Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Don't take this the wrong way, but it isn't worth my time to bother. If the Dems in Congress have their way, they're going to regulate the living fuck out of both industries. But I can't prove it with a list of names because nobody's going to say it out loud. Only "Friends of Angelo" like Dodd, who need to get out in front of the issue for political cover, will spearhead the stuff.

Why Grassley's involved I don't know. He's a crotchety, miserable fuck, so this a perfect opportunity to scowl, I guess.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Here's the WSJ take:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1233..._whats_news_us

It sounds like it applies to entities managing over $50 million, so it might apply to VCs. But it looks like we're talking about things like registration and disclosure, as opposed to things like annual audits and limitations on investments - a very different level of regulation.

Weren't you saying something about distinguishing between different levels of regulation, and focusing on moderate regulation?

Indeed.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

You can parse and lawyer this thing down all fucking day. Here's the general point. They're going to try to regulate the fuck out of both industries, to bring them under as much regulatory oversight as they can. However it happens, whatever form it takes, whether its more like banks or financial advisors of Indian Chiefs, neurosurgeons or licensed fucking sanitation workers, it's going to be attempted, and likely to be successful.

And stop grabbing at the low hanging fruit. When I was writing that bit, I thought, "You know, somebody's going to argue that the regulation will not be akin to what banks are facing. Maybe I should be more specific." Sure enough, somebody notes the distinction without a difference.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

So are you back to the idea that all regulation is bad?

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Did I say VCs? You discussed VCs. Post something responsive or take this to the VC board.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Those are from a different site, Hank.:o

S_A_M

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Geez Adder, when everyone knows something is true, no one has to _prove_ it. You damn lawyer.


S_A_M

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

~ Cue Tumbleweeds ~

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

You are certainly right that there will be lot of proposals for more regulation, particularly aimed at hedge funds. Whether that carries over to VC and PE probably depends on how much political clout those groups have, and the extent that they can convince Congress that they were not part of the problem (which to my mind they weren't). My prediction is that they will be largely successful, but probably will be hit significant by tax code changes that will make the Dems you are talking about happy.

That said, it isn't a distinction without a difference. Bank oversight is an entirely different thing.

But my original objection to your rant was broader than the regulation of previously unregulated financial markets. How about the other things (recognizing that more taxes for hedge funds, PE and VC was part of what you said)?

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Stop grabbing at low hanging fruit.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

That's the joy of Sebby -- where thesis and antithesis collide.


My favorite is when he rants at all of us for complaining about the Bush Bubble, on the theory that we're all so much richer now than we would've been without it..... and then bitches about how people making only $300k qualify as poor-folk these days.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Either that, or Sebby has some friends with really weird names.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

You can nitpick this shit all day. They're going to be regulated, and if Geithner and Obama don't press back on the Dems pushing for it, it will be heavy-handed.

By the way, do you have any idea how naive and ridiculous it sounds to challenge someone to show, by name, the politicians who will be pushing a bill that may turn out to be unpopular later, or cost them considerable campaign donations? In case you've been in a cave on Mars, Dr. Barbay, the definition of "surviving" in politics involves never having your fingerprints on anything that might bite you later. Unless absolutely pushed to it.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Which level of regulation would not involve the fuck?

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

There was no substance to attack.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

That's a good question. It has to be minimal to allow the industries to function as they should, but it would have to be strong enough to avoid something like another LTCM on the hedge fund side. On the private equity side, I really don't know why regulation would be needed for non-public funds other than complete disclosures to the gamblers at the gate. Transparency on the risks, which I think is already there.

Re: Deep Thought
 

That's great if you live in your car.

Re: Deep Thought
 

Or don't live on the slopes of a volcano.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Sebby, sebby, sebby.

Look, we understand it's hard. You hate all regulation, every bit. Yet that position isn't tenable today, and you've got to give lip service to the idea of moderate regulation being OK.

So you attack everything as OVERregulation before you know any of the details, because moderate regulation doesn't really exist, since it's all bad. You know the lack of regulation is part of what got us into this shit storm, but still you want someone to just put a little bandaid on the boo-boo and send you out to play.

Dude, that bill looks to me like an attempt to find a bipartisan approach to regulation that doesn't suck everything into the banking system - it looks like an attempt at moderate regulation. I don't know if it's the right one, I hadn't looked at it until you posted. But I think you went off the deep end on the guys trying to do what you were advocating.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

What if the gambler at the gate is a bank playing with deposits that you and I have insured?

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

I have a legitimate question (and this is not aimed at Sebby--more like a general topic of discussion). If the wealth in this country has increasingly been concentrated in the upper brackets, leaving less and less for more and more people to live on (whether a function of the market or de-regulation or whatever, it doesn't matter much) and costs for things like health care and mortgages or rent have eaten into what's left, what do people think are going to happen to those of us who make large amounts of money? Is it realistic to think that we can continue to increase the number of people in the lower middle class and below and not expect those with very little to start voting in people who will reduce their tax burden in favor of increasing the tax burden of those of us with a whole lot?

People aren't really buying that "You could be rich like me someday too, so don't vote Democrat or they will take away all your money when that happens" crap anymore. And if I work as an uncertified plumber and my wife is a waitress, why should I care what the government taxes some rich New York lawyer if it gets my family health care?

People always think about this in terms of what they make. "I make a lot, but I earned it and should be able to get whatever I can. If the market will pay me $165,000 out of law school or $400,000 out of business school, I deserve it." But it seems to me that people don't look at the whole picture. More money concentrated in a class of fewer people means more people with less money. The more this trend increases, the more likely you'll have a backlash. Would we rather get to a "Let them eat cake" concentration of wealth and hope our gated communities withstand the brunt of the resulting anger? Seriously, what do we think will happen if we create a country made up of very few wealthy people on one side and on the other, low-level service providers to serve them?

TM

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Stop with the animal porn.

Re: "I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green!"
 

I was ditching math class and doing bongs over at Curt's house, trying to catch his big sister the tease coming out of the bathroom naked again.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

VC don't got no board. Charlie don't surf!

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

John Thain gets to pass out $3.5 billion of govt. money before hetakes his golden parachute and bails. Then Obama get elected.

If he can't fix it, we start to eat the rich. Babies first.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Uh, we already have that. The answer appears to be printing so much money everybody has more of it.

My fear is that in taxing the wealthy, Congress will find the revenues are inadequate. Then it will come for the rest of us.

Biden made a gaffe during the campaign where he suggested $150k instead of $250k would be the bright line under which no new taxes would be added. I don't think it was a gaffe at all.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

During the campaign, the position was that under $150k were getting a tax cut, under $250k, no tax increase. AFAIK, that's still the position. Ain't gonna last long, I don't think, but it's still the Admin's current position.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

If you reason from first principles, perhaps it makes a difference whether the sort of inequality you're describing is the natural result of market outcomes (e.g., there are a lot of baseball players in the country, and a very few of them make far more than all the rest) or rather the result of government policies. Notwithstanding the baseball example, there are reasons to think that government policies (e.g., laws governing unionization) make a substantial difference.

But your point is that people who feel that they are getting screwed won't reason from first principles -- they'll see that they're getting screwed, relatively speaking, and they'll use the ballot box to get help.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Not really. If you own a house and have considerable investment income, your tax burden is quite low. And most people in the upper brackets take full advantage of their tax breaks.

This doesn't really jive with this: Either way, more massive tax cuts were just approved. Except this time the lion's share doesn't seem to be going to the wealthy, as it did under Bush.

TM

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Obama emphatically reiterated the second half of that last night. Here's to him knowing something we don't.

Hey Burger -- does the averted property damage bring you around?


USGS

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

If you own, refinance, and take out the max you can afford or qualify for. The next five + years of inflation from printing all this money will shrink that payment. And you can invest what you take out to offset the shrinking equity from the inflation. And you can pay less in principal in today's dollars.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

I think this is right. Most people (especially those who aren't making huge amounts of money) aren't focused on why large parts of the population's percentage of available wealth is going down. They compare what they make to what the top earners in their company make and hear things like, "CEOs make 500 times what the average worker makes today vs. 20 years ago when they made 50 times as much as the average worker." Then they hear things like, "CEOs and Wall Street types pocketed record bonuses in the aftermath of Wall Street and Detroit bailout." After watching this and seeing your pension and 401k disappear (and even worse, if you never had those things and your job is simply cut), who is more attractive? A candidate who says "I will increase taxes on those who make more than 5 times what you will ever make to get you health care" or one who says, "You can't punish the rich with more taxes because you may someday make more than $250,000!"

It just seems weird to me that people think that that attitude comes from the politicians and not the enormous number of people who don't have shit. When things are great and unemployment is low, politicians can say, "Here's what want you as a tax plan because you'll get rich off that house you just bought." But when the curtain falls and people don't have two dimes to rub together, they don't want to hear that anymore.

TM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

1) Did the system in place in 1991 that led to warnings get antiquated?

2) I learned in childhood that the rich volcanic soils of Idaho made their potatoes extra tasty. Is the same not true for the Philippines?

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

Everybody, look! Gay people want to marry, take your guns, and abort babies!

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Eh. Once Yellowstone goes, we are all dead anyway.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I don't know. If not, did it suddenly become free?


Tell me about your childhood.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I don't know either. Was funding for it cut off last year? Because USGS seems to still be doing it, and the question is why they need more money to do what they've been doing.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Sucker. I have a german car, so I'm definitely outracing that shit.

Re: The center cannot hold.
 

I'm not working through this carefully, but something tells me that this is the cause, not the solution, of many of our current problems.