|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 11 2013 23:54 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:48 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:27 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:19 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:17 Klondikebar wrote:On the one hand, yay we can stop sending actual humans to warzones. On the other hand, it just became a hell of a lot easier to commit a violent act. It will be superseded by a new robot jet capable of reconnaissance and strike missions to be deployed aboard carriers within six years. Navy commanders insist that it will only fire its weapons on the command of a human. I have approximately -6 units of faith in this but even so...why is that supposed to be reassuring? Humans are assholes. Obama loves to murder and pillage the middle east and he does that openly. I'm supposed to believe that some unnamed officer with even fewer public consequences is going to show more restraint? What's your complaint? It's a war-machine designed to blow shit up. Not sure where restraint comes into this. That maybe we shouldn't be blowing things up...and the fact that the tool exists means we're going to blow shit up. There will always be a need for things that blow shit up. Or at least for there to be the *potential* to blow shit up. If it weren't the US in a dominant technology+military spot, then it would be another country. The grass probably isn't greener on the other side. The US has the nasty habit of being a little too ok with "collateral damage." I'd prefer big-blowy-uppy-things not be in the hands of people who aren't very concerned with precision. Also, I don't like the additional layer between killer and...I don't wanna say victim so "killee?" Killing someone is a big deal. So much so that we have a physiological aversion to doing so. Creating this much distance between killing and death might make it too easy. Look, I'm apprehensive. And I think justifiably so. I'm not saying END ALL DRONE PROGRAMS because, like I said in my first post, I'd prefer we didn't have to send our men into danger as well. I'm just worried for innocent people on the other side who don't have the luxury of their own automated warfare. The collateral damage that the US (or anyone in NATO, whatever) inflicts is actually really, really low. I think you're being pretty unfair on the highly trained individuals within the armed forces who I'm sure *are* very concerned with precision - unless you have evidence to the contrary? The fact that things can go wrong doesn't mean that the people are incompetent or don't care, it just means in war it's hard for everything to be puppies and flowers 100% of the time. Yo: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes Any civilian casualties are theoretically too many civilian casualties, but from that article However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.
"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."
The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.Still suggests collateral damage is pretty low.
Why not call them dead sand niggers? Because that's about equally insulting as calling people we murder as a country 'collateral damage'. By this reckoning, the victims of 9/11 were 'collateral damage' in the war to destabilize the U.S.
We're not at war against these people, we kill people our government doesn't like. The ONLY reason we are allowed to do this is because no country can effectively declare war on us because the threat of invasion is laughable.
It's not fucking acceptable for us as a country to go around telling these people "Well at least we didn't kill very many of you that we didn't think were guilty of possibly plotting against us". Giving people a perfect reason to hate you is probably not the best way to stop groups from forming around a fanatical hatred of you and your actions.
|
On July 11 2013 23:54 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:48 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:27 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:19 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:17 Klondikebar wrote:On the one hand, yay we can stop sending actual humans to warzones. On the other hand, it just became a hell of a lot easier to commit a violent act. It will be superseded by a new robot jet capable of reconnaissance and strike missions to be deployed aboard carriers within six years. Navy commanders insist that it will only fire its weapons on the command of a human. I have approximately -6 units of faith in this but even so...why is that supposed to be reassuring? Humans are assholes. Obama loves to murder and pillage the middle east and he does that openly. I'm supposed to believe that some unnamed officer with even fewer public consequences is going to show more restraint? What's your complaint? It's a war-machine designed to blow shit up. Not sure where restraint comes into this. That maybe we shouldn't be blowing things up...and the fact that the tool exists means we're going to blow shit up. There will always be a need for things that blow shit up. Or at least for there to be the *potential* to blow shit up. If it weren't the US in a dominant technology+military spot, then it would be another country. The grass probably isn't greener on the other side. The US has the nasty habit of being a little too ok with "collateral damage." I'd prefer big-blowy-uppy-things not be in the hands of people who aren't very concerned with precision. Also, I don't like the additional layer between killer and...I don't wanna say victim so "killee?" Killing someone is a big deal. So much so that we have a physiological aversion to doing so. Creating this much distance between killing and death might make it too easy. Look, I'm apprehensive. And I think justifiably so. I'm not saying END ALL DRONE PROGRAMS because, like I said in my first post, I'd prefer we didn't have to send our men into danger as well. I'm just worried for innocent people on the other side who don't have the luxury of their own automated warfare. The collateral damage that the US (or anyone in NATO, whatever) inflicts is actually really, really low. I think you're being pretty unfair on the highly trained individuals within the armed forces who I'm sure *are* very concerned with precision - unless you have evidence to the contrary? The fact that things can go wrong doesn't mean that the people are incompetent or don't care, it just means in war it's hard for everything to be puppies and flowers 100% of the time. Yo: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes Any civilian casualties are theoretically too many civilian casualties, but from that article However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.
"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."
The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.Still suggests collateral damage is pretty low.
You're completely missing the forest for the trees. First of all collateral damage that is "pretty low" seems like an extremely stupid threshold for being ok with civilian death.
Second, the double strike policy means we kill or injure first responders which is pretty heinous.
Third, our government has been lying about the number of people it's killed. Just because it's getting better doesn't mean I'm going to gloss over the fact that it has no problem bending numbers to avoid guilt.
Fourth, these drones strikes aren't quiet and they aren't subtle. Lots of people see them and hear them. Their constant presence has been a huge contributing factor for why the Middle East hates us and wants us gone.
"This shows that drone strikes go much further than simply killing innocent civilians. An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies," said Reprieve's director, Clive Stafford Smith.
"Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups. Yet there is no end in sight, and nowhere the ordinary men, women and children of North West Pakistan can go to feel safe."
And the government's response is more pandering than a supervillain:
Despite the "extraordinary precautions" taken by the United States, Brennan said, civilians "have been accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes. It is exceedingly rare, but it has happened. When it does, it pains us, and we regret it deeply, as we do any time innocents are killed in war."
Oh it "pains you deeply?" Yes I'm sure the consequences of murdering innocents and destroying families are completely felt by both you and your staff. You're the true victims here.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On July 12 2013 00:01 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:54 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:48 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:27 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:19 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:17 Klondikebar wrote:On the one hand, yay we can stop sending actual humans to warzones. On the other hand, it just became a hell of a lot easier to commit a violent act. It will be superseded by a new robot jet capable of reconnaissance and strike missions to be deployed aboard carriers within six years. Navy commanders insist that it will only fire its weapons on the command of a human. I have approximately -6 units of faith in this but even so...why is that supposed to be reassuring? Humans are assholes. Obama loves to murder and pillage the middle east and he does that openly. I'm supposed to believe that some unnamed officer with even fewer public consequences is going to show more restraint? What's your complaint? It's a war-machine designed to blow shit up. Not sure where restraint comes into this. That maybe we shouldn't be blowing things up...and the fact that the tool exists means we're going to blow shit up. There will always be a need for things that blow shit up. Or at least for there to be the *potential* to blow shit up. If it weren't the US in a dominant technology+military spot, then it would be another country. The grass probably isn't greener on the other side. The US has the nasty habit of being a little too ok with "collateral damage." I'd prefer big-blowy-uppy-things not be in the hands of people who aren't very concerned with precision. Also, I don't like the additional layer between killer and...I don't wanna say victim so "killee?" Killing someone is a big deal. So much so that we have a physiological aversion to doing so. Creating this much distance between killing and death might make it too easy. Look, I'm apprehensive. And I think justifiably so. I'm not saying END ALL DRONE PROGRAMS because, like I said in my first post, I'd prefer we didn't have to send our men into danger as well. I'm just worried for innocent people on the other side who don't have the luxury of their own automated warfare. The collateral damage that the US (or anyone in NATO, whatever) inflicts is actually really, really low. I think you're being pretty unfair on the highly trained individuals within the armed forces who I'm sure *are* very concerned with precision - unless you have evidence to the contrary? The fact that things can go wrong doesn't mean that the people are incompetent or don't care, it just means in war it's hard for everything to be puppies and flowers 100% of the time. Yo: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes Any civilian casualties are theoretically too many civilian casualties, but from that article However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.
"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."
The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.Still suggests collateral damage is pretty low. Why not call them dead sand niggers? Because that's about equally insulting as calling people we murder as a country 'collateral damage'. By this reckoning, the victims of 9/11 were 'collateral damage' in the war to destabilize the U.S. We're not at war against these people, we kill people our government doesn't like. The ONLY reason we are allowed to do this is because no country can effectively declare war on us because the threat of invasion is laughable. It's not fucking acceptable for us as a country to go around telling these people "Well at least we didn't kill very many of you that we didn't think were guilty of possibly plotting against us". Giving people a perfect reason to hate you is probably not the best way to stop groups from forming around a fanatical hatred of you and your actions.
If you'd note, I used Klondike's term (collateral damage) and just applied it in my posts. Not entirely sure why you're jumping down my neck about that in particular.
The rest of your post is pretty decent argumentation for why the armed forces are really fucking careful. From a US point of view, less civilian casualties > more civilian casualties.
Edit: Klondike, not sure where I argued civilian casualties were a good thing or acceptable, more that in a war they're bound to happen, and actually in terms of a war they're quite low. What are you thinking I'm arguing here?
|
On July 12 2013 00:06 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:01 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 23:54 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:48 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:27 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:19 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On the one hand, yay we can stop sending actual humans to warzones. On the other hand, it just became a hell of a lot easier to commit a violent act.
[quote]
I have approximately -6 units of faith in this but even so...why is that supposed to be reassuring? Humans are assholes. Obama loves to murder and pillage the middle east and he does that openly. I'm supposed to believe that some unnamed officer with even fewer public consequences is going to show more restraint? What's your complaint? It's a war-machine designed to blow shit up. Not sure where restraint comes into this. That maybe we shouldn't be blowing things up...and the fact that the tool exists means we're going to blow shit up. There will always be a need for things that blow shit up. Or at least for there to be the *potential* to blow shit up. If it weren't the US in a dominant technology+military spot, then it would be another country. The grass probably isn't greener on the other side. The US has the nasty habit of being a little too ok with "collateral damage." I'd prefer big-blowy-uppy-things not be in the hands of people who aren't very concerned with precision. Also, I don't like the additional layer between killer and...I don't wanna say victim so "killee?" Killing someone is a big deal. So much so that we have a physiological aversion to doing so. Creating this much distance between killing and death might make it too easy. Look, I'm apprehensive. And I think justifiably so. I'm not saying END ALL DRONE PROGRAMS because, like I said in my first post, I'd prefer we didn't have to send our men into danger as well. I'm just worried for innocent people on the other side who don't have the luxury of their own automated warfare. The collateral damage that the US (or anyone in NATO, whatever) inflicts is actually really, really low. I think you're being pretty unfair on the highly trained individuals within the armed forces who I'm sure *are* very concerned with precision - unless you have evidence to the contrary? The fact that things can go wrong doesn't mean that the people are incompetent or don't care, it just means in war it's hard for everything to be puppies and flowers 100% of the time. Yo: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes Any civilian casualties are theoretically too many civilian casualties, but from that article However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.
"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."
The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.Still suggests collateral damage is pretty low. Why not call them dead sand niggers? Because that's about equally insulting as calling people we murder as a country 'collateral damage'. By this reckoning, the victims of 9/11 were 'collateral damage' in the war to destabilize the U.S. We're not at war against these people, we kill people our government doesn't like. The ONLY reason we are allowed to do this is because no country can effectively declare war on us because the threat of invasion is laughable. It's not fucking acceptable for us as a country to go around telling these people "Well at least we didn't kill very many of you that we didn't think were guilty of possibly plotting against us". Giving people a perfect reason to hate you is probably not the best way to stop groups from forming around a fanatical hatred of you and your actions. If you'd note, I used Klondike's term (collateral damage) and just applied it in my posts. Not entirely sure why you're jumping down my neck about that in particular. The rest of your post is pretty decent argumentation for why the armed forces are really fucking careful. From a US point of view, less civilian casualties > more civilian casualties. Edit: Klondike, not sure where I argued civilian casualties were a good thing or acceptable, more that in a war they're bound to happen, and actually in terms of a war they're quite low. What are you thinking I'm arguing here?
We're at war with Pakistan?
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On July 12 2013 00:11 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:06 marvellosity wrote:On July 12 2013 00:01 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 23:54 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:48 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:27 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:19 marvellosity wrote:
[quote]
What's your complaint? It's a war-machine designed to blow shit up. Not sure where restraint comes into this. That maybe we shouldn't be blowing things up...and the fact that the tool exists means we're going to blow shit up. There will always be a need for things that blow shit up. Or at least for there to be the *potential* to blow shit up. If it weren't the US in a dominant technology+military spot, then it would be another country. The grass probably isn't greener on the other side. The US has the nasty habit of being a little too ok with "collateral damage." I'd prefer big-blowy-uppy-things not be in the hands of people who aren't very concerned with precision. Also, I don't like the additional layer between killer and...I don't wanna say victim so "killee?" Killing someone is a big deal. So much so that we have a physiological aversion to doing so. Creating this much distance between killing and death might make it too easy. Look, I'm apprehensive. And I think justifiably so. I'm not saying END ALL DRONE PROGRAMS because, like I said in my first post, I'd prefer we didn't have to send our men into danger as well. I'm just worried for innocent people on the other side who don't have the luxury of their own automated warfare. The collateral damage that the US (or anyone in NATO, whatever) inflicts is actually really, really low. I think you're being pretty unfair on the highly trained individuals within the armed forces who I'm sure *are* very concerned with precision - unless you have evidence to the contrary? The fact that things can go wrong doesn't mean that the people are incompetent or don't care, it just means in war it's hard for everything to be puppies and flowers 100% of the time. Yo: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes Any civilian casualties are theoretically too many civilian casualties, but from that article However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.
"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."
The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.Still suggests collateral damage is pretty low. Why not call them dead sand niggers? Because that's about equally insulting as calling people we murder as a country 'collateral damage'. By this reckoning, the victims of 9/11 were 'collateral damage' in the war to destabilize the U.S. We're not at war against these people, we kill people our government doesn't like. The ONLY reason we are allowed to do this is because no country can effectively declare war on us because the threat of invasion is laughable. It's not fucking acceptable for us as a country to go around telling these people "Well at least we didn't kill very many of you that we didn't think were guilty of possibly plotting against us". Giving people a perfect reason to hate you is probably not the best way to stop groups from forming around a fanatical hatred of you and your actions. If you'd note, I used Klondike's term (collateral damage) and just applied it in my posts. Not entirely sure why you're jumping down my neck about that in particular. The rest of your post is pretty decent argumentation for why the armed forces are really fucking careful. From a US point of view, less civilian casualties > more civilian casualties. Edit: Klondike, not sure where I argued civilian casualties were a good thing or acceptable, more that in a war they're bound to happen, and actually in terms of a war they're quite low. What are you thinking I'm arguing here? We're at war with Pakistan?
You're at war with certain elements within Pakistan, apparently.
|
On July 12 2013 00:06 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:01 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 23:54 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:48 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:27 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:19 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On the one hand, yay we can stop sending actual humans to warzones. On the other hand, it just became a hell of a lot easier to commit a violent act.
[quote]
I have approximately -6 units of faith in this but even so...why is that supposed to be reassuring? Humans are assholes. Obama loves to murder and pillage the middle east and he does that openly. I'm supposed to believe that some unnamed officer with even fewer public consequences is going to show more restraint? What's your complaint? It's a war-machine designed to blow shit up. Not sure where restraint comes into this. That maybe we shouldn't be blowing things up...and the fact that the tool exists means we're going to blow shit up. There will always be a need for things that blow shit up. Or at least for there to be the *potential* to blow shit up. If it weren't the US in a dominant technology+military spot, then it would be another country. The grass probably isn't greener on the other side. The US has the nasty habit of being a little too ok with "collateral damage." I'd prefer big-blowy-uppy-things not be in the hands of people who aren't very concerned with precision. Also, I don't like the additional layer between killer and...I don't wanna say victim so "killee?" Killing someone is a big deal. So much so that we have a physiological aversion to doing so. Creating this much distance between killing and death might make it too easy. Look, I'm apprehensive. And I think justifiably so. I'm not saying END ALL DRONE PROGRAMS because, like I said in my first post, I'd prefer we didn't have to send our men into danger as well. I'm just worried for innocent people on the other side who don't have the luxury of their own automated warfare. The collateral damage that the US (or anyone in NATO, whatever) inflicts is actually really, really low. I think you're being pretty unfair on the highly trained individuals within the armed forces who I'm sure *are* very concerned with precision - unless you have evidence to the contrary? The fact that things can go wrong doesn't mean that the people are incompetent or don't care, it just means in war it's hard for everything to be puppies and flowers 100% of the time. Yo: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes Any civilian casualties are theoretically too many civilian casualties, but from that article However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.
"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."
The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.Still suggests collateral damage is pretty low. Why not call them dead sand niggers? Because that's about equally insulting as calling people we murder as a country 'collateral damage'. By this reckoning, the victims of 9/11 were 'collateral damage' in the war to destabilize the U.S. We're not at war against these people, we kill people our government doesn't like. The ONLY reason we are allowed to do this is because no country can effectively declare war on us because the threat of invasion is laughable. It's not fucking acceptable for us as a country to go around telling these people "Well at least we didn't kill very many of you that we didn't think were guilty of possibly plotting against us". Giving people a perfect reason to hate you is probably not the best way to stop groups from forming around a fanatical hatred of you and your actions. If you'd note, I used Klondike's term (collateral damage) and just applied it in my posts. Not entirely sure why you're jumping down my neck about that in particular. The rest of your post is pretty decent argumentation for why the armed forces are really fucking careful. From a US point of view, less civilian casualties > more civilian casualties. Edit: Klondike, not sure where I argued civilian casualties were a good thing or acceptable, more that in a war they're bound to happen, and actually in terms of a war they're quite low. What are you thinking I'm arguing here?
CIA, not armed forces. They've only done that transfer recently.
Edit: Or they're doing that transfer now or something. I dunno. But we're not talking military operations.
|
On July 12 2013 00:06 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 00:01 Jormundr wrote:On July 11 2013 23:54 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:48 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:38 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:34 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:27 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 11 2013 23:19 marvellosity wrote:On July 11 2013 23:17 Klondikebar wrote:
On the one hand, yay we can stop sending actual humans to warzones. On the other hand, it just became a hell of a lot easier to commit a violent act.
[quote]
I have approximately -6 units of faith in this but even so...why is that supposed to be reassuring? Humans are assholes. Obama loves to murder and pillage the middle east and he does that openly. I'm supposed to believe that some unnamed officer with even fewer public consequences is going to show more restraint? What's your complaint? It's a war-machine designed to blow shit up. Not sure where restraint comes into this. That maybe we shouldn't be blowing things up...and the fact that the tool exists means we're going to blow shit up. There will always be a need for things that blow shit up. Or at least for there to be the *potential* to blow shit up. If it weren't the US in a dominant technology+military spot, then it would be another country. The grass probably isn't greener on the other side. The US has the nasty habit of being a little too ok with "collateral damage." I'd prefer big-blowy-uppy-things not be in the hands of people who aren't very concerned with precision. Also, I don't like the additional layer between killer and...I don't wanna say victim so "killee?" Killing someone is a big deal. So much so that we have a physiological aversion to doing so. Creating this much distance between killing and death might make it too easy. Look, I'm apprehensive. And I think justifiably so. I'm not saying END ALL DRONE PROGRAMS because, like I said in my first post, I'd prefer we didn't have to send our men into danger as well. I'm just worried for innocent people on the other side who don't have the luxury of their own automated warfare. The collateral damage that the US (or anyone in NATO, whatever) inflicts is actually really, really low. I think you're being pretty unfair on the highly trained individuals within the armed forces who I'm sure *are* very concerned with precision - unless you have evidence to the contrary? The fact that things can go wrong doesn't mean that the people are incompetent or don't care, it just means in war it's hard for everything to be puppies and flowers 100% of the time. Yo: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes Any civilian casualties are theoretically too many civilian casualties, but from that article However, an analysis by the New America Foundation says that the civilian casualty rate from drone strikes has been dropping sharply since 2008 despite the rising death toll.
"The number of civilians plus those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports -- labeled 'unknowns' by NAF -- reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities," said Bergen. "So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%."
The foundation's analysis relies on credible media outlets in Pakistan, which in turn rely on Pakistani officials and local villagers' accounts, Bergen said, rather than on U.S. figures.Still suggests collateral damage is pretty low. Why not call them dead sand niggers? Because that's about equally insulting as calling people we murder as a country 'collateral damage'. By this reckoning, the victims of 9/11 were 'collateral damage' in the war to destabilize the U.S. We're not at war against these people, we kill people our government doesn't like. The ONLY reason we are allowed to do this is because no country can effectively declare war on us because the threat of invasion is laughable. It's not fucking acceptable for us as a country to go around telling these people "Well at least we didn't kill very many of you that we didn't think were guilty of possibly plotting against us". Giving people a perfect reason to hate you is probably not the best way to stop groups from forming around a fanatical hatred of you and your actions. If you'd note, I used Klondike's term (collateral damage) and just applied it in my posts. Not entirely sure why you're jumping down my neck about that in particular. The rest of your post is pretty decent argumentation for why the armed forces are really fucking careful. From a US point of view, less civilian casualties > more civilian casualties. Edit: Klondike, not sure where I argued civilian casualties were a good thing or acceptable, more that in a war they're bound to happen, and actually in terms of a war they're quite low. What are you thinking I'm arguing here?
"Bound to happen" in what sense? I mean yes, in urban warfare a building is probably gonna collapse on an innocent. But when we're deliberately bombing populated areas for one target. We've gone from "bound to happen" to "likely to happen." I'm not saying you're wrong that civilian deaths are bound to happen. I'm saying your wrong for applying that phrase here. Because civilian deaths are "likely to happen" and we're causing way more than just death. We're literally terrorizing the civilians who have to see and hear drone strikes with alarming frequency.
|
Think of it like this: imagine there is a criminal with a hostage during a bank robbery. "Collateral damage" in the sense that the military uses it these days would be equivalent (roughly) to the sort of damage that would be incurred by throwing a grenade at the criminal.
|
On July 11 2013 11:24 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 10:14 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 10:08 coverpunch wrote:On July 11 2013 10:00 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 09:47 coverpunch wrote:On July 11 2013 09:29 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 09:23 coverpunch wrote:On July 11 2013 09:20 DoubleReed wrote:On July 11 2013 08:33 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 07:49 Shiori wrote:
I don't get it. On the one hand, my understanding is that the right (generally) wants to reduce/restrict welfare and reform or eliminate minimum wage. On the other hand, they assert that corporations have absolutely no reason to be concerned with social justice.
So how exactly would the the far-right economic policies not suck? I guess it can work if you're really optimistic about the invisible hand?
Or is it that some/most poor people or people on welfare actually deserve to have fairly bad living conditions and therefore it's okay? I'm not trying to be snide; I'm genuinely curious as to what the answer is here. Complete your thought. The nation got by without minimum wage for years, indeed it ascended to excellence in the world and no minimum wage existed in the years where the nation supplanted its rivals for economic superpower. It's quite old hat among my colleagues to go back to the original radical right-wing ideologues, the framers of the Constitution. The danger does not exist in monopolies or predatory wage rates should government take a lesser role in the nation's economy, the danger is, in the words of Washington "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence–it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and fearful master." I'm optimistic about the power of free enterprise left unhindered because that's what the nation was founded on. I don't say that free markets and a free people magically solve societal malaise, but instead are the fastest way out when times are tough as opposed to direct government intervention, control, and future regulations. There is abundant dishonesty about the play of welfare in politics, namely, when people grasp that they can simply vote themselves more money that comes from somebody else (e.g. Obama's stash). I mean this great American experiment lasted plenty well before the super-progressive income tax and government involvement in the early 20th century. I say there is plenty of reason for optimism based on America's success from 1776-early 1900s. Why exactly should conservative Republican economic policies suck? Uhh... no. The Gilded Age kind of sucked for us. We weren't a world power at that point, and it was really terrible economically. We didn't ascend to the world stage until after World War II. We were in the Great Depression right before that... The most prosperous time in American History was post-WWII (1945-1980), where we had strong unions, we just constructed a huge social safety net, and we were horribly in debt from the amount of government spending during WWII. Wealth Disparity was literally at an all-time low until 1980. The top marginal tax rate fluctuated between 70%-90%. You want to talk about prosperity? We didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of goverment money and rejected libertarian rhetoric in favor of public responsibility. This is having your cake and eating it too. You can't say "the Gilded Age kind of sucked" and then say "we didn't get prosperity until we spent a shit-ton of government money". You're saying correlation isn't causation, then drawing a cause from a correlation, totally glossing over that the US economy didn't do well in the postwar era because the government spent lots of money, it did well because the US won the war without substantial destruction. Winning wars does not magically give you money. Wars are government spending. Our allies were in shambles and couldn't properly trade with us. We even spent our money rebuilding Europe to get our trading partners back on track. I'm not saying correlation isn't causation. What? The Gilded Age was filled with libertarian rhetoric and corporatism, but it totally sucked. It wasn't good for America at all. The post-WWII America was filled with responsible, less corrupt government with extremely liberal policies and did amazingly. It wasn't until Reagan when a lot of the "small government" rhetoric came back that we had more wealth disparity and a more fragile economy. I'm saying causation all the way, baby. What, you think it's a coincidence that our top marginal tax rate went from 70% -> 30% and suddenly wealth inequality started going up? There's nothing magic about it. But losing a world war is certainly worse for the national economy than winning. Consider that Japan didn't have a standing structure taller than two stories by the end of the war. Combined with 3 million citizens killed, including an entire generation of young men, that is very very bad for the economy. I think it was coincidental that the tax marginal tax rate went down and wealth inequality went down. It certainly played a role in exacerbating the problem, but I don't think it was the root cause. Given more time, inequality will always increase. That's the nature of giving more time for advantaged people to utilize their skills/talent/hard work and disadvantaged people to sit around doing nothing. IMO the problem was and has been increasing global competition. In the period between 1945-1975, Americans could basically take it for granted that they were better educated, better fed, harder working, and more creative than the rest of the world. That is increasingly not true. I don't think the answer is protectionism, but I think there are many things Americans cannot take for granted and it raises questions of how we can improve the lot of people of more mediocre skills. No, that's not how it works. That means we have fewer trading partners. It means less people were able to afford purchasing all our crap (and we love selling people our crap). We don't benefit from other people being poor and stupid. And the "harder working" part? Really? Just like today. The fact that the Euro is having problems isn't a good thing for us. It affects our trade. It's not a good thing. We want them to be doing well, so we can be doing better. For the last 30 years, corruption in our politics has been getting worse and worse (I can pin at least some blame on Buckley vs Valeo in 1976). It has led to weaker unions, regressive taxes, stagnant wages, skyrocketing wealth inequality, and more partisan politics. It wasn't always like this. Inequality will not always increase. That's just not true. And Globalization could have been offset with even more liberal policies, even stronger unions, etc. so that workers would be even with employers. But that didn't happen. Trade is a different joint from inequality. The benefit of trade is that people can have a better standard of living at lower cost, but it comes with the price that US workers have to compete with foreign workers, which puts downward pressure on wages for low-skilled workers. It also means people who make good products have more consumers and can become personally richer. But for this reason, more unionization is actually a bad thing in a more global, more trade world, because unions always result in higher labor costs for their constituents, which increases the incentives to look elsewhere for cheaper labor. How does your link show that inequality will not always increase? It shows that inequality had a marked increase after 1980. But there's nothing to show that inequality was not already increasing before that. Sorry, try this link. Wealth inequality went down during World War II. It stayed down during the 1945-1980 portion of our history. It only started rising again in the late 70s. Edit: I'm not sure what you're talking about with trade. I wasn't talking about sweatshops. I was talking about trading oil for guns for bananas for sugar. Like trade trade. It's just a matter of Comparative Advantage, and everyone benefiting in a trade transaction. You're looking at these things blithely though, as though they simply just happened by coincidence. The war caused a decrease in inequality because the government could simply seize property and strip rights in the name of winning the war and people were supportive of that. Inequality took a long time to increase back to prewar levels, which speaks more to how devastating the wars were than the goodness or effectiveness of government spending. As the global economy matures and trade opens up for more new players, I think it's natural that inequality will increase in all of the individual countries. Countries that resist this do so usually at the expense of their competitiveness. Which is what the problem has been with countries like Greece, Spain, and Japan. I will agree with a point you made in another post, that inequality is a problem. Material inequality is a symptom and an eventual cause of social inequality, where people get substantially different educations or materially different access to certain positions simply because of who they are. Money is an imperfect measurement but it's the best we can do. For instance, I don't think it's a stretch to say Sasha and Malia Obama will go to Harvard. They're probably not stupid and maybe they will earn it, but I think their access is far easier for their name than it would be if they were simply two other kids. But how much is a problem and what we should do about it is where we differ. I think a lot of CEOs are grossly overvalued, but it's not the government's job to fix it. Stockholders and the board of directors should be doing it. Similarly, I don't like Wal-Mart's employment practices but I don't want to go in and tell them what to do. I don't shop there and I would never apply for a job there. If enough people agree with me, then Wal-Mart will be forced to change their practices to get competent workers or more business.
The problem with Spain, Greece and Japan was that they did what? I don't even... The staggering amount of unfounded and sourceless ignorance on your part is quite frankly insulting.
|
A small bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would break up Wall Street's megabanks by separating traditional banking activity from riskier financial services.
The bill, called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, has an uncertain future, but it shows some lawmakers' frustration that banks have only continued to grow since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
"The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk," said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, one of the sponsors of the bill.
The other sponsors are Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, and Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Senate's Democrats.
The legislation would bring back elements of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which divided commercial and investment banking, and was repealed in 1999.
There were calls to bring back Glass-Steagall immediately after the financial crisis, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law stopped short of busting up companies and instead curtails Wall Street's risk-taking.
The debate was revived last year when Sanford "Sandy" Weill, the tycoon who built financial conglomerate Citigroup Inc into a massive U.S. commercial and investment bank, said it was time to split up the biggest banks so they can get back to growing.
The legislation introduced on Thursday would separate the operations of traditional banks with accounts backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp from riskier activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps and hedge funds.
It would include a five-year transition period and would call for penalties if companies violated the law.
Other attempts since the financial crisis to bring back Glass-Steagall have not gathered significant momentum.
US Senators Introduce Bill to Break Up Megabanks
|
On July 12 2013 04:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +A small bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would break up Wall Street's megabanks by separating traditional banking activity from riskier financial services.
The bill, called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, has an uncertain future, but it shows some lawmakers' frustration that banks have only continued to grow since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
"The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk," said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, one of the sponsors of the bill.
The other sponsors are Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, and Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Senate's Democrats.
The legislation would bring back elements of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which divided commercial and investment banking, and was repealed in 1999.
There were calls to bring back Glass-Steagall immediately after the financial crisis, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law stopped short of busting up companies and instead curtails Wall Street's risk-taking.
The debate was revived last year when Sanford "Sandy" Weill, the tycoon who built financial conglomerate Citigroup Inc into a massive U.S. commercial and investment bank, said it was time to split up the biggest banks so they can get back to growing.
The legislation introduced on Thursday would separate the operations of traditional banks with accounts backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp from riskier activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps and hedge funds.
It would include a five-year transition period and would call for penalties if companies violated the law.
Other attempts since the financial crisis to bring back Glass-Steagall have not gathered significant momentum. US Senators Introduce Bill to Break Up Megabanks
I don't understand why these new laws are necessary. Many of these bankers and firms blatantly committed fraud. But nothing was really investigated and absolutely no one was held accountable. These sweeping regulations will never pass because banks have too much lobbying power. If we actually like...enforced our existing fraud laws, we wouldn't need political theater like this.
|
On July 12 2013 04:13 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:05 farvacola wrote:A small bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would break up Wall Street's megabanks by separating traditional banking activity from riskier financial services.
The bill, called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, has an uncertain future, but it shows some lawmakers' frustration that banks have only continued to grow since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
"The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk," said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, one of the sponsors of the bill.
The other sponsors are Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, and Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Senate's Democrats.
The legislation would bring back elements of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which divided commercial and investment banking, and was repealed in 1999.
There were calls to bring back Glass-Steagall immediately after the financial crisis, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law stopped short of busting up companies and instead curtails Wall Street's risk-taking.
The debate was revived last year when Sanford "Sandy" Weill, the tycoon who built financial conglomerate Citigroup Inc into a massive U.S. commercial and investment bank, said it was time to split up the biggest banks so they can get back to growing.
The legislation introduced on Thursday would separate the operations of traditional banks with accounts backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp from riskier activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps and hedge funds.
It would include a five-year transition period and would call for penalties if companies violated the law.
Other attempts since the financial crisis to bring back Glass-Steagall have not gathered significant momentum. US Senators Introduce Bill to Break Up Megabanks I don't understand why these new laws are necessary. Many of these bankers and firms blatantly committed fraud. But nothing was really investigated and absolutely no one was held accountable. These sweeping regulations will never pass because banks have too much lobbying power. If we actually like...enforced our existing fraud laws, we wouldn't need political theater like this.
Even if we threw criminal bankers into jail, that still probably wouldn't prevent another Too Big To Fail scenario. Since bailing out depositors is out of the question in the U.S., our only real options are to break up banks if they get too big, or just consign ourselves to being willing to bail them out in perpetuity.
|
On July 12 2013 05:01 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:13 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:05 farvacola wrote:A small bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would break up Wall Street's megabanks by separating traditional banking activity from riskier financial services.
The bill, called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, has an uncertain future, but it shows some lawmakers' frustration that banks have only continued to grow since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
"The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk," said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, one of the sponsors of the bill.
The other sponsors are Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, and Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Senate's Democrats.
The legislation would bring back elements of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which divided commercial and investment banking, and was repealed in 1999.
There were calls to bring back Glass-Steagall immediately after the financial crisis, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law stopped short of busting up companies and instead curtails Wall Street's risk-taking.
The debate was revived last year when Sanford "Sandy" Weill, the tycoon who built financial conglomerate Citigroup Inc into a massive U.S. commercial and investment bank, said it was time to split up the biggest banks so they can get back to growing.
The legislation introduced on Thursday would separate the operations of traditional banks with accounts backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp from riskier activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps and hedge funds.
It would include a five-year transition period and would call for penalties if companies violated the law.
Other attempts since the financial crisis to bring back Glass-Steagall have not gathered significant momentum. US Senators Introduce Bill to Break Up Megabanks I don't understand why these new laws are necessary. Many of these bankers and firms blatantly committed fraud. But nothing was really investigated and absolutely no one was held accountable. These sweeping regulations will never pass because banks have too much lobbying power. If we actually like...enforced our existing fraud laws, we wouldn't need political theater like this. Even if we threw criminal bankers into jail, that still probably wouldn't prevent another Too Big To Fail scenario. Since bailing out depositors is out of the question in the U.S., our only real options are to break up banks if they get too big, or just consign ourselves to being willing to bail them out in perpetuity.
Depositors are legally entitled to FDIC insurance up to a certain amount per account (over 100k i think).
|
That's depositors, not the banks themselves...
|
On July 12 2013 05:01 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 04:13 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:05 farvacola wrote:A small bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would break up Wall Street's megabanks by separating traditional banking activity from riskier financial services.
The bill, called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, has an uncertain future, but it shows some lawmakers' frustration that banks have only continued to grow since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
"The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk," said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, one of the sponsors of the bill.
The other sponsors are Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, and Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Senate's Democrats.
The legislation would bring back elements of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which divided commercial and investment banking, and was repealed in 1999.
There were calls to bring back Glass-Steagall immediately after the financial crisis, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law stopped short of busting up companies and instead curtails Wall Street's risk-taking.
The debate was revived last year when Sanford "Sandy" Weill, the tycoon who built financial conglomerate Citigroup Inc into a massive U.S. commercial and investment bank, said it was time to split up the biggest banks so they can get back to growing.
The legislation introduced on Thursday would separate the operations of traditional banks with accounts backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp from riskier activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps and hedge funds.
It would include a five-year transition period and would call for penalties if companies violated the law.
Other attempts since the financial crisis to bring back Glass-Steagall have not gathered significant momentum. US Senators Introduce Bill to Break Up Megabanks I don't understand why these new laws are necessary. Many of these bankers and firms blatantly committed fraud. But nothing was really investigated and absolutely no one was held accountable. These sweeping regulations will never pass because banks have too much lobbying power. If we actually like...enforced our existing fraud laws, we wouldn't need political theater like this. Even if we threw criminal bankers into jail, that still probably wouldn't prevent another Too Big To Fail scenario. Since bailing out depositors is out of the question in the U.S., our only real options are to break up banks if they get too big, or just consign ourselves to being willing to bail them out in perpetuity.
I'm not sure why the assumption is that big banks are an issue. The most stable banks during the recession were in countries that had regulated national banks...much "larger" than any banks in the US.
I know capitalism > socialism is the popular phrase to throw around, but if you want a system where banks are competing with each other, than the banks that control the most money are going to be the ones with the best rates and returns...which usually means they're the ones taking the most risk with your money
Honestly, you're going to have to pick one: competition or stability. You can't have both when it comes to your financial sectors.
|
On July 12 2013 05:10 DoubleReed wrote:
That's depositors, not the banks themselves...
Did you read what I quoted. He said bailing out depositors is not feasible in the US...I was pointing out we already have such a mechanism.
|
On July 12 2013 05:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:01 HunterX11 wrote:On July 12 2013 04:13 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:05 farvacola wrote:A small bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would break up Wall Street's megabanks by separating traditional banking activity from riskier financial services.
The bill, called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, has an uncertain future, but it shows some lawmakers' frustration that banks have only continued to grow since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
"The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk," said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, one of the sponsors of the bill.
The other sponsors are Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, and Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Senate's Democrats.
The legislation would bring back elements of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which divided commercial and investment banking, and was repealed in 1999.
There were calls to bring back Glass-Steagall immediately after the financial crisis, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law stopped short of busting up companies and instead curtails Wall Street's risk-taking.
The debate was revived last year when Sanford "Sandy" Weill, the tycoon who built financial conglomerate Citigroup Inc into a massive U.S. commercial and investment bank, said it was time to split up the biggest banks so they can get back to growing.
The legislation introduced on Thursday would separate the operations of traditional banks with accounts backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp from riskier activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps and hedge funds.
It would include a five-year transition period and would call for penalties if companies violated the law.
Other attempts since the financial crisis to bring back Glass-Steagall have not gathered significant momentum. US Senators Introduce Bill to Break Up Megabanks I don't understand why these new laws are necessary. Many of these bankers and firms blatantly committed fraud. But nothing was really investigated and absolutely no one was held accountable. These sweeping regulations will never pass because banks have too much lobbying power. If we actually like...enforced our existing fraud laws, we wouldn't need political theater like this. Even if we threw criminal bankers into jail, that still probably wouldn't prevent another Too Big To Fail scenario. Since bailing out depositors is out of the question in the U.S., our only real options are to break up banks if they get too big, or just consign ourselves to being willing to bail them out in perpetuity. I'm not sure why the assumption is that big banks are an issue. The most stable banks during the recession were in countries that had regulated national banks...much "larger" than any banks in the US. I know capitalism > socialism is the popular phrase to throw around, but if you want a system where banks are competing with each other, than the banks that control the most money are going to be the ones with the best rates and returns...which usually means they're the ones taking the most risk with your money Honestly, you're going to have to pick one: competition or stability. You can't have both when it comes to your financial sectors.
I think you know which one the "liberals" in this thread would pick 
|
On July 12 2013 05:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 05:01 HunterX11 wrote:On July 12 2013 04:13 Klondikebar wrote:On July 12 2013 04:05 farvacola wrote:A small bipartisan group of U.S. senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would break up Wall Street's megabanks by separating traditional banking activity from riskier financial services.
The bill, called the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, has an uncertain future, but it shows some lawmakers' frustration that banks have only continued to grow since the 2007-2009 financial crisis.
"The four biggest banks are now 30 percent larger than they were just five years ago, and they have continued to engage in dangerous, high-risk practices that could once again put our economy at risk," said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, one of the sponsors of the bill.
The other sponsors are Republican Senator John McCain from Arizona, Democratic Senator Maria Cantwell from Washington, and Senator Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with the Senate's Democrats.
The legislation would bring back elements of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which divided commercial and investment banking, and was repealed in 1999.
There were calls to bring back Glass-Steagall immediately after the financial crisis, but the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law stopped short of busting up companies and instead curtails Wall Street's risk-taking.
The debate was revived last year when Sanford "Sandy" Weill, the tycoon who built financial conglomerate Citigroup Inc into a massive U.S. commercial and investment bank, said it was time to split up the biggest banks so they can get back to growing.
The legislation introduced on Thursday would separate the operations of traditional banks with accounts backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp from riskier activities such as investment banking, insurance, swaps and hedge funds.
It would include a five-year transition period and would call for penalties if companies violated the law.
Other attempts since the financial crisis to bring back Glass-Steagall have not gathered significant momentum. US Senators Introduce Bill to Break Up Megabanks I don't understand why these new laws are necessary. Many of these bankers and firms blatantly committed fraud. But nothing was really investigated and absolutely no one was held accountable. These sweeping regulations will never pass because banks have too much lobbying power. If we actually like...enforced our existing fraud laws, we wouldn't need political theater like this. Even if we threw criminal bankers into jail, that still probably wouldn't prevent another Too Big To Fail scenario. Since bailing out depositors is out of the question in the U.S., our only real options are to break up banks if they get too big, or just consign ourselves to being willing to bail them out in perpetuity. I'm not sure why the assumption is that big banks are an issue. The most stable banks during the recession were in countries that had regulated national banks...much "larger" than any banks in the US. I know capitalism > socialism is the popular phrase to throw around, but if you want a system where banks are competing with each other, than the banks that control the most money are going to be the ones with the best rates and returns...which usually means they're the ones taking the most risk with your money Honestly, you're going to have to pick one: competition or stability. You can't have both when it comes to your financial sectors.
What banks are you talking about?
|
United States41973 Posts
Honestly I don't know whether you mean classical liberals or what the 'murcans call "libruhls".
|
On July 12 2013 05:23 KwarK wrote:
Honestly I don't know whether you mean classical liberals or what the 'murcans call "libruhls".
Well, why not both? The line splits pretty much right down the middle of that distinction 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
