PDA

View Full Version : Great news for consumers



Ian McColgin
12-13-2012, 07:48 PM
Elizabeth Warren has been appointed to the Senate Banking Committee.

Paul Pless
12-13-2012, 08:07 PM
Was that her first choice? I would have expected Indian Affairs. . .

Peach
12-13-2012, 08:10 PM
I do believe she is destined for greatness. Would it be unwise to suggest her as the candidate for 2024, following 8 years of Clinton? Or maybe veep in 2016? Now that would be some ticket.

wardd
12-13-2012, 08:11 PM
obviously paul and donn aren't consumers

Durnik
12-13-2012, 08:29 PM
I do believe she is destined for greatness. Would it be unwise to suggest her as the candidate for 2024, following 8 years of Clinton? Or maybe veep in 2016? Now that would be some ticket.

Clinton would be/is bad news. Forget her. Neither the country nor the Dems 'owe' her anything - that kind of thinking gave them - & us - Gore, & ultimately 8 years of Cheney/Bush. I say go straight to Warren in '16' - unless Jon Huntsman is running, than accept the inevitable.

& yeah, Ian. Don't become a sloth - Donn hates competition.

enjoy
bobby

Kaa
12-13-2012, 09:19 PM
Oh great. She'll protect me from having to decide anything myself, right?

Kaa

David G
12-13-2012, 09:48 PM
Oh great. She'll protect me from having to decide anything myself, right?

Kaa

No, probably not. But... in your case... it would probably be best for all involved.

Peach
12-13-2012, 10:12 PM
I say go straight to Warren in '16'


But Warren in '16 will be labelled a newbee running for an office outside her experience level. By '24 she will be seen as a seasoned legislator ready for the highest office, much like Clinton is viewed today. Can you imagine how many heads would explode if eight years under a Black president is followed by 16 years under women presidents. I hope I live to see it.

Keith Wilson
12-13-2012, 10:18 PM
Ms. Warren is already 63 years old. Hillary Clinton is 65.

Kaa
12-13-2012, 10:18 PM
No, probably not. But... in your case... it would probably be best for all involved.

No? She will not prevent me from agreeing to a financial contract (actually, prevent a bank from offering me a contract) that the government decides is not in my best interests? :-)

Kaa

David G
12-13-2012, 10:32 PM
No? She will not prevent me from agreeing to a financial contract (actually, prevent a bank from offering me a contract) that the government decides is not in my best interests? :-)

Kaa

The government has already been doing that for many years, to varying degrees... without Ms. Warren. Are you speculating that the degree will increase due to her influence? Or do seats on this committee now come with some sort of fiat power that I wasn't aware of? Or are you just yapping again? BTW - I'm sure you can find ample investment opportunities to fit whatever level of surety or risk you desire.

David G
12-13-2012, 10:33 PM
Yeah..it matters little if they're good, but if they're minorities, that's all that counts.

A suggestion: maybe set a limit. No posting after x level of alcohol intake. I'm assuming, anyway, that that is the explanation for this post.

Kaa
12-13-2012, 10:38 PM
Are you speculating that the degree will increase due to her influence? Or do seats on this committee now come with some sort of fiat power that I wasn't aware of?

I don't know. Are you saying she won't change anything and so will be completely useless in her new position? :-D

Kaa

Keith Wilson
12-13-2012, 10:39 PM
. . . a financial contract (actually, prevent a bank from offering me a contract) that the government decides is not in my best interests? :You may remember from the history of financial f*ckups that the prevalence of certain kinds of contracts has effects far beyond the parties involved - buying stocks on margin, for example - and therefore making laws regulating them is not only justified, but necessary. Reasonable people may disagree about precisely what should be regulated and how.

David G
12-13-2012, 10:40 PM
I don't know. Are you saying she won't change anything and so will be completely useless in her new position? :-D

Kaa

No, I didn't say that. Nor did ask to see yet another demo of your tapdancing.

Kaa
12-13-2012, 10:43 PM
You may remember from the history of financial f*ckups that the prevalence of certain kinds of contracts has effects far beyond the parties involved - buying stocks on margin, for example - and therefore making laws regulating them is not only justified, but necessary. Reasonable people may disagree about precisely what should be regulated and how.

Yeah, but Elisabeth Warren is known as the saint of consumer protection, not of protecting complicated economies from systemic instability. She's going to protect me from my own stupidity, right?

Kaa

Kaa
12-13-2012, 10:44 PM
No, I didn't say that. Nor did ask to see yet another demo of your tapdancing.

You're missing much :-P Also, I asked you a question, not made a statement about what you have said.

Kaa

LeeG
12-13-2012, 10:50 PM
Yeah, but Elisabeth Warren is known as the saint of consumer protection, not of protecting complicated economies from systemic instability. She's going to protect me from my own stupidity, right?

Kaa

You can be as stupid as your heart desires

Keith Wilson
12-13-2012, 10:52 PM
She's going to protect me from my own stupidity, right?Perhaps. As a general principle, I think protecting individuals from large and powerful organizations who prey on their ignorance is a good idea.

tomlarkin
12-14-2012, 01:25 AM
Donn and Kaa - the nattering nabobs of disinenuousness.

John Smith
12-14-2012, 09:55 AM
Oh great. She'll protect me from having to decide anything myself, right?

Kaa

No she'll make sure you have accurate data on which to make your decision.

John Smith
12-14-2012, 10:00 AM
Clinton would be/is bad news. Forget her. Neither the country nor the Dems 'owe' her anything - that kind of thinking gave them - & us - Gore, & ultimately 8 years of Cheney/Bush. I say go straight to Warren in '16' - unless Jon Huntsman is running, than accept the inevitable.

& yeah, Ian. Don't become a sloth - Donn hates competition.

enjoy
bobby

Ithink you live in fantasyland. Barring any major changes, it's likely Hillary's for the asking. She's certainly got the resume, and women, IMO, will vote to break the glass ceiling. Further, if she promises to serve one term so as the other side can't make denying her a second term their priority, I think it would improve her chances even more.

I remember being kicked out of meetings by Obama supporter during those primaries. My thinking was that we knew so much about Hillary it would be very hard to throw anything at her that wouldn't be seen as ancient history or made up. I'm sure no one would be asking to see her birth certificate. I was also in a minority in those rooms in thinking she would support Obama once he got the numbers.

The gender gap, if she runs, will widen dramatically, don't you think?

David W Pratt
12-14-2012, 10:36 AM
I'll wait and see.
One of the phenomena getting blame for our mess is partisanship (although all the Democrats voted against Obama's budget) and she is much more partisan than Brown. Her "Indian heritage" charade casts doubt on her integrity. She bills herself as the intellectual architect of the Occupy movement, not a selling point for me.

wardd
12-14-2012, 11:18 AM
No? She will not prevent me from agreeing to a financial contract (actually, prevent a bank from offering me a contract) that the government decides is not in my best interests? :-)

Kaa

kaa is an expert in contract law, and aviation maintenance, efficacy of drugs and he builds his own bridges and roads

no need of government here

wardd
12-14-2012, 11:20 AM
Yeah, but Elisabeth Warren is known as the saint of consumer protection, not of protecting complicated economies from systemic instability. She's going to protect me from my own stupidity, right?

Kaa

and protect us from your stupidity

wardd
12-14-2012, 11:23 AM
No she'll make sure you have accurate data on which to make your decision.

but, but kaa is clairvoyant

Kaa
12-14-2012, 11:53 AM
....and the people who think they are too smart to be screwed probably don't deserve any protection, right?

Right.


YOU don't need any consumer protection, is that right?

Right. Though I'll take some consumer regulation on transaction-costs grounds :-)

Kaa

Kaa
12-14-2012, 11:54 AM
Donn and Kaa - the nattering nabobs of disinenuousness.

Maybe you should stick with simpler words... :-P

Kaa

Durnik
12-14-2012, 12:56 PM
Perhaps. As a general principle, I think protecting individuals from large and powerful organizations who prey on their ignorance is a good idea.

'xactly!

Lotteries/Casinos which 'tax the poor & ignorant' while the wealthy get a pass on monies sent to off shore banks also comes to mind..


Reasonable people may disagree about precisely what should be regulated and how.

Should not be construed to mean all who disagree are reasonable, nor that all disagreements are reasonable.

just sayin'..




Ithink you live in fantasyland. Barring any major changes, it's likely Hillary's for the asking. She's certainly got the resume, and women, IMO, will vote to break the glass ceiling. Further, if she promises to serve one term so as the other side can't make denying her a second term their priority, I think it would improve her chances even more.
...



Exactly how is 'Ms Ego - "I wanna be pres"' any different than say, Mitt Romney?

As for 'promise to only serve one term'.. Why? Why is _she_ needed?

As for Woman breaking the 'Glass Ceiling'.. In case you haven't noticed, Elizabeth Warren is a woman, too.

Tis not I living in fantasy land1 - way too many people realize Hillary is all about her ego - & we can't afford her ego.

enjoy
bobby

Notes:
1) see my comment concerning Jon Huntsman - who most likely would have handily won if the troglodytes could take their collective heads out of their collective.. south ends of north bound donkeys.. another reason, btw, that I feel the elections are controlled by outside forces. If the wealthy had wanted a Republican pres, Huntsman would have won - his creds were as good as, if not better, than Obama's.

Kaa
12-14-2012, 01:25 PM
Lotteries/Casinos which 'tax the poor & ignorant' while the wealthy get a pass on monies sent to off shore banks also comes to mind..

Lotteries and casinos don't tax the poor -- only those bad at statistics :-)

But if you don't like them that much you should notice that the government forbids lotteries -- with an exception for itself :-D

Kaa

Durnik
12-14-2012, 02:05 PM
But if you don't like them that much you should notice that the government forbids lotteries -- with an exception for itself :-D


I do notice - you may note -

they are mentioned in the same sentence/thought as 'while the wealthy get a pass on monies sent to off shore banks'..

and both are mentioned as 'also comes to mind..' - ie, other than the regulation previously mentioned.

as for
only those bad at statistics

see the Republican war on schools/education for the non-wealthy.. Coincidence? I think not.

enjoy
bobby

Kaa
12-14-2012, 02:23 PM
...same sentence/thought as 'while the wealthy get a pass on monies sent to off shore banks'..

Yeah, I didn't quite get what do you mean by that. Notably, the US is pretty much unique in the world in that it taxes the worldwide income of its citizens regardless of where it happened. I don't think any other Western country does that.

You're not suggesting that people should be prevented to taking money out of the country, are you?


see the Republican war on schools/education for the non-wealthy..

Haven't seen that one. But I have seen the unions' war on making the teachers accountable for their performance... :-/

Kaa

Keith Wilson
12-14-2012, 07:34 PM
I should point out that when I wrote "As a general principle, I think protecting individuals from large and powerful organizations who prey on their ignorance is a good idea." the general principle was formulated by Kaa, when he wrote:


. . . the system should strive to place power in individuals and not in organizations. Especially not in large organizations and especially not in ones that can acquire any monopoly powers. No doubt a union can sometimes behave like a monopoly and get too much power, but that certianly isn't the problem we have right now exempt perhaps in very rare and limited cases.

Ian McColgin
12-14-2012, 07:46 PM
Most of the teacher "accountability" standards up to now have been keyed to students passing standardized tests. The teachers' unions have opposed those because they penalize teachers who take on, whether in voluntary idealism or as the result of the principal's machinations, the more difficult classes.

There are emerging some new accountability measures that progressive school administrations and developed with progressive unions that could in the long run work.

Unfortunatly our society has scant notion as to what counts as successful education. It's little wonder then that the modes of evaluation of the teachers are more political devices for dominating the labor force and not about what's good for children.