4 ms·

Pardon my ignorance,is this US specific (or mostly US)? Why is this stuff allowed?

by seqizz 6y ago

ktal 6y ago
Welcome to the United States of America, baBY! WOO Freedom!
boxed 6y ago
The US has been dismantling the rule of law for decades. They call it "deregulation". It lead directly to the last big financial crash, and it also is largely responsible for predatory schools, prisons, universities, banks, and much more.
- ekianjo 6y ago
  > It lead directly to the last big financial crash, Erm no. 2008 was directly linked to Greenspan (Fed), Freddie Mac (Federal) and Fannie Mae (Federal), all government run entities, which stopped making proper risk evaluation when issuing loans. That's not deregulation, that's a problem with how these government agencies actually functioned. https://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/the-people-responsible-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/t... > If not the boldest of the group, then at least the most public, Greenspan, the man many are now blaming for the housing bubble (there were a brave few that piped up years ago), has refused to go quietly into his well-padded retirement. The man charged with providing the country with a financial voice of reason fell far short, so much so that it might be comical if it weren't so tragic. > Greenspan's denial of the possibility of a housing bubble has been widely derided in the past year, but a single statement could be excused as human error. However, a quick scan shows that this wasn't a single event. He also promoted the adoption and expansion of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products in early 2004, when short-term rates were at or near historic lows. That same year he claimed, "securitization by Fannie and Freddie allows mortgage originators to separate themselves from almost all aspects of risk associated with mortgage lending." And separate themselves they did, ceasing to perform any kind of due diligence as to the ability of borrowers to pay for the homes they were buying.
  - wavesounds 6y ago
    The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) tasked with investigating the causes of the crisis reported in January 2011 that: "We had a 21st-century financial system with 19th-century safeguards. The FCIC placed significant blame for the crisis on deregulation, reporting: "We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the self-correcting nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively police themselves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis#Deregulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_su...
  - boxed 6y ago
    > That's not deregulation, that's a problem with how these government agencies actually functioned. Well sort of yes. But that's first order thinking. The underlying engine that drove those institutions to failure was the deregulation of the banks.
  - greesil 6y ago
    There were multiple things that went wrong, and it's extremely disingenuous to put the majority of the blame on Greenspan, Freddie/Fannie. Private risk assessment failed utterly, see Moody's. CDS allowed for infinite leverage, securitization allowed hiding of risk. These originated with private actors, and infected the system with toxic assets.
  - bosswipe 6y ago
    That's the narrative that one side of the ideogical divide went with. The other side blamed deregulation such as the removal of Glass-Steagal
    - adeelk93 6y ago
      The citation is also a hotly written article from 2008. A more objective explanation from recent years would cite a bit of all of it.
- Shared404 6y ago
  I would argue that it's not only deregulation. It's the fact that we exist in a middle ground between proper regulation and a proper free market. Either of those, and we'd be able to do fine. As it is, we get the downsides of both.
  - gorgoiler 6y ago
    I find these two comments as insightful as they are pithy.
  - e_y_ 6y ago
    While there are probably things that would be improved in a "proper" free market, I feel like that's overestimating the average person's ability to make informed decisions. There will always be an information and power asymmetry between ordinary people/consumers and special interests/corporations. Sure, people could form consumer rights groups, boycott companies with unconscionable data collection policies, demand a sane and afforable health care system, etc. But people have a limited attention budget. It's just too hard to care about everything, so people don't. That's also why we don't have proper regulation; if we cared about having a functional, efficient government we would, but we don't really care that much.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      What I would be banking on most within a "proper" free market would be corporations ability to fail in extraordinary circumstances, as opposed to the current setup where it seems like corps get bail-out after bail-out. With this being the case, more small companies would be able to compete, at least in theory. That being said, I believe you are correct. It just seems that the only way to improve things is to get to the point where people do think before purchasing, regardless of the state of State. As far as having an efficient state goes, I would find it more likely that it's not going to happen because those in power have incentive to maintain the current status. It both provides opportunities for corruption and gives an excellent platform to run on.
  - ako 6y ago
    That is too simple: every system has pros and cons. Regulation, free market or middle ground. Doesn't matter, there are always pros and cons. Important is that you choose which pros and cons you find important.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  The US has been dismantling the rule of law for decades. They call it "deregulation". Your response is mostly hyperbole, and indicated an axe to grind. You can be against deregulation, but it's not applicable to the question posed. There were no data gathering laws "dismantled" in the name of "deregulation." You statement is false. What is happening here is what has always happened: Laws are almost always a step behind technology. Only very rarely are conditions prohibited by legislation before an offense is committed. GDPR and the California thing are good steps in the right direction, but they're just the landing of a very long staircase. Hopefully we'll get to the top eventually.
  - boxed 6y ago
    Sure, there were no laws to remove in this case, but when the political ideal is deregulation it's very hard to make new laws. It's the same underlying ideal of "government bad" which is just wrong.
Proven 6y ago
Do you mean why can the government force enterprises to delete data they own due to opt-out requests? It's a mystery to me. Most HN commenters constantly whine how "data wants to be free" (no IP, no patents, no copyrights...), but when it comes to their own data they act like crony capitalilsts of the worst order and want to enlist the State to help them ensure exclusive, monopolistic rights to that data. Make up your mind, busybodies!
- eecc 6y ago
  That’s a wild wild misrepresentation of the meaning of the word “data” and the purpose of the slogan. This “bend your mind”, “drink your own medicine now” wittiness borrowed by the postmodernist crowd is the essence of current alt-right rhetoric.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  Just because both of these views are expressed on HN doesn't mean that a majority of individual HN'ers hold them both simultaneously.

Pardon my ignorance,is this US specific (or mostly US)? Why is this stuff allowed?

by seqizz 6y ago

Pardon my ignorance,is this US specific (or mostly US)? Why is this stuff allowed?

ktal 6y ago

Welcome to the United States of America, baBY! WOO Freedom!

boxed 6y ago

The US has been dismantling the rule of law for decades. They call it "deregulation". It lead directly to the last big financial crash, and it also is largely responsible for predatory schools, prisons, universities, banks, and much more.

ekianjo 6y ago
> It lead directly to the last big financial crash, Erm no. 2008 was directly linked to Greenspan (Fed), Freddie Mac (Federal) and Fannie Mae (Federal), all government run entities, which stopped making proper risk evaluation when issuing loans. That's not deregulation, that's a problem with how these government agencies actually functioned. https://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/the-people-responsible-for-fannie-mae-and-freddie-.aspx https://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/09/10/t... > If not the boldest of the group, then at least the most public, Greenspan, the man many are now blaming for the housing bubble (there were a brave few that piped up years ago), has refused to go quietly into his well-padded retirement. The man charged with providing the country with a financial voice of reason fell far short, so much so that it might be comical if it weren't so tragic. > Greenspan's denial of the possibility of a housing bubble has been widely derided in the past year, but a single statement could be excused as human error. However, a quick scan shows that this wasn't a single event. He also promoted the adoption and expansion of adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) products in early 2004, when short-term rates were at or near historic lows. That same year he claimed, "securitization by Fannie and Freddie allows mortgage originators to separate themselves from almost all aspects of risk associated with mortgage lending." And separate themselves they did, ceasing to perform any kind of due diligence as to the ability of borrowers to pay for the homes they were buying.
- wavesounds 6y ago
  The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) tasked with investigating the causes of the crisis reported in January 2011 that: "We had a 21st-century financial system with 19th-century safeguards. The FCIC placed significant blame for the crisis on deregulation, reporting: "We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the self-correcting nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively police themselves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_subprime_mortgage_crisis#Deregulation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_policies_and_the_su...
- boxed 6y ago
  > That's not deregulation, that's a problem with how these government agencies actually functioned. Well sort of yes. But that's first order thinking. The underlying engine that drove those institutions to failure was the deregulation of the banks.
- greesil 6y ago
  There were multiple things that went wrong, and it's extremely disingenuous to put the majority of the blame on Greenspan, Freddie/Fannie. Private risk assessment failed utterly, see Moody's. CDS allowed for infinite leverage, securitization allowed hiding of risk. These originated with private actors, and infected the system with toxic assets.
- bosswipe 6y ago
  That's the narrative that one side of the ideogical divide went with. The other side blamed deregulation such as the removal of Glass-Steagal
  - adeelk93 6y ago
    The citation is also a hotly written article from 2008. A more objective explanation from recent years would cite a bit of all of it.
Shared404 6y ago
I would argue that it's not only deregulation. It's the fact that we exist in a middle ground between proper regulation and a proper free market. Either of those, and we'd be able to do fine. As it is, we get the downsides of both.
- gorgoiler 6y ago
  I find these two comments as insightful as they are pithy.
- e_y_ 6y ago
  While there are probably things that would be improved in a "proper" free market, I feel like that's overestimating the average person's ability to make informed decisions. There will always be an information and power asymmetry between ordinary people/consumers and special interests/corporations. Sure, people could form consumer rights groups, boycott companies with unconscionable data collection policies, demand a sane and afforable health care system, etc. But people have a limited attention budget. It's just too hard to care about everything, so people don't. That's also why we don't have proper regulation; if we cared about having a functional, efficient government we would, but we don't really care that much.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    What I would be banking on most within a "proper" free market would be corporations ability to fail in extraordinary circumstances, as opposed to the current setup where it seems like corps get bail-out after bail-out. With this being the case, more small companies would be able to compete, at least in theory. That being said, I believe you are correct. It just seems that the only way to improve things is to get to the point where people do think before purchasing, regardless of the state of State. As far as having an efficient state goes, I would find it more likely that it's not going to happen because those in power have incentive to maintain the current status. It both provides opportunities for corruption and gives an excellent platform to run on.
- ako 6y ago
  That is too simple: every system has pros and cons. Regulation, free market or middle ground. Doesn't matter, there are always pros and cons. Important is that you choose which pros and cons you find important.
reaperducer 6y ago
The US has been dismantling the rule of law for decades. They call it "deregulation". Your response is mostly hyperbole, and indicated an axe to grind. You can be against deregulation, but it's not applicable to the question posed. There were no data gathering laws "dismantled" in the name of "deregulation." You statement is false. What is happening here is what has always happened: Laws are almost always a step behind technology. Only very rarely are conditions prohibited by legislation before an offense is committed. GDPR and the California thing are good steps in the right direction, but they're just the landing of a very long staircase. Hopefully we'll get to the top eventually.
- boxed 6y ago
  Sure, there were no laws to remove in this case, but when the political ideal is deregulation it's very hard to make new laws. It's the same underlying ideal of "government bad" which is just wrong.

Proven 6y ago

Do you mean why can the government force enterprises to delete data they own due to opt-out requests? It's a mystery to me. Most HN commenters constantly whine how "data wants to be free" (no IP, no patents, no copyrights...), but when it comes to their own data they act like crony capitalilsts of the worst order and want to enlist the State to help them ensure exclusive, monopolistic rights to that data. Make up your mind, busybodies!

eecc 6y ago
That’s a wild wild misrepresentation of the meaning of the word “data” and the purpose of the slogan. This “bend your mind”, “drink your own medicine now” wittiness borrowed by the postmodernist crowd is the essence of current alt-right rhetoric.
KineticLensman 6y ago
Just because both of these views are expressed on HN doesn't mean that a majority of individual HN'ers hold them both simultaneously.