• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

OFFICIAL Elizabeth Warren is awesome thread

But that's the system, and you pay to play. The whole thing is a giant gambling racket from top to bottom that virtually nobody can stay away from. Especially at this point in time, anybody who doesn't see the plain-sight risks is a goddamn moron. But, everybody assumes the risk because they want the payoff. If somebody doesn't want to participate, then they don't have to [and yes I understand the taxpayer bailouts, but the working dude paying $3k a year in net federal income tax isn't funding that].
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
But that's the system, and you pay to play. The whole thing is a giant gambling racket from top to bottom that virtually nobody can stay away from. Especially at this point in time, anybody who doesn't see the plain-sight risks is a goddamn moron. But, everybody assumes the risk because they want the payoff. If somebody doesn't want to participate, then they don't have to [and yes I understand the taxpayer bailouts, but the working dude paying $3k a year in net federal income tax isn't funding that].
Click to expand...

And this does not strike you as a problem that might benefit from a public policy response by our elected representatives?
 
it's actually MORE of a gambling racket specifically because of the intermediaries the Rightsters are touting
 
Deacon923 said:
And this does not strike you as a problem that might benefit from a public policy response by our elected representatives?
Click to expand...

No, people can make their own decisions. Like drugs and sports gambling and prostitution, it isn't going away by making laws against it because, like those other industries, the people actually doing it are usually smarter (or at least more focused on their particular issue) than the lawmakers and their stooges. A shitty framework is better than no framework in these types of situations.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, people can make their own decisions. Like drugs and sports gambling and prostitution, it isn't going away by making laws against it because, like those other industries, the people actually doing it are usually smarter (or at least more focused on their particular issue) than the lawmakers and their stooges. A shitty framework is better than no framework in these types of situations.
Click to expand...

The average worker doesn't decide that his plant is closed because a CEO decides he can make more money on Wall Street than by hiring American workers.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, people can make their own decisions. Like drugs and sports gambling and prostitution, it isn't going away by making laws against it because, like those other industries, the people actually doing it are usually smarter (or at least more focused on their particular issue) than the lawmakers and their stooges. A shitty framework is better than no framework in these types of situations.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree here. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution is your (not you particularly) problem. I'm not losing any money because of your behavior. When I'm invested in a regulated national exchange or a worldwide company and my participation is affected by your behavior, then I'm not making a decision based on the merits of the investment anymore. I don't have the means to audit Enron's books, but based on the information available it seemed like a reasonable investment. I lost a lot of money on that decision.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
No, people can make their own decisions. Like drugs and sports gambling and prostitution, it isn't going away by making laws against it because, like those other industries, the people actually doing it are usually smarter (or at least more focused on their particular issue) than the lawmakers and their stooges. A shitty framework is better than no framework in these types of situations.
Click to expand...

Wait... are you against regulation of any kind?
 
ONW said:
I have to disagree here. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution is your (not you particularly) problem. I'm not losing any money because of your behavior. When I'm invested in a regulated national exchange or a worldwide company and my participation is affected by your behavior, then I'm not making a decision based on the merits of the investment anymore. I don't have the means to audit Enron's books, but based on the information available it seemed like a reasonable investment. I lost a lot of money on that decision.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Drugs, gambling, prostitition all contribute directly to crime, violence, increased needs for police presence and prison facilities, etc. I think 923 posts weekely about the economic and social ramifications of our current drug laws. So yes, you do lose money and are impacted in various ancillary ways because of that type of behavior. You can adjust the laws either way to try to increase or decrease the ramifications. It is no different here. In both scenarios, I'm for less regulation and let people deal with their own decisions.
 
deacvision7 said:
Wait... are you against regulation of any kind?
Click to expand...

I think there needs to be some baseline when it comes to directly violent acts or other acts directly infringing on another's property rights, but I wouldn't have much regulation beyond that.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I think there needs to be some baseline when it comes to directly violent acts or other acts directly infringing on another's property rights, but I wouldn't have much regulation beyond that.
Click to expand...

alrighty then. we will pretty much never agree on things, i suppose. ain't America great!
 
How can a lawyer be against regulation? Interpreting regulations is your job.
 
I'm not particularly fond of a large number of companies (shocking) but I still work on cases at internships and whatnot where we defend large corporations and insurance companies.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I disagree. Drugs, gambling, prostitition all contribute directly to crime, violence, increased needs for police presence and prison facilities, etc. I think 923 posts weekely about the economic and social ramifications of our current drug laws. So yes, you do lose money and are impacted in various ancillary ways because of that type of behavior. You can adjust the laws either way to try to increase or decrease the ramifications. It is no different here. In both scenarios, I'm for less regulation and let people deal with their own decisions.
Click to expand...

If I'm taking Heroin, or the over in the Duke game, or Cinnamon home, I know what the ramifications are. If i'm investing my money in what is supposed to be a free and regulated market, I know what the ramifications are. If I'm investing my money in a stock that market makers, accountants, and analysts are lying about, I don't know what the ramifications are.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I'm not particularly fond of a large number of companies (shocking) but I still work on cases at internships and whatnot where we defend large corporations and insurance companies.
Click to expand...

That's different.
 
ONW said:
If I'm taking Heroin, or the over in the Duke game, or Cinnamon home, I know what the ramifications are. If i'm investing my money in what is supposed to be a free and regulated market, I know what the ramifications are. If I'm investing my money in a stock that market makers, accountants, and analysts are lying about, I don't know what the ramifications are.
Click to expand...

Sure you do, you know that you could lose everything that you invest. If you didn't already know that, then consider yourself informed. Yet you, along with everyone else, still invest and will continue to invest.
 
PhDeac said:
How can a lawyer be against regulation? Interpreting regulations is your job.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I'm like 923's buddies gaming the markets; the system is what it is so I'll take advantage of it as structured, regardless of whether I agree with that structure.
 
So the answer to "how not to lose in a game stacked against you" is "don't play." That's great except the people who are playing and stack the deck make a shit ton of money with very little downside because they're protected by most politicians and a system that doesn't allow them to fail (bailouts, not pursuing criminal charges, not implementing fines that represent more than a mere slap on the wrist, etc.)

Ridiculous assertion IMO.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
That doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I'm like 923's buddies gaming the markets; the system is what it is so I'll take advantage of it as structured, regardless of whether I agree with that structure.
Click to expand...

Yep. Just like you disagree fundamentally with the 14th Amendment but you'll play by the rules since we decided that "whoops maybe the marketplace isn't going to correct itself like we thought it would." Sans 14th Amendment you'd be all for people discriminating left and right against people on the basis of race or otherwise isn't that right?
 
Good for them. How much money they make for their role in the machine has absolutely nothing material to do with you or me; complaining about that is like BKF complaining about Lebron James' compensation. He has talents just like they have talents, all of which are completely unrelated to us.
Do you think its unfair that the lion on the Serengeti has sharp teeth and big claws and the zebra does not? Life, humanity, evolution, whatever you want to call it, isn't fair. Complain to your atheist creator.
 
Why the fuck would I complain? I'm a white heterosexual dude who grew up in a middle to upper class family. It's not a complaint, it's an observation that the system is brutally stacked against an extremely large portion of the population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top