why expect different results from more bank regs?

[Anarchist420]

to regulate is to make regular, isn't it? havent the existing bank regs made all the large banks pretty similar? if all banks are the same then the Conservatives who run them will be happy because conservatives would rather be guaranteed some profit rather than be at risk of losing a dime... right?

the constitution was written by Conservatives who inserted the commerce clause in it so that there would be little variation in commerce.

so whenever regs are issued, some profit will be guaranteed for those producing the regulated products and only the established corporations can comply and they are the only ones willing to. that's because small businesses can only be profitable if they offer something new.

anyway, when modern liberals advocate for more regs thinking they will help redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom, they are failing to realize that economic hierarchy is created as soon as the first reg is issued. the regs do protect the safety of those who are not bright enough to be independent of the State, but at the same time they must drive up costs for one group so that the other group can gain so they dont reduce economic inequality at all. direct redistribution doesnt really equalize either because one has to be resourceful and independent to be wealthy and the greenback dollar does not make one rich if they dont have the brains to invest in production, things people want. for example, washington was the richest president in theory, but in practice he was terribly poor because he could not use his wealth to make things people wanted and very little of his theoretical wealth was actually from him producing things on a voluntary basis. jefferson (and even lincoln), on the other hand, produced eloquent classics (not that i agree with much that lincoln did), people loved them in their day and today (in comparison, washington's contemporaries didnt like him, he only became really popular three quarters century after his death) yet they both died with negative wealth on paper (well if lincoln didnt die with negative paper wealth, he was mighty close to it... he simply chose to be resourceful and to sabotage his creditors rather than seek more US$).

so how can the State make anyone happy or even reduce overall real suffering?

 

[Moonbeam]

so how can the State make anyone happy or even reduce overall real suffering?

My guess is that there may be more misery in Uganda than there is here, thanks to the difference in government. After all, those conservative founding fathers you spoke of wrote that the function of government is to form itself in a way as to promote the rights of life liberty and happiness in such a way that everybody can pursue them. The government can't make you happy but it can try to insure the conditions in which you can make it happen. There is a relationship between the form of a system and the state of those who live within that system.

 

[LunarRay]

to regulate is to make regular, isn't it? havent the existing bank regs made all the large banks pretty similar? if all banks are the same then the Conservatives who run them will be happy because conservatives would rather be guaranteed some profit rather than be at risk of losing a dime... right?

the constitution was written by Conservatives who inserted the commerce clause in it so that there would be little variation in commerce.

so whenever regs are issued, some profit will be guaranteed for those producing the regulated products and only the established corporations can comply and they are the only ones willing to. that's because small businesses can only be profitable if they offer something new.

anyway, when modern liberals advocate for more regs thinking they will help redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom, they are failing to realize that economic hierarchy is created as soon as the first reg is issued. the regs do protect the safety of those who are not bright enough to be independent of the State, but at the same time they must drive up costs for one group so that the other group can gain so they dont reduce economic inequality at all. direct redistribution doesnt really equalize either because one has to be resourceful and independent to be wealthy and the greenback dollar does not make one rich if they dont have the brains to invest in production, things people want. for example, washington was the richest president in theory, but in practice he was terribly poor because he could not use his wealth to make things people wanted and very little of his theoretical wealth was actually from him producing things on a voluntary basis. jefferson (and even lincoln), on the other hand, produced eloquent classics (not that i agree with much that lincoln did), people loved them in their day and today (in comparison, washington's contemporaries didnt like him, he only became really popular three quarters century after his death) yet they both died with negative wealth on paper (well if lincoln didnt die with negative paper wealth, he was mighty close to it... he simply chose to be resourceful and to sabotage his creditors rather than seek more US$).

so how can the State make anyone happy or even reduce overall real suffering?

Taking just a bit of your post for comment... You think folks liked Lincoln... well... the vast majority of some folks living as they did with their notion of State Rights and Slavery didn't much cotton for Mr. Lincoln... They felt he altered their environment to such an extent that they couldn't enjoy the Rights our Constitution mandated in the Preamble...
Folks go to war within their own house, town and Country because of this...
Regulation seeks to make palatable for all, I'd think... or hope maybe...

 

[DominionSeraph]

Take your meds.

 

[Anarchist420]

Taking just a bit of your post for comment... You think folks liked Lincoln... well... the vast majority of some folks living as they did with their notion of State Rights and Slavery didn't much cotton for Mr. Lincoln... They felt he altered their environment to such an extent that they couldn't enjoy the Rights our Constitution mandated in the Preamble... Folks go to war within their own house, town and Country because of this...

he was one of the most unpopular presidents while he was president but he was the most popular of the people he ran against... he was always more popular than Douglas in IL. Washington, on the other hand, didnt have any really close friends who stayed in contact with until his death (except maybe Hamilton) while a lot of people liked Lincoln from the time they met him until his death... he had a profound influence on tons of people, even most of those who know what he did admire him. Most people are mislead by tradition and authoritarianism about Washington and myself all the time and that is the only reason we are popular... that is, we are loved for what we are not and not hated for what we are.

Anyway, i wish everyone read Murray Rothbard's works on Washington as the former was never wrong about anything. the world is too fucked up because the most correct, most humorous, quickest, and most independently minded person is the one most people ignore.

 

[LunarRay]

he was one of the most unpopular presidents while he was president but he was the most popular of the people he ran against... he was always more popular than Douglas in IL. Washington, on the other hand, didnt have any really close friends who stayed in contact with until his death (except maybe Hamilton) while a lot of people liked Lincoln from the time they met him until his death... he had a profound influence on tons of people, even most of those who know what he did admire him. Most people are mislead by tradition and authoritarianism about Washington and myself all the time and that is the only reason we are popular... that is, we are loved for what we are not and not hated for what we are.

Anyway, i wish everyone read Murray Rothbard's works on Washington as the former was never wrong about anything. the world is too fucked up because the most correct, most humorous, quickest, and most independently minded person is the one most people ignore.

Every biographer introduces a bias... usually their own into the thesis they produce. A good biographer produces a work that reasonably deduces from the research performed certain notions that at best are only reasonably accurate.
You state that Douglas was more popular than Lincoln in Illinois. Consider that of the Seven debates held... the topic was Slavery or the main topic was. The newspapers who supported one over the other did all they could to help. The folks gained their information from the media. In any case, Lincoln was no more popular than Douglas in Illinois, as I see it...
It was, however, because of the State races that they both gained National attention... they both were after the Senate seat - determined by the legislature -, as I recall. And in Lincoln's 'A house divided' speech and his contention that Douglas wanted to spread Slavery across the Nation we find the majority favoring Lincoln as would be reasonable given the North had that majority... and, the South because of that position had to divorce from the Union... States Rights and all that.

Your contention is that we are loved for what we are not... I think we are what we are with all the realities that entails... Real or imagined... it don't matter.