StressPot 178 Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23853415/Scarey stuff (to me anyway)!!Posted on www.msnbc.msn.com Saturday, March 29th.The scarey line to me is:The administration plan also proposes a business conduct regulator who would be in charge of overseeing consumer protection issues.Any thoughts?StressPot Link to post Share on other sites
admin 896 Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 Just more red tape to me...You can only do so much with duct tape, bailing wire and aluminum foil. Link to post Share on other sites
Houdino 293 Posted March 29, 2008 Report Share Posted March 29, 2008 I don't like the plan of giving the Fed more power. Link to post Share on other sites
Methuss 10,105 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Consolodating the many regulatory bodies that have authority over financial institutions has a great deal of merit to it. Consumers shouldn't have to do ten hours of research to figure out which government agency to send their complaint to. Banks like it the way it is right now because it confounds the consumer's attempts to complain about them. Link to post Share on other sites
CleverCynic 1,029 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Huge fan of free markets, but I like the idea in this case. Link to post Share on other sites
Houdino 293 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Methuss, I agree that it should be easy for consumers to be able to quickly find the appropriate "channel" to file a complaint or get assistance. I am no fan of many of the current Banking laws; in some ways they're a joke. It becomes pretty obvious that the laws are a joint venture of the commercial interests (CC Cos, Banks, the CRA's etc) and "our" Government reps that they control via their powerful lobbying interests. Only when the situation gets way out of control do "the people" rise up and get some reprise from our reps. Link to post Share on other sites
willingtocope 1,336 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 I really can't come up with a non-political way to respond to this, so I'll just leave it at...I'm from the government...I'm here to help...What was your bank account number again? Link to post Share on other sites
Houdino 293 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Link to post Share on other sites
LadynRed 325 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Something HAS to change, I don't see this as a bad idea. The current regulatory structure was put in place after the Great Depression - and things have changed DRASTICALLY since then - and so must the regulatory structure. Link to post Share on other sites
Houdino 293 Posted March 30, 2008 Report Share Posted March 30, 2008 Something HAS to change, I don't see this as a bad idea. The current regulatory structure was put in place after the Great Depression - and things have changed DRASTICALLY since then - and so must the regulatory structure.I agree. Exspecially in the Mortgage industry. My Sis was almost taken for a ride by some preditory lenders. You wouldn't believe what they could have gotten away with. It's hard to believe some of these loans are even legal...Yet I wouldn't want to make it anymore difficult for subprime borrowers to get financing then it already is. More protection from the wolves not more hurdles to jump over is what I'd like to see.Home ownership is such an important part of a healthy society. Link to post Share on other sites
BTO429 456 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 I think there should be one governing body over the CRA's that incorporate the FDCPA and FCRA laws and a few new laws. I think the banks and CRA's have things they way they want them. It should not be so hard for a consumer that has proof that a debt does not exist should have to go to so much trouble to get it corrected at the CRA'sThere should also be a court in each state and city where consumers can file suits against them that way everyone knows where to go. There are so many people out there that have suits that could be filed but have no idea where or how to go about doing it. Link to post Share on other sites
piionline 10 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 I think change is both good and needed. The current system can only regulate 1/2 of the banks, leaving the other 1/2 at an advantage... one of the many many reasons we are currently in the mess we are in.Regulate them all fairly.. Link to post Share on other sites
willingtocope 1,336 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 I haven't read the proposed regulations in depth, but...this sort of thing can come in two distinct flavors.1. Protect the consumer.2. Protect the shareholders.Given the current administration, which is more likely? Link to post Share on other sites
CleverCynic 1,029 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 Heck yeah! Screw those shareholders! Should make for a really fun economic challenge we can all participate in Link to post Share on other sites
admin 896 Posted March 31, 2008 Report Share Posted March 31, 2008 I really can't come up with a non-political way to respond to this, so I'll just leave it at...I'm from the government...I'm here to help...What was your bank account number again?LOL! Link to post Share on other sites
betam4x 28 Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 just a little FYI, the Federal Reserve is NOT a government agency. They are a private bank. They exist to turn a profit. Link to post Share on other sites
jq26 862 Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 The best choice would be to abolish the fed's powers altogether. They have the power to dilute the dollar on command, which they have done. They have no Constitutional authority to do so and it has been a disaster. Foreclosures and a slowing economy are a minor nuisance when compared to the wholesale inflation the FED liquidity pump has produced. Yes, they may "save" the value of the Americans savings by propping up asset prices & avoiding recession by dropping rates to 0%, but in real terms, your savings has been diminished in value substantially. It is the invisible thief in everyone's pocket that is crushing us without even a whimper (the Fed knows that most Americans are innumerate) . And so the plan is to expand their power in an effort to harmonize and avoid redundancy. How about we eliminate the fed and allow the currency markets and global markets set rates again? Then leave the regulation of banks to the gov't. Link to post Share on other sites
Houdino 293 Posted April 2, 2008 Report Share Posted April 2, 2008 I haven't read the proposed regulations in depth, but...this sort of thing can come in two distinct flavors.1. Protect the consumer.2. Protect the shareholders.Given the current administration, which is more likely?WTC, maybe you should go to the Fed for funding of your new project?... Link to post Share on other sites
willingtocope 1,336 Posted April 3, 2008 Report Share Posted April 3, 2008 WTC, maybe you should go to the Fed for funding of your new project?...I have applied for an SBC loan. Problem is, its a consumer oriented site. Not too much interest from the government in such things right now. Link to post Share on other sites
Houdino 293 Posted April 4, 2008 Report Share Posted April 4, 2008 I have applied for an SBC loan. Problem is, its a consumer oriented site. Not too much interest from the government in such things right now.When has the Governmet ever shown much interest in the consumer, except when they want our vote?Find yourself a good SBA packager that's been doing it awhile. They usually have a contact at the SBA that can fast track ya. I used to do a lot of SBA loans years back, but yea, I bet it's hard to get their attention right now.Willingtocope bin Laden on an SBA app might spark some attention... Link to post Share on other sites
Alexander 31 Posted April 8, 2008 Report Share Posted April 8, 2008 After the current economic troubles are over, something needs to be done to regulate the lending practices of the banks originating mortgages. It’s probably inevitable that congress will pass tougher regulations. The Glass-Steagall Act should never have been repealed.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_ActI like Bernanke (Helicopter Ben), what a cool name! But paulson is not really quite up to this tough a stretch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_BernankePaulson tried to make a new word last month.Downcline is a new word!According to Treasury Secretary henry paulson.http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=5958http://ja.reddit.com/r/business/info/6ciqr/comments/"Then I heard Henry Paulson say that "We're in a sharp DOWNCLINE. ..."In any case the Fed pulled of a nice save regarding Bear Stearns! http://seekingalpha.com/article/71420-markets-bounce-back-from-bear-stearns-panic-is-the-worst-over Link to post Share on other sites
