For whatever reason the governments of the world got into misguided attempts to 'promote' wealth creation by actually limiting human ability to do so by copying, these misguided attempts include copyrights and patents (though trademarks are really not such a big problem).
Having a good working economy relies on production, not on consumption, and when society starts artificially limiting human ability to produce by copying or in any other way, that society starts losing the edge on its productive capacity and eventually loses its main wealth generator - production (unless of-course, that society does not rely on production but on something else - raw material extraction or wars and stealing things others produce).
Copyright and patent laws kill economy, that's all there is to it.
In an interview at the Fortune Global Forum in Cape Town, Citigroup Inc's Non-Executive Chairman Richard Parsons said the Obama administration's financial regulatory overhaul bill will make the U.S.'s largest banks bigger.
An article posted on Bloomberg.com quotes Parsons as saying,"They (the new regulations) will make it tougher for smaller competitors and the big are going to get bigger."
Parsons went on to say the plans will lead to a "denser regulatory environment" and may not create any "material impediments" to Citigroup's growth strategy, he said.
Citigroup is the U.S.'s third-biggest bank by assets.
The Dodd-Frank act, that passed the House of Representatives last week contains what President Obama described as the "toughest financial reforms" since the Great Depression. The broadest changes affecting banks will regulate the $615 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market and mostly ban proprietary trading...........
everybody who does not see how GOVERNMENT makes MONOPOLIES and makes them BIGGER every time they do ANYTHING is a DUMBASS.
No, son, you got it all backwards. No company is entitled to having me as a customer and forcing me to watch any ads while I am paying for the service.
They believe they are entitled to that, but they are obviously wrong.
I am not willing to pay for any service that will push ads into my face. That is my choice, how does it make any sense to call that an 'entitlement complex'?
Certificates may actually be perfectly valid without using the same host name as shows on the Internet, many people already gave reasons for that here on/. in this story.
I want to add that it may be that the wrong side here is the browser, not the certificate.
Treating a site that does not do https and sends data in clear text with no contempt, while treating sites that use self signed certificates as if those are broken criminal sites?
It's like treating clear text passwords (and other data) better than passwords sent over https.
Shows a clear agenda on the part of browser producers - create more revenue for the "signing authorities". Well, who are these signing authorities, how do we know they can be trusted, and what kind of a security theater is this - paying someone so that you / others can trust them? Makes no sense, the entire concept is borked.
Sites need to publish their fingerprints clearly and browsers need to behave properly - at maximum give a warning that the cert is not registered with a CA, but do not try to prevent people from using the site!
Wrong, and wrong. There are a LOT of choices. My bank has free checking and no minimum balance, other banks charge fees for writing checks and demand a minimum balance, and the minimums are different depending on the bank. The bank across the street from my bank makes you give a thumbprint and five bucks to cash one of their own damned checks.
- illusion of choice, not a real choice to have a soundly ran bank because there is all that moral hazard created by the government through FDIC and other programs.
The FDIC was created so when Chase goes belly-up you won't lose all your money like happened in the 1930s
- the entire point is that the government is the reason for things going south like that. Don't touch my economy, you won't have to save me. Government was the reason that a minor recession became a long and protracted one, and the way government does this is by getting into economy, by printing money, by setting low interest rates and in case of the past 90 years it is due to following the Keynesian principles of trying to 'smooth out' the natural economic boom/bust cycles, which are necessary just like they are necessary for any other self-balancing system. Boom creates excess and bust removes it. Trouble for the government is that removing excess goes counter its goals of never letting go of power and never shrinking, always growing. Government is not a productive part of society, it is a burden, it can be tolerated during very good years, but during the bad ones it must diminish. The policy is never to diminish, thus all the insane debt creation, all the money printing, all the monopoly creation, all the wars, all the corruption, etc.
You might want to read a little history; people lost their life savings that weren't invested in stocks, but saved in the bank.
- my goodness, did they? Must have escaped me/sarcasm.
Do you realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were supposed to be? Think about what FDIC is. Think what happened to the housing market. Now think forward.
Government cannot guarantee jack shit, it has NO MONEY. It does not produce anything, how can it guarantee an
What do you mean? Here is a discussion of this, but it is common knowledge where Dodd gets 'his ideas' from - Geithner and Summers.
---
You are right that small banks can take seasonal loans from the fed's discount window but look at the amounts. After the crash of 2008 Bear Sterns for example couldn't have access because they are an investment bank, so the Fed changed the rules for them and allowed them to have access through JP Morgan
These were the banks allowed to 'borrow' from the Fed's discount window, see anybody small there?:
BNP Paribas Securities Corp. Banc of America Securities LLC Barclays Capital Inc. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc. Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. Citigroup Global Markets Inc. Countrywide Securities Corporation Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC Daiwa Securities America Inc. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities LLC. Goldman, Sachs & Co. Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc. HSBC Securities (USA) Inc. J. P. Morgan Securities Inc. Lehman Brothers Inc. Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc. Mizuho Securities USA Inc. Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated UBS Securities LLC.
The lending went up from about 46 billion before 2007 to over 400 billion after 2007 but most of that money went to the large banks.
Big banks are getting discounts and bailouts, small banks are getting nothing of the kind. Of-course the discount window is almost nothing compared to the secret bailouts authorized by Geithner and Bernanke within the past 2 years to the tune of a couple of trillion dollars and they don't want to say who the money went to, so there wouldn't be much reference on the issue anywhere until the Fed is audited (an unlikely possibility).
you may think you have lots of competition, but you really have no real competition between private entities. What you have is government backed gigantic banks and then you have some small banks that don't have access to the Fed discount window (free money).
Just now you are going to have another example how government kills competition and creates monopolies.
In the new Obama's 'financial reform' bill, part of it will be talking about ability of shareholders to say who they want to see as top management (board of directors, CEOs etc.) well, Chris Dodd's new proposal (backed by Geithner and the rest of the White House) is that in order for a shareholder to be able to do so, this shareholder must own 5% of the stock of the company at minimum.
Think about that freaking number, it's rare for the most giant mutual funds to 'own' more than 3% of any particular stock. 5%? That shows yet another promotion of monopolies, of conglomeration, of consolidation of power and it's pushed forward by the white house and the senate.
There is no competition, it's all smoke and mirrors, you have no real choice, only appearance of choice.
Who needs a friend for money when you can have a lively conversation on/. for free? It's almost the same thing without possibility of physical contact, and how is that not a plus?
anything at all will look like a flamebait to somebody, I am not trying to live my life by 'never offend anybody' theory, it's pointless, stupid, impractical, doesn't work and it's a waste of a comment.
I agree with you that I should have been more clear on this, I believe FDIC + giving money to Preferred Corporations (preferred banks, military contractors, mining corporations, pharma, etc.) creates monopolies.
Those who are the preferred corporations become monopolies to the detriment of the overall market and those become the players, at who the regulations are supposed to be applied (after all, if you create a monster you better hold it on a short leash).
However the problem with monsters is that they get so powerful with all that money and political power, they don't care about regulations. They have power to overcome regulations that are supposed to curb their appetites that endanger the public, and also to them it is a very small issue, just cost of doing business.
However small competition, who was not the target of the regulations in the first place suffers completely, they may not be able to afford to start a business in over-regulated markets (where regulations are aimed at huge businesses, not small ones.)
So FDIC + Free Money to preferred corporations produces Monopolies, who become very powerful quickly. Some politicians decide that more regulations are needed (for political expediency mostly), new regulatory bodies/committees are created, but the monopolies go around these anyway, but the small competition disappears.
Small competition does not have a voice in politics, they don't have access to the 'Free Money' window, they bear the costs of regulations disproportionate to the damage they could possibly do and to their size alone.
So while you may be right that FDIC alone could create somewhat a imbalance that would benefit smaller players, the reality is that it is not the only problem. Besides which, any government intervention that removes appearance of risk in any way, or tries to 'level the outcomes' in any way, will lead to imbalance in overall economy and this will only cause more larger monopolies to appear.
My thinking is that governments always are bad for competition, they always end up killing it whether on purpose or as an 'unintended consequence' of their actions. Of-course governments as a system prefer monopolies to appear, those are 'easier' to control and they present greater power, which can be tapped for political/financial reasons.
I think it is important that people understand what is happening to the banking system and what kind of an effect it can have on them, the parent post serves as a public announcement.
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency created by the Congress to maintain stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system by:
* insuring deposits,
* examining and supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection, and
* managing receiverships.
The insured banks must provide this sign: Deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government
1828. Regulations governing insured depository institutions How Current is This? (a) Representations of deposit insurance (1) Insured depository institutions (A) In general Each insured depository institution shall display at each place of business maintained by that institution a sign or signs relating to the insurance of the deposits of the institution, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Corporation. (B) Statement to be included Each sign required under subparagraph (A) shall include a statement that insured deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.
---
None of the failing banks were shut down, they were bailed out. NOW you can carry on with your propaganda and disinformation.
You should really think about this for a bit longer than it took you to write that diatribe. Ben Bernanke continues the inflationary policy of printing money, both long and short term money - cash and bonds, and he says he does not understand why commodities are valued higher and higher in terms of dollars?
If he does not understand it, it means he completely does not belong in his position. You don't understand any of it, so why are you commenting?
Slashdot Mirror
No, I wasn't going for that effect in either of my posts, I can't have a discussion on this topic because I can't agree to half-measures of any sort.
That's not extremist, here is an extremist:
For whatever reason the governments of the world got into misguided attempts to 'promote' wealth creation by actually limiting human ability to do so by copying, these misguided attempts include copyrights and patents (though trademarks are really not such a big problem).
Having a good working economy relies on production, not on consumption, and when society starts artificially limiting human ability to produce by copying or in any other way, that society starts losing the edge on its productive capacity and eventually loses its main wealth generator - production (unless of-course, that society does not rely on production but on something else - raw material extraction or wars and stealing things others produce).
Copyright and patent laws kill economy, that's all there is to it.
Yeah, it's called alcohol induced delirium, compete with hallucinations of demons disguised as progressives.
You cannot parallelize a serial task, any more than you can have 60 people dig one posthole in one second.
- the appropriate analogy is 9 women giving birth to one baby 1 month after conception.
Then again, this is slashdot, but it's good for learning new stuffs
earthshaking announcement
It's Knuth, so I am bolting everything down. If the guy says that the earth will be shaking, I am taking it literally.
Hey, dumbass, are you still there?
Here is something YOU need to read.
In an interview at the Fortune Global Forum in Cape Town, Citigroup Inc's Non-Executive Chairman Richard Parsons said the Obama administration's financial regulatory overhaul bill will make the U.S.'s largest banks bigger.
An article posted on Bloomberg.com quotes Parsons as saying,"They (the new regulations) will make it tougher for smaller competitors and the big are going to get bigger."
Parsons went on to say the plans will lead to a "denser regulatory environment" and may not create any "material impediments" to Citigroup's growth strategy, he said.
Citigroup is the U.S.'s third-biggest bank by assets.
The Dodd-Frank act, that passed the House of Representatives last week contains what President Obama described as the "toughest financial reforms" since the Great Depression. The broadest changes affecting banks will regulate the $615 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market and mostly ban proprietary trading. ..........
everybody who does not see how GOVERNMENT makes MONOPOLIES and makes them BIGGER every time they do ANYTHING is a DUMBASS.
No, son, you got it all backwards. No company is entitled to having me as a customer and forcing me to watch any ads while I am paying for the service.
They believe they are entitled to that, but they are obviously wrong.
I am not willing to pay for any service that will push ads into my face. That is my choice, how does it make any sense to call that an 'entitlement complex'?
Macs work by moving good karma around
- yeah, around and out of them. Macs work by rearranging the dark forces within them, that's closer to the truth.
Just discussed that here a little while ago.
Certificates may actually be perfectly valid without using the same host name as shows on the Internet, many people already gave reasons for that here on /. in this story.
I want to add that it may be that the wrong side here is the browser, not the certificate.
Treating a site that does not do https and sends data in clear text with no contempt, while treating sites that use self signed certificates as if those are broken criminal sites?
It's like treating clear text passwords (and other data) better than passwords sent over https.
Shows a clear agenda on the part of browser producers - create more revenue for the "signing authorities". Well, who are these signing authorities, how do we know they can be trusted, and what kind of a security theater is this - paying someone so that you / others can trust them? Makes no sense, the entire concept is borked.
Sites need to publish their fingerprints clearly and browsers need to behave properly - at maximum give a warning that the cert is not registered with a CA, but do not try to prevent people from using the site!
when did /. turn into such a bunch of humorless idiots?
I don't know why my positions are frightening, nobody is making you listen to them of-course, otherwise you can read about all kinds of positions that I hold and I'd be surprised if you found them all that very scary. Often my comments are moderated down, so don't worry, not everything is that bad in the world from your perspective.
Now to the rest of your comment.
Wrong, and wrong. There are a LOT of choices. My bank has free checking and no minimum balance, other banks charge fees for writing checks and demand a minimum balance, and the minimums are different depending on the bank. The bank across the street from my bank makes you give a thumbprint and five bucks to cash one of their own damned checks.
- illusion of choice, not a real choice to have a soundly ran bank because there is all that moral hazard created by the government through FDIC and other programs.
The FDIC was created so when Chase goes belly-up you won't lose all your money like happened in the 1930s
- the entire point is that the government is the reason for things going south like that. Don't touch my economy, you won't have to save me. Government was the reason that a minor recession became a long and protracted one, and the way government does this is by getting into economy, by printing money, by setting low interest rates and in case of the past 90 years it is due to following the Keynesian principles of trying to 'smooth out' the natural economic boom/bust cycles, which are necessary just like they are necessary for any other self-balancing system. Boom creates excess and bust removes it. Trouble for the government is that removing excess goes counter its goals of never letting go of power and never shrinking, always growing. Government is not a productive part of society, it is a burden, it can be tolerated during very good years, but during the bad ones it must diminish. The policy is never to diminish, thus all the insane debt creation, all the money printing, all the monopoly creation, all the wars, all the corruption, etc.
You might want to read a little history; people lost their life savings that weren't invested in stocks, but saved in the bank.
- my goodness, did they? Must have escaped me /sarcasm.
Do you realize that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were supposed to be? Think about what FDIC is. Think what happened to the housing market. Now think forward.
Government cannot guarantee jack shit, it has NO MONEY. It does not produce anything, how can it guarantee an
What do you mean? Here is a discussion of this, but it is common knowledge where Dodd gets 'his ideas' from - Geithner and Summers.
---
You are right that small banks can take seasonal loans from the fed's discount window but look at the amounts. After the crash of 2008 Bear Sterns for example couldn't have access because they are an investment bank, so the Fed changed the rules for them and allowed them to have access through JP Morgan
These were the banks allowed to 'borrow' from the Fed's discount window, see anybody small there?:
BNP Paribas Securities Corp.
Banc of America Securities LLC
Barclays Capital Inc.
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Countrywide Securities Corporation
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
Daiwa Securities America Inc.
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.
Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein Securities LLC.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
Greenwich Capital Markets, Inc.
HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.
J. P. Morgan Securities Inc.
Lehman Brothers Inc.
Merrill Lynch Government Securities Inc.
Mizuho Securities USA Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated
UBS Securities LLC.
The lending went up from about 46 billion before 2007 to over 400 billion after 2007 but most of that money went to the large banks.
Big banks are getting discounts and bailouts, small banks are getting nothing of the kind. Of-course the discount window is almost nothing compared to the secret bailouts authorized by Geithner and Bernanke within the past 2 years to the tune of a couple of trillion dollars and they don't want to say who the money went to, so there wouldn't be much reference on the issue anywhere until the Fed is audited (an unlikely possibility).
you may think you have lots of competition, but you really have no real competition between private entities. What you have is government backed gigantic banks and then you have some small banks that don't have access to the Fed discount window (free money).
Just now you are going to have another example how government kills competition and creates monopolies.
In the new Obama's 'financial reform' bill, part of it will be talking about ability of shareholders to say who they want to see as top management (board of directors, CEOs etc.) well, Chris Dodd's new proposal (backed by Geithner and the rest of the White House) is that in order for a shareholder to be able to do so, this shareholder must own 5% of the stock of the company at minimum.
Think about that freaking number, it's rare for the most giant mutual funds to 'own' more than 3% of any particular stock. 5%? That shows yet another promotion of monopolies, of conglomeration, of consolidation of power and it's pushed forward by the white house and the senate.
There is no competition, it's all smoke and mirrors, you have no real choice, only appearance of choice.
Who needs a friend for money when you can have a lively conversation on /. for free? It's almost the same thing without possibility of physical contact, and how is that not a plus?
Especially if he put the carburetor under the hood of the car, which is designed to use electronic fuel injectors.
anything at all will look like a flamebait to somebody, I am not trying to live my life by 'never offend anybody' theory, it's pointless, stupid, impractical, doesn't work and it's a waste of a comment.
I agree with you that I should have been more clear on this, I believe FDIC + giving money to Preferred Corporations (preferred banks, military contractors, mining corporations, pharma, etc.) creates monopolies.
Those who are the preferred corporations become monopolies to the detriment of the overall market and those become the players, at who the regulations are supposed to be applied (after all, if you create a monster you better hold it on a short leash).
However the problem with monsters is that they get so powerful with all that money and political power, they don't care about regulations. They have power to overcome regulations that are supposed to curb their appetites that endanger the public, and also to them it is a very small issue, just cost of doing business.
However small competition, who was not the target of the regulations in the first place suffers completely, they may not be able to afford to start a business in over-regulated markets (where regulations are aimed at huge businesses, not small ones.)
So FDIC + Free Money to preferred corporations produces Monopolies, who become very powerful quickly. Some politicians decide that more regulations are needed (for political expediency mostly), new regulatory bodies/committees are created, but the monopolies go around these anyway, but the small competition disappears.
Small competition does not have a voice in politics, they don't have access to the 'Free Money' window, they bear the costs of regulations disproportionate to the damage they could possibly do and to their size alone.
So while you may be right that FDIC alone could create somewhat a imbalance that would benefit smaller players, the reality is that it is not the only problem. Besides which, any government intervention that removes appearance of risk in any way, or tries to 'level the outcomes' in any way, will lead to imbalance in overall economy and this will only cause more larger monopolies to appear.
My thinking is that governments always are bad for competition, they always end up killing it whether on purpose or as an 'unintended consequence' of their actions. Of-course governments as a system prefer monopolies to appear, those are 'easier' to control and they present greater power, which can be tapped for political/financial reasons.
I think it is important that people understand what is happening to the banking system and what kind of an effect it can have on them, the parent post serves as a public announcement.
(this concerns the parent post)
Hear, Hear!, from now /. reclassifies
Informative posts as Flamebaits,
Insightful as Trolls,
Interesting as Redundant,
Underrated as Offtopic,
Redundant as Overrated
Trolls as Insightful
Offtopic as Informative
Flamebaits as Funny
Overrated as Interesting.
Please moderate accordingly.
Thank you.
Don't worry, nobody knows what anything means.
Oh really, who marked you as informative I wonder, 4 year olds?
http://www.fdic.gov/ or Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - United States government corporation.
Mission statement
Mission
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency created by the Congress to maintain stability and public confidence in the nation's financial system by:
* insuring deposits,
* examining and supervising financial institutions for safety and soundness and consumer protection, and
* managing receiverships.
The insured banks must provide this sign: Deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government
1828. Regulations governing insured depository institutions
How Current is This?
(a) Representations of deposit insurance
(1) Insured depository institutions
(A) In general
Each insured depository institution shall display at each place of business maintained by that institution a sign or signs relating to the insurance of the deposits of the institution, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Corporation.
(B) Statement to be included
Each sign required under subparagraph (A) shall include a statement that insured deposits are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.
---
None of the failing banks were shut down, they were bailed out. NOW you can carry on with your propaganda and disinformation.
You should really think about this for a bit longer than it took you to write that diatribe. Ben Bernanke continues the inflationary policy of printing money, both long and short term money - cash and bonds, and he says he does not understand why commodities are valued higher and higher in terms of dollars?
If he does not understand it, it means he completely does not belong in his position. You don't understand any of it, so why are you commenting?
Watch carefully, that's what central banks are doing, or are those not people?
I think, as an honest person, after activity like we have displayed here I now must marry you.
This is a disaster.