5 ms·

> proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. But... > The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist th

by javert 12y ago

> proponents of TISA aim to further deregulate global financial services markets. But... > The draft Financial Services Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to be. Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the status quo through confusion.

jamesbritt 12y ago
Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the status quo through confusion. Well put. A problem with "deregulation" is that unless all regulations are being removed it's hard to tell what the new state of regulation will be. There are some regulations that offer privileges, then other regulations that constrain those privileges. Removing only the latter and calling it "deregulation" creates the impression that things will be more open or equal while doing the opposite.
- justsee 12y ago
  > A problem with "deregulation" is that unless all regulations are being removed it's hard to tell what the new state of regulation will be. Yes it appears to be a fatal problem, considering an area with no regulations whatsoever is simply called 'lawless'.
justsee 12y ago
> But... International rules that enforce a reduction in national rules (deregulation) which will empower multi-nationals is not the contradiction you appear to think it is. > These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have international trade, and so there would be no multi-nationals (or civilized societies). Your more specific case ('regulatory capture') is an example of weakened regulation through infiltration / corruption so your statement appears to read: Multinationals are a purely a product of regulation (more specifically, weakened regulation). > Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to be. What do you mean by 'Without regulation'? If taken literally it would be impossible to define what a 'bank' is, so I assume your definition of 'Without regulation' involves regulations - which makes for a very confusing definition. You imply there is an optimal outcome (thousands of medium-sized banks) being suppressed through regulation. What regulations force all banks to move quickly to a few larger banks? Usually these sorts of market regulations are about stopping that practice: for instance in Australia there is a 'four pillars policy' which stops mergers of the four largest banks. Without this regulation there would be less competition. > Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the status quo through confusion. Characterising deregulation as deregulation is sloppy thinking? Let's back up: there is an international agreement which aims to enforce further deregulation of nation states... and characterising this as deregulation is sloppy thinking?
- javert 12y ago
  You are conflating two different and commonly-used meanings of the word "regulation." In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. For examples, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley. These are laws under which the government initiates force against market participants to try to force a desired outcome. Proper laws merely protect individual sovereignty. For example, you can't use force against someone, whether physically or through possessing something that violates a contract with them (which is fraud). Only the government can use force, and only in retaliation to protect sovereignty. The ethical basis for this distinction is that it is in everyone'e self-interest to be protected from the initiaion of force in general, while it is against everyone's self-interest to be vulnerable to the initiaition of force, in general. Thus, regulatory laws are wrong. P.S. If Australia only have four banks, instead of forty or four hundred, it is because of regulation (in my sense of the word).
  - justsee 12y ago
    > In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation is a rule or law designed to control or govern conduct." The narrower, ideological definition you supply may be to your liking but isn't (even fairly) common parlance. A clearer term for you to use would simply be 'bad regulation'. Your definition also implies that governmental rules that protect individual sovereignty (or don't impact upon it) are not the 'regulation' you protest against, and a clearer term for that would simply be 'good regulation'. There are obviously regulations which protect individual sovereignty: environmental laws stopping anyone or any entity dumping toxic waste which impacts on the health and well-being of those individuals is but one of many obvious examples. So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and you are against bad regulations, but you choose to call them simply 'regulations' which is rather confusing. You also conclude: 'Thus, regulatory laws are wrong'. Better to use the clearer, more correct statement 'Thus, bad regulatory laws are wrong'. Very uncontroversial and agreeable. I think it could actually be argued that redefining a term like 'regulation' as you are doing is actually harmful to individual sovereignty. The common meaning of 'regulation' also covers regulation that is protective of individual sovereignty, and trying to promulgate a pejorative sense of the term merely enables moochers and looters to further hijack the term to weaken those regulations which protect individual sovereignty.
Terr_ 12y ago
> Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to be. Because technological advancements and economic pressures are completely blameless? Make global communications networks disappear, and you'll get millions of small banks, with no changes in regulation at all...
BrandonMarc 12y ago
Sloppy thinking ... supporting the status quo through confusion ... yep, sounds like the media doing the job they're told to do.
mercurial 12y ago
My understanding that part of what caused the housing bubble crisis in the US was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act by Bill Clinton. Besides, I suppose that governments, if they took their responsibility, could break up large, "too big to fail", banks, in the same way that Bell was. I'm not sure why you think that an industry with so many instances of irresponsibility and dishonesty is fit to essentially govern itself more through deregulation.
- beedogs 12y ago
  GLB was signed by Clinton, but it was sent to his desk with a veto-proof majority. Destroying the American banking system was a bipartisan effort in stupidity.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Noted. I'm not interested in casting blame, all the more since as a foreigner, I can't really tell the difference between Republican and Democrat economic policies.

by javert 12y ago

jamesbritt 12y ago

Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the status quo through confusion. Well put. A problem with "deregulation" is that unless all regulations are being removed it's hard to tell what the new state of regulation will be. There are some regulations that offer privileges, then other regulations that constrain those privileges. Removing only the latter and calling it "deregulation" creates the impression that things will be more open or equal while doing the opposite.

justsee 12y ago
> A problem with "deregulation" is that unless all regulations are being removed it's hard to tell what the new state of regulation will be. Yes it appears to be a fatal problem, considering an area with no regulations whatsoever is simply called 'lawless'.

justsee 12y ago

> But... International rules that enforce a reduction in national rules (deregulation) which will empower multi-nationals is not the contradiction you appear to think it is. > These multi-nationals are purely a product of regulaiton (in this case, more specifically, regulatory capture). Well they're purely a product of regulation only in the broadest sense: without regulations (rules and laws) you wouldn't have international trade, and so there would be no multi-nationals (or civilized societies). Your more specific case ('regulatory capture') is an example of weakened regulation through infiltration / corruption so your statement appears to read: Multinationals are a purely a product of regulation (more specifically, weakened regulation). > Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to be. What do you mean by 'Without regulation'? If taken literally it would be impossible to define what a 'bank' is, so I assume your definition of 'Without regulation' involves regulations - which makes for a very confusing definition. You imply there is an optimal outcome (thousands of medium-sized banks) being suppressed through regulation. What regulations force all banks to move quickly to a few larger banks? Usually these sorts of market regulations are about stopping that practice: for instance in Australia there is a 'four pillars policy' which stops mergers of the four largest banks. Without this regulation there would be less competition. > Overall, to characterize this as "deregulation" is completely sloppy thinking. We are never going to get a better situation when people think sloppily like this. To do so is, in practice, a moral crime. It supports maintaining the status quo through confusion. Characterising deregulation as deregulation is sloppy thinking? Let's back up: there is an international agreement which aims to enforce further deregulation of nation states... and characterising this as deregulation is sloppy thinking?

javert 12y ago
You are conflating two different and commonly-used meanings of the word "regulation." In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. For examples, laws like Sarbanes-Oxley. These are laws under which the government initiates force against market participants to try to force a desired outcome. Proper laws merely protect individual sovereignty. For example, you can't use force against someone, whether physically or through possessing something that violates a contract with them (which is fraud). Only the government can use force, and only in retaliation to protect sovereignty. The ethical basis for this distinction is that it is in everyone'e self-interest to be protected from the initiaion of force in general, while it is against everyone's self-interest to be vulnerable to the initiaition of force, in general. Thus, regulatory laws are wrong. P.S. If Australia only have four banks, instead of forty or four hundred, it is because of regulation (in my sense of the word).
- justsee 12y ago
  > In (fairly) common parlance, "regulation" means governmental rules that violate individual sovereignty. Common parlance is found on Wikipedia: "A regulation is a rule or law designed to control or govern conduct." The narrower, ideological definition you supply may be to your liking but isn't (even fairly) common parlance. A clearer term for you to use would simply be 'bad regulation'. Your definition also implies that governmental rules that protect individual sovereignty (or don't impact upon it) are not the 'regulation' you protest against, and a clearer term for that would simply be 'good regulation'. There are obviously regulations which protect individual sovereignty: environmental laws stopping anyone or any entity dumping toxic waste which impacts on the health and well-being of those individuals is but one of many obvious examples. So there are good regulations and bad regulations, and you are against bad regulations, but you choose to call them simply 'regulations' which is rather confusing. You also conclude: 'Thus, regulatory laws are wrong'. Better to use the clearer, more correct statement 'Thus, bad regulatory laws are wrong'. Very uncontroversial and agreeable. I think it could actually be argued that redefining a term like 'regulation' as you are doing is actually harmful to individual sovereignty. The common meaning of 'regulation' also covers regulation that is protective of individual sovereignty, and trying to promulgate a pejorative sense of the term merely enables moochers and looters to further hijack the term to weaken those regulations which protect individual sovereignty.

Terr_ 12y ago

> Without regulation, there would be thousands of healthy medium-size banks in the US, as there apparently used to be. Because technological advancements and economic pressures are completely blameless? Make global communications networks disappear, and you'll get millions of small banks, with no changes in regulation at all...

BrandonMarc 12y ago

Sloppy thinking ... supporting the status quo through confusion ... yep, sounds like the media doing the job they're told to do.

mercurial 12y ago

My understanding that part of what caused the housing bubble crisis in the US was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act by Bill Clinton. Besides, I suppose that governments, if they took their responsibility, could break up large, "too big to fail", banks, in the same way that Bell was. I'm not sure why you think that an industry with so many instances of irresponsibility and dishonesty is fit to essentially govern itself more through deregulation.

beedogs 12y ago
GLB was signed by Clinton, but it was sent to his desk with a veto-proof majority. Destroying the American banking system was a bipartisan effort in stupidity.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Noted. I'm not interested in casting blame, all the more since as a foreigner, I can't really tell the difference between Republican and Democrat economic policies.