Should rich people give their money to poor people ?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#751 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

By David Weidner, MarketWatch
On Wall Street and Main Street they call William Jefferson Clinton the "Comeback Kid," but it's not because of some Election Day surprise.

It's because almost everything he did regarding financial-services regulation has come back to haunt us.

If it wasn't apparent before, the former president's handiwork became clear when President Barack Obama announced his plans for sweeping financial-services reforms. Obama's efforts to bring fair dealing to the mortgage markets, rules to the derivatives marketplace and restraint to big financial companies underscore the missteps of Clinton's second term.

We had weakly regulated markets when Clinton took office, but by the time he left, they were an invitation to lawless dealing. For the ease of it, Willie Sutton would have traded his gun and mask for a briefcase and necktie.

Clinton created a fertile environment for home-lending charlatans and hiding places for Wall Street swindlers, and upset a regulatory structure that had served the financial marketplace so well for more than six decades.

3 big mistakes
Clinton bashing -- like Bush bashing -- is often a cop-out, but Clinton made critical mistakes when it came to dealing with the financial industry. Three poor decisions stand out.

The first, in 1997, was a change to the amount of taxes a homeowner had to pay on the sale of his or her home, up to $500,000. That change effectively made buying and selling a home for profit the most compelling investment in America by tax standards. It shifted our housing market from one of supply and demand to one of rampant speculation.

The second mistake was one of inaction. In 1998, Long-Term Capital Management's use of derivatives and leverage required a massive $3.6 billion hedge fund bailout organized by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. After the fiasco rocked the markets, the administration was on the spot. Would it push for tighter regulation of this new form of investment vehicle? Would it rein in the derivatives markets?

Alan Greenspan and Arthur Levitt, then the chairmen of the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively, and Clinton's Treasury secretary, Robert Rubin, all counseled against it to varying degrees. No action was taken.

Repeal of Glass-Steagall
But perhaps the biggest mistake of the Clinton years regarding Wall Street and the one that rings loudest today was the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which effectively had split investment banking and brokerages from commercial banks.

In the years leading up to the repeal, Wall Street had been grumbling that the law had become an anachronism. Financial technology was sophisticated. We were so much smarter than they were back in 1929 that there was no way a financial-services conglomerate could pose a threat to the system, Wall Street experts said. Besides, they argued, it was a good idea for banks to handle customers' investments and savings as a hedge in the bad times.


The Clinton administration effectively had its hand forced by the merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group in 1998. The creation of Citigroup (C, news, msgs) required a lot of chutzpah by its CEO, Sandy Weill, because it was effectively prohibited under Glass-Steagall.


Enter the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, which not only allowed Citigroup to exist but also eliminated key barriers between bankers, who were supposed to limit risks, and investment bankers, who were supposed to take them.


The biggest argument critics have against bringing back Glass-Steagall is that it would be too chaotic. Whole companies would have to be cleaved. Relationships would have to be unwound.


Well, back in 1933, the law effectively split J.P. Morgan, the bank, from what would become Morgan Stanley, the brokerage. Both seem to have come through the disruption fairly well.


Aides who abetted
Clinton didn't do it all alone. He had a lot of help from Congress. He was under pressure from a legislature controlled by laissez-faire Republicans who were hellbent on pushing Ronald Reagan's ideology of deregulation and free markets. The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House.

Greenspan, the virtually universally loved Fed chairman, gave everyone bad advice in regard to interest rates, home ownership and derivatives. Under Levitt at the SEC, Wall Street accounting reached its nadir, only to reveal itself with the WorldCom and Enron scandals after he left office.

Then, Clinton's Republican successor closed the deal. President George W. Bush took the ball into the end zone, making buying a home easier than spelling "FNMA" or "FICO" and removing the last vestiges of capital requirements at U.S. brokerage firms.

Ultimately, however, the big bang -- the wall torn down between brokers and banks -- happened on Clinton's watch. It's largely the problem that's being tackled in the current administration's 85-page white paper on reform. After all, Citigroup's banking side probably would not have loaded its balance sheet with toxic loans had it not been under pressure from the arm making all of the stuff.

Citi also wouldn't be the size it is today, a monster the government deems "too big to fail" that has required more than $300 billion in cash and guarantees to stabilize.

Citigroup's drag on the nation probably isn't what Clinton envisioned, but that's the problem with modernizing markets and making our financial system cutting-edge: Too often we get cut.

In the end Clinton enacted changes that supposedly followed basic economic laissez faire principles. Prinnciples that are as flawed as they get. That was my point at the start. The economic theory principless of deregulating and letting the market regulate itself or companies hoard money as they please are damaging for society and the economy in general.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#752 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]And do you think banks didn't make any loans by themsleves now that they were given a free pass? give me a break :roll: The banks had the call on the majority of those loans. Clinton's real mistake was giving them so much freedom to do as they pleased not forcing them to loan. Clinton was following one of the basic principles of laissez faire capitalism when he did that.airshocker

...What are you talking about? Where have I ever said the banks didn't make the loans themselves? They're banks, of course they made the loans. Only after the federal government forced them to loosen their regulations that were preventing said reckless lending in the first place.

Clinton wasn't following the basic principles of capitalism. No where does it say banks SHOULD make loans to people who have a very high chance of not paying them back. That is CONTRARY to what responsible lending calls for.

You're letting your bias for our system cloud the facts that are being presented to you. I've tried being reasonable with you, but you simply refuse to see any other viewpoint but your own.

You can save yourself the time it takes to respond, I won't be replying to you when I wake up.

Deregulation is one of capitalist basic principles and it's what caused the crisis, no matter how much you try to deny it.
Avatar image for zombehhhhh
zombehhhhh

456

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#755 zombehhhhh
Member since 2011 • 456 Posts

That is up to the person with the money. If I was loaded, I would give to charity, but I'm not saying that it's required. If the person works hard to get the money he earns, it's up to him if he wants to donate.

Avatar image for edinsftw
edinsftw

4243

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#758 edinsftw
Member since 2009 • 4243 Posts

Hell no, people should work for their money. When i was a kid we actually had to work when we were like 8 and up, now days those kids don't do any thing but probably sit and play video games.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#759 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36092 Posts
I'm thinking that current rich people got their money from people who are in a less financially sound position than themselves. Consider that and do with it what you will.
Avatar image for themajormayor
themajormayor

25729

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#760 themajormayor
Member since 2011 • 25729 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Really? Basic economics says not to lend hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who don't have the sufficient, or stable, income to pay it back.

The government, in it's infinite wisdom, forced these banks to lend to these people because a lot of them just happened to be minorities.

Basic economics didn't get us into this mess. Liberal ideology did.

Vuurk

I remember listening to economists say that the economy was sound and stable 15 days before the recession. Yeah economists are in large part clueless. And the biggest problems came by deregulation not because of impositions.

Maybe you're listening to the wrong economists. Go ahead and do a search of what Peter Schiff and Ron Paul were saying. They predicted exactly what happened.

And IIRC Milton Friedman did to. The king of capitalism.

Avatar image for Mercenary848
Mercenary848

12143

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#763 Mercenary848
Member since 2007 • 12143 Posts

Not if they don't want to, but it is good to share.leegar88

This five year old comment shares my sentiment.

Avatar image for T_P_O
T_P_O

5388

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#764 T_P_O
Member since 2008 • 5388 Posts

Make huge Generalizations, assumptions, and keep thinking about the world as black and white. That will get you places. Vuurk

Welcome to gamespot. No one here is open-minded. =[Vuurk

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#765 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
So much projection ITT
Avatar image for TopTierHustler
TopTierHustler

3894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#766 TopTierHustler
Member since 2012 • 3894 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Make huge Generalizations, assumptions, and keep thinking about the world as black and white. That will get you places. T_P_O

Welcome to gamespot. No one here is open-minded. =[Vuurk

The irony of his posts makes me lol

Avatar image for Socijalisticka
Socijalisticka

1555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#767 Socijalisticka
Member since 2011 • 1555 Posts

"Give to the poor"

vs.

"Have enforcement of the state high taxation with the intention of further state investment, of publicised healthcare, education, assimilation for the unfortunate, resulting in the discontinuity of the perpetual state of poverty?"

Well this is a no-brainer.

Avatar image for kuraimen
kuraimen

28078

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#769 kuraimen
Member since 2010 • 28078 Posts

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

...What are you talking about? Where have I ever said the banks didn't make the loans themselves? They're banks, of course they made the loans. Only after the federal government forced them to loosen their regulations that were preventing said reckless lending in the first place.

Clinton wasn't following the basic principles of capitalism. No where does it say banks SHOULD make loans to people who have a very high chance of not paying them back. That is CONTRARY to what responsible lending calls for.

You're letting your bias for our system cloud the facts that are being presented to you. I've tried being reasonable with you, but you simply refuse to see any other viewpoint but your own.

You can save yourself the time it takes to respond, I won't be replying to you when I wake up.

Vuurk

Deregulation is one of capitalist basic principles and it's what caused the crisis, no matter how much you try to deny it.

Our economy is not even close to true capitalism or laissez faire capitalism. We have a command economy. Do not blame capitalism for our recession. The recession can be blamed on our government and the federal reserve through terrible fiscal and monetary policies. You think this last recession is bad? I guarantee in our lifetime we see another Great Depression if something is not done about our fiscal and monetary policies.

Well Clinton came a step closer to laissez faire capitalism and look what happened. So more regulation was working better than less regulation... Either way a true laissez faire capitalism is not possible like a true communism is not possible. Both are utopias and, therefore, flawed and unrealistic. I know that you don't consider Marx a good economist but he was the first to predict this and many economists today acknowledge it, he basically said that capitalism will inevitably become what you call crony capitalism now. There's no way around it, the more you deregulate the more cronyism you see and before you know it you're basically ruled by plutocracies...

Avatar image for LazerTurtle
LazerTurtle

301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#770 LazerTurtle
Member since 2012 • 301 Posts
Nope they earned it, it is their money. It is hard to be rich or atleast get rich. I know when ever I buy something I feel really bad if it is an item for my entertainment. Americans earn 5 times the average of the world I read, we are all 1%ers basically.
Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#771 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36092 Posts
[QUOTE="Serraph105"]I'm thinking that current rich people got their money from people who are in a less financially sound position than themselves. Consider that and do with it what you will. Vuurk
Make huge Generalizations, assumptions, and keep thinking about the world as black and white. That will get you places.

will you kindly point out where I made a huge generalization?
Avatar image for Spitfirer
Spitfirer

2088

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#772 Spitfirer
Member since 2007 • 2088 Posts

Make huge Generalizations, assumptions, and keep thinking about the world as black and white. That will get you places. Vuurk

Yeah, I hate it when people do that, especially when they assume that it's easy for everyone to get a job, or that you can only work or starve, and that Ayn Rand's philosophy applies to real life. Sucks, doesn't it?

Avatar image for ShadowsDemon
ShadowsDemon

10059

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#773 ShadowsDemon
Member since 2012 • 10059 Posts
Yes, but they won't because they're too fvcking greedy.
Avatar image for Asim90
Asim90

3692

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#774 Asim90
Member since 2005 • 3692 Posts

They should.. but out of choice not force. Rich people are rich because poor people are poor, wealthy countries thrive off of poor ones. So rich people owe it to poor people to pay them something. That's the way I see it anyway.

I'm not talking about individuals here. I'm making generalized statements about nations which are true. Obviously some people work very hard for their money and there are poor people within rich countries. The ultra rich however thrive off of others poverty, that is a fact.

Avatar image for Ronstera
Ronstera

6112

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#775 Ronstera
Member since 2007 • 6112 Posts
If I win the lottery I might donate 1/3 of it to some unfortunate children..
Avatar image for invisibletearsx
invisibletearsx

997

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#776 invisibletearsx
Member since 2009 • 997 Posts

Depends on where the money is actually going to.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#784 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36092 Posts

[QUOTE="Serraph105"][QUOTE="Vuurk"] Make huge Generalizations, assumptions, and keep thinking about the world as black and white. That will get you places. Vuurk

will you kindly point out where I made a huge generalization?

Yes sir...

The part where you assume that current rich people got their money from those who are less financially sound. You make it sound like they stole money from poorer individuals. That is not the case. The less financially sound might have voluntarily bought a product or service from the rich, but what is wrong with this?

When a very rich person produces a product (even if you consider it to be overpriced and gouging) and someone chooses to buy that product, what is wrong with that transaction. If two adults are mutually agreeing to trade then what is the problem? That is the beauty of the free market price system.

Steve Jobs can produce technology such as his mac computers and ipads and I as a consumer have the right do decide whether or not to buy that product. I personally believe that Macs are very overpriced considering their hardware and thus I do not buy Macs. However, many people have bought "over-priced" apple products and Steve Jobs was very wealthy. He was only contributing to society by providing a product to people that they otherwise wouldn't have had. He did not "take" any money from anyone. He provided a product, and the people bought it.

This can be applied to the other rich people who you believe are manipulating the poor....

I was asolutely implying that they offered a product or service to others. Not that they stole it.

My point was that they wouldn't be rich without the involvment of other people in society. Ultimatel being rich does not make you an island unto youself because you wouldn't have gotten there if others hadn't gone alone with it.

Avatar image for Serraph105
Serraph105

36092

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#786 Serraph105
Member since 2007 • 36092 Posts
[QUOTE="Serraph105"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"] Yes sir...

The part where you assume that current rich people got their money from those who are less financially sound. You make it sound like they stole money from poorer individuals. That is not the case. The less financially sound might have voluntarily bought a product or service from the rich, but what is wrong with this?

When a very rich person produces a product (even if you consider it to be overpriced and gouging) and someone chooses to buy that product, what is wrong with that transaction. If two adults are mutually agreeing to trade then what is the problem? That is the beauty of the free market price system.

Steve Jobs can produce technology such as his mac computers and ipads and I as a consumer have the right do decide whether or not to buy that product. I personally believe that Macs are very overpriced considering their hardware and thus I do not buy Macs. However, many people have bought "over-priced" apple products and Steve Jobs was very wealthy. He was only contributing to society by providing a product to people that they otherwise wouldn't have had. He did not "take" any money from anyone. He provided a product, and the people bought it.

This can be applied to the other rich people who you believe are manipulating the poor....

Vuurk

I was asolutely implying that they offered a product or service to others. Not that they stole it.

My point was that they wouldn't be rich without the involvment of other people in society. Ultimatel being rich does not make you an island unto youself because you wouldn't have gotten there if others hadn't gone alone with it.

Alright, my bad for misinterpreting you then. I agree that it is a good thing when rich people give back to society. However, I do not think that they should be forced to give their money to poor people as this thread asks. They already do this through our incredibly progressive tax system anyhow.

I agree that nobody should be forced to give to charity. Though there are tax break incentives for you to do so.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#787 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

If you can't find a job, then create your own. Start a garden so you can grow your own food. Cut down a tree and build your own shelter out of the wood.

Vuurk

rofl

Avatar image for ghoklebutter
ghoklebutter

19327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#788 ghoklebutter
Member since 2007 • 19327 Posts

If you can't find a job, then create your own. Start a garden so you can grow your own food. Cut down a tree and build your own shelter out of the wood.

Vuurk

are you f*cking kidding me

Avatar image for LazerTurtle
LazerTurtle

301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#789 LazerTurtle
Member since 2012 • 301 Posts

Yes, but they won't because they're too fvcking greedy.ShadowsDemon

Chances are if you are using a computer you are in the 1%. Give your money to the "developing" world.

Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#791 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts
If you can't find a job, then create your own. Start a garden so you can grow your own food. Cut down a tree and build your own shelter out of the wood. But do not think that you are entitled to the fruits of another man's labor simply because he has more than you do.Vuurk
rofl
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#792 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

If you can't find a job, then create your own. Start a garden so you can grow your own food. Cut down a tree and build your own shelter out of the wood.

-Sun_Tzu-

rofl

wow, are you serious? Only someone from a developed country would be too good to grow their own food, or build their own house.
Avatar image for deactivated-5b19214ec908b
deactivated-5b19214ec908b

25072

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#793 deactivated-5b19214ec908b
Member since 2007 • 25072 Posts

[QUOTE="Spitfirer"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]Make huge Generalizations, assumptions, and keep thinking about the world as black and white. That will get you places. Vuurk

Yeah, I hate it when people do that, especially when they assume that it's easy for everyone to get a job, or that you can only work or starve, and that Ayn Rand's philosophy applies to real life. Sucks, doesn't it?

When did I say it's easy to get a job? Here is the thing. Life isn't easy. As Milton Friedman said, "This world is not for Nirvana". Life requires work in order to survive. If you do not want to commit any work toward your survival then why should other people work on your behalf in order to subsidize your lifestyle. Sure we can as a country pay for leeches to survive, but this is the reason that we are $15 trillion in debt. At some point we will run out of money.

"No country has ever thrived that has had a growing population of leeches living off of the productive members of society." - Thomas Sowell.

If you can't find a job, then create your own. Start a garden so you can grow your own food. Cut down a tree and build your own shelter out of the wood. But do not think that you are entitled to the fruits of another man's labor simply because he has more than you do.

If you don't have a job how are you going toaffordland to grow your own food?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#794 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

If you can't find a job, then create your own. Start a garden so you can grow your own food. Cut down a tree and build your own shelter out of the wood.

Nibroc420

rofl

wow, are you serious? Only someone from a developed country would be too good to grow their own food, or build their own house.

rofl
Avatar image for dissonantblack
dissonantblack

34009

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#795 dissonantblack
Member since 2005 • 34009 Posts

i think they should donate money to charity, but not give it away. Doing so takes away your lifely ambition.

Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#796 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

i think they should donate money to charity, but not give it away. Doing so takes away your lifely ambition.

dissonantblack
Charities aren't exactly "non profit" these days, their founders seem to be rolling in dough with their fat salaries.
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#798 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="ghoklebutter"]

[QUOTE="Vuurk"]

If you can't find a job, then create your own. Start a garden so you can grow your own food. Cut down a tree and build your own shelter out of the wood.

Vuurk

are you f*cking kidding me

So instead of providing your own food and shelter you'd rather sit on your ass inside and collect a check from someone else? There are 6 billion people on Earth. We can not subsidize everyone's life. People need to be productive and take care of themselves instead of relying on the government. We are 15 trillion in debt as a nation. Stop leeching and provide for yourself.

Luckily in today's age you can specialize and trade and thus don't have to resort to growing your own food and building your own shelter. However, in order for that to work you need to take some initiative and become productive in some way so that you can earn enough to feed yourself and survive.

Or you could continue to tell yourself that life's not fair and collect your check.

And the OTcar for most ridiculous false dichotomy goes to...
Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#799 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] wow, are you serious? Only someone from a developed country would be too good to grow their own food, or build their own house.Vuurk

rofl

Then starve. Survival of the fittest. If you're going to laugh at the idea of providing for yourself in order to survive, then why do you deserve to live? (I'm excluding children, severely disabled, and elderly mind you).

I thought I had an unalienable right to live?
Avatar image for Nibroc420
Nibroc420

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#800 Nibroc420
Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] wow, are you serious? Only someone from a developed country would be too good to grow their own food, or build their own house.Vuurk

rofl

Then starve. Survival of the fittest. If you're going to laugh at the idea of providing for yourself in order to survive, then why do you deserve to live? (I'm excluding children, severely disabled, and elderly mind you).

Real homeless people beg for enough gold until they can afford a bow, an axe and a pickaxe, then proceed into the wilderness to find their new home.