OH HAI GUYS

[Rustlestiltskin]

What all did I miss since being banned for a month?

Anything good?

[Guest Removed]

in on page 1

 

 

 

this post for sale..pm for pricing

[TimTaylor751647545500]

You were gone?

[Scotty2Hotty]

This thread is racist.

[wagner]

I just farted in your thread and it stinks, bad.

[Rustlestiltskin]

Oh, and who banned me btw. If u guys don't wanna say it

cool. I just wanna see which mod/mods hates me

[Ramsey]

A global controversy is raging: what new regulations are required to restore confidence in the financial system and ensure that a new crisis does not erupt a few years down the line. Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England, has called for restrictions on the kinds of activities in which mega-banks can engage. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown begs to differ: after all, the first British bank to fall – at a cost of some $50 billion – was Northern Rock, which was engaged in the “plain vanilla” business of mortgage lending.

The implication of Brown’s observation is that such restrictions will not ensure that there is not another crisis; but King is right to demand that banks that are too big to fail be reined in. In the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere, large banks have been responsible for the bulk of the cost to taxpayers. America has let 106 smaller banks go bankrupt this year alone. It’s the mega-banks that present the mega-costs.

The crisis is a result of at least eight distinct but related failures:

· Too-big-to-fail banks have perverse incentives; if they gamble and win, they walk off with the proceeds; if they fail, taxpayers pick up the tab.

· Financial institutions are too intertwined to fail; the part of AIG that cost America’s taxpayers $180 billion was relatively small.

· Even if individual banks are small, if they engage in correlated behavior – using the same models – their behavior can fuel systemic risk;

· Incentive structures within banks are designed to encourage short-sighted behavior and excessive risk taking.

· In assessing their own risk, banks do not look at the externalities that they (or their failure) would impose on others, which is one reason why we need regulation in the first place.

· Banks have done a bad job in risk assessment – the models they were using were deeply flawed.

· Investors, seemingly even less informed about the risk of excessive leverage than banks, put enormous pressure on banks to undertake excessive risk.

· Regulators, who are supposed to understand all of this and prevent actions that spur systemic risk, failed. They, too, used flawed models and had flawed incentives; too many didn’t understand the role of regulation; and too many became “captured” by those they were supposed to be regulating.

If we could have more confidence in our regulators and supervisors, we might be more relaxed about all the other problems. But regulators and supervisors are fallible, which is why we need to attack the problems from all sides.

There are, of course, costs to regulations, but the costs of having an inadequate regulatory structure are enormous. We have not done nearly enough to prevent another crisis, and the benefits of strengthened regulation far outweigh any increased costs.

King is right: banks that are too big to fail are too big to exist. If they continue to exist, they must exist in what is sometimes called a “utility” model, meaning that they are heavily regulated.

In particular, allowing such banks to continue engaging in proprietary trading distorts financial markets. Why should they be allowed to gamble, with taxpayers underwriting their losses? What are the “synergies”? Can they possibly outweigh the costs? Some large banks are now involved in a sufficiently large share of trading (either on their own account or on behalf of their customers) that they have, in effect, gained the same unfair advantage that any inside trader has.

This may generate higher profits for them, but at the expense of others. It is a skewed playing field – and one increasingly skewed against smaller players. Who wouldn’t prefer a credit default swap underwritten by the US or UK government; no wonder that too-big-to-fail institutions dominate this market.

The one thing nowadays that economists agree upon is that incentives matter. Bank officers got rewarded for higher returns – whether they were a result of improved performance (doing better than the market) or just more risk taking (higher leverage).

Either they were swindling shareholders and investors, or they didn’t understand the nature of risk and reward. Possibly both are true. Either way, it’s discouraging.

Given the lack of understanding of risk by investors, and deficiencies in corporate governance, bankers had an incentive not to design good incentive structures. It is vital to correct such flaws – at the level of the organization and of the individual manager.

That means breaking up too-important-to fail (or too-complex-to-fix) institutions. Where this is not possible, it means stringently restricting what they can do and imposing higher taxes and capital-adequacy requirements, thereby helping level the playing field. The devil, of course, is in the details – and big banks will do what they can to ensure that whatever charges are imposed are sufficiently small that they do not outweigh the advantages gained from being underwritten by taxpayers.

Even if we fix bank incentive structures perfectly – which is not in the cards – the banks will still represent a big risk. The bigger the bank, and the more risk-taking in which big banks are allowed to engage, the greater the threat to our economies and our societies.

These are not matters of black and white: the more we limit the size, the more relaxed we can be about these and other details of regulation. That is why King, Paul Volcker, the United Nations Commission of Experts on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System, and a host of others are right about the need to curb the big banks. What is required is a multi-prong approach, including special taxes, increased capital requirements, tighter supervision, and limits on size and risk-taking activities.

Such an approach won’t prevent another crisis, but it would make one less likely – and less costly if it did occur.

[Skinner]

we have howard admin access and he did it. after seeing what he did it took it from him again.

[wagner]

we have howard admin access and he did it. after seeing what he did it took it from him again.

 

He also ate a newb and almost killed another, it was some crazy shit.

[nurkvinny]

I gave you a short ban for repeated for sale thread shitting. Others increased it since you had already been banned for the same thing before.

 

Welcome back.

[wnaplay1647545503]

Welcome back,

Your dreams were your ticket out.

 

Welcome back,

To that same old place that you laughed about.

 

Well the names have all changed since you hung around,

But those dreams have remained and they're turned around.

 

Who'd have thought they'd lead ya (Who'd have thought they'd lead ya)

Here where we need ya (Here where we need ya)

 

Yeah we tease him a lot cause we've hot him on the spot, welcome back,

Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.

[Rustlestiltskin]

I gave you a short ban for repeated for sale thread shitting. Others increased it since you had already been banned for the same thing before.

 

Welcome back.

 

 

K cool

[V8 Beast]

Just an FYI.. next one will be permanent so you should probably stay away from for sale threads.

[Rustlestiltskin]

Just an FYI.. next one will be permanent so you should probably stay away from for sale threads.

 

Oh so that was u extending my ban. No need to flex ur E-muscle. I just

like to inform ppl when they're sellig shit that is overpriced

so they don't get made fun of and riped on in the future

bc if they are selling overpriced stuff then obviously they

don't know what they're shit is worth and are obviously

clueless to what they're selling. But if u or ther mods feel

that me doing that is "thread shitting" then I'll stop.

[KillJoy]

Apparently, Paul is not the only one who takes the Internet Seriously.

 

KillJoy

 

PS - You were gone?

[Drewhop]

Oh so that was u extending my ban. No need to flex ur E-muscle. I just

like to inform ppl when they're sellig shit that is overpriced

so they don't get made fun of and riped on in the future

bc if they are selling overpriced stuff then obviously they

don't know what they're shit is worth and are obviously

clueless to what they're selling. But if u or ther mods feel

that me doing that is "thread shitting" then I'll stop.

 

Pot/kettle

 

You have posted over priced things on here as well if you want to get all technical.

So obviously if you are posting overpriced shit maybe someone should shit in your threads?

[Rustlestiltskin]

Pot/kettle

 

You have posted over priced things on here as well if you want to get all technical.

So obviously if you are posting overpriced shit maybe someone should shit in your threads?

 

LOL. Only thing I posted on here in the last year was my gli

and the Sebring. Both priced well. Soo well that I had offers

as soon as I posted them. I sold the Sebring and ended up

not wanting to sell the Gli to some guy in Kentucky bc

I liked it too much.

 

So u fail son

[V8 Beast]

ASS-U-Me... I was the one that said two weeks would be fine.

 

When will people here realize that its not your job to question prices. If you feel that strongly that someone has overpriced merchandise send them a pm and let them make that decision. If its an obvious rip off pm a mod.

[Cordell]

and I thought my threads were lame.

[V8 Beast]

and I thought my threads were lame.

 

Dont question his thread publicly. If you think his thread is shitty send him a PM.

[nurkvinny]

Dont question his thread publicly. If you think his thread is shitty send him a PM.

 

+1 cool point.

 

P.S. Don't ever let your wife mix your 7&7. It will show up with sour mix in it.

[Guest Hal]

ASS-U-Me... I was the one that said two weeks would be fine.

 

When will people here realize that its not your job to question prices. If you feel that strongly that someone has overpriced merchandise send them a pm and let them make that decision. If its an obvious rip off pm a mod.

 

This post is over priced. You think you have something better than you do.

[Tripleskate]

You were gone?

x2

[V8 Beast]

I took it upon myself to stand in front of the condoms at Walmart and tell people that if they buy them they were getting ripped off. If you buy a pair of latex gloves for 99cents you are ultimately buying 10 condoms.

[TheHaze]

I took it upon myself to stand in front of the condoms at Walmart and tell people that if they buy them they were getting ripped off. If you buy a pair of latex gloves for 99cents you are ultimately buying 10 condoms.

 

But the latex fingers get stuck in my butt easier.