of the CDO market but congress during Clinton in 1998 stopped it and she resigned. Six weeks later the ending began and culminated in 2008 and TARP under Bush saw the bailout begin.

Fraud is illegal but if no one knows about how can it be stopped.

Rape is illegal but without police to find the rapist it continues.

Murder is illegal but without cops who is punished.

With police there are costs and some innocent will have to pay a price.

Since you do not want honest businessmen to be bothered with regulation what about honest citizens who have to pay for police, DA's, judges, jailers, prisons and all associated cost for regular crimes.

What about the FDA? Do you want regulation of big pharma?

 

Do you believe I am for anarchy? Is the only response to unfettered anarchy stifling regulation that harms honest people?

 

When you can be more intellectually honest, and less of a demogogue, I'll engage in conversation. As it is, you have your beliefs; you're welcome to them; and I'll continue to strive for excellence in my life in spite of you.

[4d4evr-1]

Do you believe I am for anarchy? Is the only response to unfettered anarchy stifling regulation that harms honest people?

 

When you can be more intellectually honest, and less of a demogogue, I'll engage in conversation. As it is, you have your beliefs; you're welcome to them; and I'll continue to strive for excellence in my life in spite of you.

 

 

Back at you.

 

Where was I not intellectually honest? Which questions you chose not to answer are not honest?

 

I believe there should be not more regulation than necessary to control the dishonest, I hope you agree we should control the dishonest ? Do you believe we had enough regulation to control the CDO markets that helped lead to the economic collapse?

 

I don't know what you believe other than general statements such as no regulation if it affects 'honest business men'

 

So you believe some regulation is necessary for some laws but not others?

 

I gave some examples where I believe regulation is necessary, any place fraud is use to take advantage of someone with less abilities, what about you.

 

Just pick and choose which questions you want/will answer if any at all.

[RangerM]

Just pick and choose which questions you want/will answer if any at all.

Here you go. Enjoy your day.

Fraud is illegal but if no one knows about how can it be stopped.

If a person is intent on defrauding another, it can't be stopped. There will always be people willing to take advantage of others. The difference a law makes is the form in which that fraud presents itself. All you can do is penalize

Rape is illegal but without police to find the rapist it continues.

Murder is illegal but without cops who is punished.

With police there are costs and some innocent will have to pay a price.

Non-sequitur. No one is saying that there should be no police.

Since you do not want honest businessmen to be bothered with regulation what about honest citizens who have to pay for police, DA's, judges, jailers, prisons and all associated cost for regular crimes.

Non-sequitur. Nobody has suggested there should be no regulation. The question is cost versus benefit. As has already been established, nothing prevented Enron. Enron operated under the laws that were in force at the time.

What about the FDA? Do you want regulation of big pharma?

If FDA never existed, there would be an Underwriters Laboratories equivalent. UL is private, btw. Regulation of "big pharma"? You mean like laws that prevent purchasing medicines from Canada? How about thalidomide? Did the risk of birth defects justify preventing the people who might have benefitted from thalidomide for treatment of multiple myeloma? Point being, regulation can do harm, and often does through unintended consequences.

 

There, I've answered your statements and the two questions you asked. Back at you.

Edited June 20, 2011 by RangerM

[4d4evr-1]

Here you go. Enjoy your day.

 

If a person is intent on defrauding another, it can't be stopped. There will always be people willing to take advantage of others. The difference a law makes is the form in which that fraud presents itself. All you can do is penalize

 

Non-sequitur. No one is saying that there should be no police.

 

Non-sequitur. Nobody has suggested there should be no regulation. The question is cost versus benefit. As has already been established, nothing prevented Enron. Enron operated under the laws that were in force at the time.

 

If FDA never existed, there would be an Underwriters Laboratories equivalent. UL is private, btw. Regulation of "big pharma"? You mean like laws that prevent purchasing medicines from Canada? How about thalidomide? Did the risk of birth defects justify preventing the people who might have benefitted from thalidomide for treatment of multiple myeloma? Point being, regulation can do harm, and often does through unintended consequences.

 

There, I've answered your statements and the two questions you asked. Back at you.

 

 

Would I be correct to say that we both agree there should be some regulation, some where between protecting the buyer from fraud or in cases of very complicated financial instruments and too much where the possibility of making profits is reduced or eliminated?

[Edstock]

If FDA never existed, there would be an Underwriters Laboratories equivalent.

And you know this how?

 

You're entitled to your opinion, but UL was for the insurance industry and as such has entirely different motivation (minimizing insurance losses = money =) than the FDA, which was created not to minimize insurance claims, but aimed at keeping overly-aggressive capitalists from poisoning people.