nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

should there be such a thing as a financial malpractise suit?

clairefontaine

In nearly every profession, you can sue them for malpractise if they break healthy protocols in their profession.

Should the same accountability exist in the banking financial sector, so that you can sue your lender who supplied and unsustainable loan and broke protocols to do so?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If their job is to make a profit then they shouldn't have as much power as they have. Control over money supply should only be used in the public interest.

You've probably hit the nail on the head there as where the blame lies. The Irish Central Bank issued a warning to banks about lending practices as far back as 1998 with regards people using Credit Union loans as deposits on houses, the bubble was well on its way at that stage.

The other two big warnings were about lenders ditching the traditional 2 and a half times income test in favour of 25/30% of disposable income, and over 100% mortgages.

They may have warned about banks using rent a room income as earnings as well, not sure on that one.

The regulatory bodies had no teeth or lack of will to enforce its warnings, the financial institutions ignored the authorities (I'd put a lot of it down to group think and believing their own self publicity) and many borrowers took too many risks. There's be an element of contributory negligence on behalf of the borrower in any case taken against the lender, IMO.

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

Never attribute to malice that which can be put down to simple incompetence.

Since homeowners in negative equity were the very people that over-valued those homes (i.e. the buyers in the Supply/Demand equation) they must accept responsibility for their own actions.

One might then argue that non-homeowners might have a position from which to launch such a case but, following on from this, who would they be charging? The government? The property developers? The homeowners who bought during the bubble? A little pointless since all are now broke. Never mind that this group are hardly blameless themselves: as part of the electorate they kept voting in the very morons who failed to govern our country in any manner approaching sensible.

And here we end up with the sorry reality: we elected morons, who rather than seeking to reign in the effects cheap EU credit on the Irish property market built our tax system upon one-off property taxes (stamp duty etc.) and further inflated the market via mortgage interest relief, tax breaks, bonanza raises for public servants, removal of huge numbers from the tax net etc.

In response to this, we lapped up the houses and believing that trees could grow to the sky tried to keep flipping them to one another.

We live in a democracy. An unfortunate side-effect of which is that even if you didn't vote for these guys, you're stuck with the outcomes of their governance. As someone who never voted for them, never bought property and who's greatest benefit of the boom was easy availability of part-time employment during my college years it's galling to have to pay for the mistakes of others but it's part of democracy and my ideals of meritocracy don't seem to be popular enough to be pushed as a better system of governance.

So you are boiling it down to old fashioned stupidity?

Hmnnn....

I'd believe half so, but I also don't think we know enough of the facts to assume that ...yet.

And yes...people still get sued over incompetence. Malice doesn't have to come into it.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, let's just abolish private enterprise and become a centralized communist state - why do we need 'for profit' anything?

.

Well.... in reality we are on that road.

Bar freedom to travel being the glaring exception.

Sleepy

So, if stupid decisions leading to personal loss are something we can sue people for, what do you think my chances are at suing Bertie Ahern? the estate of Brian Lenihan? etc?

clairefontaine

Sleepy wrote: »

So, if stupid decisions leading to personal loss are something we can sue people for, what do you think my chances are at suing Bertie Ahern? the estate of Brian Lenihan? etc?

I would love to see you try. My hope for Ahern and McCreevy is to share council housing on the dole on sherrif street until their deaths.

Doctors get sued all the time or suspended from practise for stupid mistakes, even if there is no malice, even if it's down to a clerical error. Governments are not beyond lawsuits.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Well.... in reality we are on that road.

Not by a long shot. If we lived in a communist state you'd notice pretty quickly; the supermarket shelves would be empty for a start.

You Suck!

Quick question, but I seem to remember the banks placing themselves as advisor's with very public ad's suggesting that you drop in and see their "mortgage advisor".

Was this not a financial advisory service, in which they were more than a counter-party, and not just that, but they were acting outside their remit in a position where it was in their interest to offer advise that might counter best practice or ethical and legal standards.

Surely there's some liability on their part even if it is only false and misleading advertising at the least?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not by a long shot. If we lived in a communist state you'd notice pretty quickly; the supermarket shelves would be empty for a start.

In China they are still managing to eat and drink wine too, although they mix it with 7 up.

Cuba is white rice and beans.

I think Ireland is somewhere in the middle.

Beef or salmon?

The Corinthian

You Suck! wrote: »

Was this not a financial advisory service, in which they were more than a counter-party, and not just that, but they were acting outside their remit in a position where it was in their interest to offer advise that might counter best practice or ethical and legal standards.

Unethical certainly, but unfortunately not illegal, as it turns out.

clairefontaine wrote: »

In China they are still managing to eat and drink wine too, although they mix it with 7 up.

China has long been communist in name only.

Cuba is white rice and beans.

And little else.

clairefontaine

China is socially communist with mercantilism. And very very low wages.

Potatoeman

Financial advice is just advice and not a guarantee. You cant predict every possible outcome. It was the financial regulators job to protect people through implementing financial regulation. There is no point having regulation if its not enforced.

Potatoeman

KyussBishop

Sleepy wrote: »

Never attribute to malice that which can be put down to simple incompetence.

Since homeowners in negative equity were the very people that over-valued those homes (i.e. the buyers in the Supply/Demand equation) they must accept responsibility for their own actions.

One might then argue that non-homeowners might have a position from which to launch such a case but, following on from this, who would they be charging? The government? The property developers? The homeowners who bought during the bubble? A little pointless since all are now broke. Never mind that this group are hardly blameless themselves: as part of the electorate they kept voting in the very morons who failed to govern our country in any manner approaching sensible.

And here we end up with the sorry reality: we elected morons, who rather than seeking to reign in the effects cheap EU credit on the Irish property market built our tax system upon one-off property taxes (stamp duty etc.) and further inflated the market via mortgage interest relief, tax breaks, bonanza raises for public servants, removal of huge numbers from the tax net etc.

In response to this, we lapped up the houses and believing that trees could grow to the sky tried to keep flipping them to one another.

We live in a democracy. An unfortunate side-effect of which is that even if you didn't vote for these guys, you're stuck with the outcomes of their governance. As someone who never voted for them, never bought property and who's greatest benefit of the boom was easy availability of part-time employment during my college years it's galling to have to pay for the mistakes of others but it's part of democracy and my ideals of meritocracy don't seem to be popular enough to be pushed as a better system of governance.

It requires a lot of naivety to ignore all the indications of uninvestigated and unprosecuted fraud, and to give financial institutions the benefit of the doubt, when well renowned criminologists are warning about systemic fraud/corruption in our banking/finance system, and even whistleblowers threatened with prosecution if they expose fraud.

A lot of posters I notice, are very protective of banking/finance in this regard; there's no hesitation to blame government, and even the entire population (with really spurious reasoning), but banks/finance? Many posters try to paint that as out of bounds, even though banks, finance and business, are the areas most susceptible to and with most reason to commit massive fraud and breed corruption, as vehicles for political/economic power.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure, let's just abolish private enterprise and become a centralized communist state - why do we need 'for profit' anything?

As flawed as the system has turned out to be, it's still far better than anything that was present in the former Comecon nations.

You know that's an incredibly lazy argument, just spouting the 'Communist' label (it's about as accurate as labeling social welfare 'communist'); removing money creation from private control does not end for-profit enterprise, and governments can even provide debt-based money just like a private bank would, but without profits (generated from money created out of nothing) going to private use.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

You know that's an incredibly lazy argument, just spouting the 'Communist' label (it's about as accurate as labeling social welfare 'communist');

Since when is social welfare indicative of a command economy? Lazy rebuttal on your part, I think.

KyussBishop

That's exactly my point; social welfare is no more indicative of a planned economy or Communism, than debt-free-money or public banking.

Fully quoting the rest of my post/rebuttal (instead of just the part you selected for nitpicking):

KyussBishop wrote:

removing money creation from private control does not end for-profit enterprise, and governments can even provide debt-based money just like a private bank would, but without profits (generated from money created out of nothing) going to private use.

Debt-free money and public banking, coupled with full-reserve private banking, is not a planned economy, and is not 'Communist'; labeling something as Communist and using planned economies as a straw-man against it, is a really lazy form of argument, and is facially disingenuous.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

That's exactly my point; social welfare is no more indicative of a planned economy or Communism, than debt-free-money or public banking.

Strawman point, as I never mentioned social welfare; you did. I made my analogy based upon nationalization of the banking industry, as espoused by hatrickpatrick, which is indicative of a planned economy or Communism.

Fully quoting the rest of my post/rebuttal (instead of just the part you selected for nitpicking):

My analogy was directed to hatrickpatrick's view that we should "obliterate the financial sector entirely". The rest of your post was irrelevant to this, unless you wanted to construct another strawman that my analogy was somehow based upon what you wrote, after the fact, as opposed to what hatrickpatrick wrote.

Are you looking to pick a flame-war or just not paying attention?

Potatoeman

KyussBishop wrote: »

It requires
A lot of posters I notice, are very protece of banking/finance in this regard; there's no hesitation to blame government, and even the entire population (with really spurious reasoning), but banks/finance? Many posters try to paint t even though banks, finance and business, are the areas most susceptible to and with most reason to commit massive fraud and breed corruption, as vehicles for political/economic power.

The bank is responsible for losing their own money just as the individual is responsible for overborrowing and the regulator for not acting. People would not and did not share their profits.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

Strawman point, as I never mentioned social welfare; you did. I made my analogy based upon nationalization of the banking industry, as espoused by hatrickpatrick, which is indicative of a planned economy or Communism.

You don't need to nationalize the banking industry, just remove the ability to create money from private banks (so you can still have private banks, which would have to operate at full reserve); that was the primary point I saw in the post.

Again, nationalizing an industry is no more an indication of 'Communism' or a planned economy than social welfare, so it is your own strawman; you're being rather obtuse in trying to ignore my rather obvious point there.

If, tomorrow, we removed the ability to create money from private banks, and set in stage a gradual return to full reserve for them, and then opened a public bank with access to money creation, and made government capable of utilizing debt-free money; if we did all that, it would not be a Communist state, and it is dishonest straw-man to try and make out that it would be.

A planned economy is a really specific thing, which is nothing like that, and you're using it as a straw-man to derail or muddy debate, because you dislike the proposed reforms, but don't have any actual real, non-fallacious arguments against them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

My analogy was directed to hatrickpatrick's view that we should "obliterate the financial sector entirely". The rest of your post was irrelevant to this, unless you wanted to construct another strawman that my analogy was somehow based upon what you wrote, after the fact, as opposed to what hatrickpatrick wrote.

Are you looking to pick a flame-war or just not paying attention?

I didn't take that as a literally 'obliterate' i.e. completely destroy; here is the full post (highlighting the other half of the sentence you quote), not the selective context you pick out (you like doing that a lot - leaving the full context out so you can nitpick):

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^ This is a debate for another thread but I'll just say I disagree hugely with this. In my view, obliterate the financial sector entirely so that the only people with the power to create money or otherwise affect gigantic economic factors on a massive scale are those whose only motivation is providing a public service.
Why do we actually need for profit banking at all? What harm would be caused by switching to an entirely public service based model?

The primary point I take from that, is the bit I highlighted; taking money creation out of the hands of the private banking industry, which is what creates much of the debt that flows into the financial industry; thus it hyperbolically 'obliterates' the financial industry, but that is exaggeration not a literal destruction of it, as it would still exist in a less powerful form.

What I object to, is the offhand dismissal of that as 'Communism', when it is nothing of the sort; it is a lazy form of faux-argument that doesn't actually contest the original view in any way, just straw-mans it.

KyussBishop

Potatoeman wrote: »

The bank is responsible for losing their own money just as the individual is responsible for overborrowing and the regulator for not acting. People would not and did not share their profits.

The bank is responsible for that, yes, but also for pumping the bubble as well, due to overextending loans; it takes two parties for a homeowner to overborrow: the homeowner of course, in not being careful in their borrowing, and the bank, for not properly checking the borrowers ability to repay, and for not having sensible credit restrictions which avoid inflation of house prices.

It is well known economically, that making excessive debt available to consumers, causes house prices to be bid up; it is something that will happen, which is not in consumers control, thus it is only something that banks and government can control (which is where most of the responsibility lies in making sure they don't allow overextension of debts, and thus inflation of asset bubbles).

Short-term profits in the banks, made a lot of developers (through money spent into property) and bankers rich, with a lot of these people being able to secure their personal profits, such that they were not as affected when the bubble burst; these people did not have to care about the sustainability of the property bubble, or of the banks finances (or their shareholders), because their inflated wages and bonuses (and in some cases, other profits through fraud) were already paid out to them at the time.

If the banks become insolvent, and the economy takes a dive, they have no reason to then care, because they have already got their profits.

Potatoeman

KyussBishop wrote: »

The bank is responsible for that, yes, but also for pumping the bubble as well, due to overextending loans; it takes two parties for a homeowner to overborrow: the homeowner of course, in not being careful in their borrowing, and the bank, for not properly checking the borrowers ability to repay, and for not having sensible credit restrictions which avoid inflation of house prices.

It is well known economically, that making excessive debt available to consumers, causes house prices to be bid up; it is something that will happen, which is not in consumers control, thus it is only something that banks and government can control (which is where most of the responsibility lies in making sure they don't allow overextension of debts, and thus inflation of asset bubbles).

Short-term profits in the banks, made a lot of developers (through money spent into property) and bankers rich, with a lot of these people being able to secure their personal profits, such that they were not as affected when the bubble burst; these people did not have to care about the sustainability of the property bubble, or of the banks finances (or their shareholders), because their inflated wages and bonuses (and in some cases, other profits through fraud) were already paid out to them at the time.

If the banks become insolvent, and the economy takes a dive, they have no reason to then care, because they have already got their profits.

The bank will pay through defaults but its the regulators job to protect borrowers and enforce regulation. Incentivising short term profits is a problem in many businesses but is not malpractice just bad management.

Potatoeman

Mortgages are long term contracts so as long as the debt is serviced the loan is preforming on the banks books. People have to live somewhere so property prices should not matter to those that bought. They already paid more than someone that bought before now they are paying more than the person that buys after. Its the same mortgage they would be paying even if it was worth more. It only matters if they have to sell.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

You don't need to nationalize the banking industry, just remove the ability to create money from private banks (so you can still have private banks, which would have to operate at full reserve); that was the primary point I saw in the post.

What has this got to do with your attacking my analogy?

Again, nationalizing an industry is no more an indication of 'Communism' or a planned economy than social welfare, so it is your own strawman; you're being rather obtuse in trying to ignore my rather obvious point there.

For a start, you've gone now from arguing that you don't need to nationalize the banking industry to nationalizing an industry is no more an indication of 'Communism' or a planned economy than social welfare.

Secondly, you're now trying to sell the notion that nationalization - whereby the state controls the means of production - has nothing to do with a panned economy. The state needs to control the means of production so as to manage such an economy - no control, no execution of the plan. Nationalization is very much part of a planned economy - freshman economics, TBH.

I didn't take that as a literally 'obliterate' i.e. completely destroy; here is the full post (highlighting the other half of the sentence you quote), not the selective context you pick out (you like doing that a lot - leaving the full context out so you can nitpick):

I notice you didn't highlight where he questioned if "we actually need for profit banking at all". It's pretty clear that when he suggested obliterating banking, he meant taking the entire industry out of private enterprise (hence that line), certainly there's nowhere where he magically ascribed to your particular theories, as you state them; this is simply how you've decided to infer what he said. I interpreted it differently, and frankly applying Occam's razor, my interpretation how it far more likely comes across.

What I object to, is the offhand dismissal of that as 'Communism', when it is nothing of the sort; it is a lazy form of faux-argument that doesn't actually contest the original view in any way, just straw-mans it.

The only straw men here are yours. You're the one who decided, based upon your interpretation of what he posted, that my analogy is flawed.

Now you're now trying to sell the BS definition that nationalization - control of the means of production by the state - is irrelevant to a command economy.

On top of which you seem intent to drag me into a discussion about your theories, even though I have repeatedly said that I am only addressing your attack on my earlier analogy - is this deflection or just craving attention, on your part?

Either you don't understand economic theory too well, or you're using disingenuous tactics on purpose. Either way, please do not waste my time.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

What has this got to do with your attacking my analogy?

For a start, you've gone now from arguing that you don't need to nationalize the banking industry to nationalizing an industry is no more an indication of 'Communism' or a planned economy than social welfare.

Secondly, you're now trying to sell the notion that nationalization - whereby the state controls the means of production - has nothing to do with a panned economy. The state needs to control the means of production so as to manage such an economy - no control, no execution of the plan. Nationalization is very much part of a planned economy - freshman economics, TBH.

You're being very deliberately obtuse here; nationalizing an industry, on its own, does not make a planned economy, and the original post doesn't even require nationalization either.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I notice you didn't highlight where he questioned if "we actually need for profit banking at all". It's pretty clear that when he suggested obliterating banking, he meant taking the entire industry out of private enterprise (hence that line), certainly there's nowhere where he magically ascribed to your particular theories, as you state them; this is simply how you've decided to infer what he said. I interpreted it differently, and frankly applying Occam's razor, my interpretation how it far more likely comes across.

Again you take it out of context, deliberately:

hatrickpatrick wrote:

In my view, obliterate the financial sector entirely so that the only people with the power to create money or otherwise affect gigantic economic factors on a massive scale are those whose only motivation is providing a public service.

Nothing about obliterating the banking industry, and 'obliterate' where applied to the financial industry, makes much more sense as hyperbole, as explained in my previous post.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The only straw men here are yours. You're the one who decided, based upon your interpretation of what he posted, that my analogy is flawed.

Now you're now trying to sell the BS definition that nationalization - control of the means of production by the state - is irrelevant to a command economy.

On top of which you seem intent to drag me into a discussion about your theories, even though I have repeatedly said that I am only addressing your attack on my earlier analogy - is this deflection or just craving attention, on your part?

Either you don't understand economic theory too well, or you're using disingenuous tactics on purpose. Either way, please do not waste my time.

Again, you show your dishonest intent in argument, by saying I claimed nationalization is irrelevant to a planned economy, when what I said, is that nationalization of one industry (like banking) does not make a planned economy, because a planned economy is much more than just that, which you know full well, but will happily ignore where it suits your argument.

You can't engage honestly, so you try to twist words around, obtusely ignore the point of what is said, and apply your own straw-man interpretation to others views; the same kind of sophist nonsense that has previously been abundant on the Humanities forum, which is subtle enough to go undetected by most, yet has a very negative effect on debate.

I've seen much of that from many posters across Boards, so know it very well now, and will always contest that when I see it used to try and shut down opposing views with fallacious nonsense.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're being very deliberately obtuse here; nationalizing an industry, on its own, does not make a planned economy, and the original post doesn't even require nationalization either.

More BS; so "for profit banking" should be obliterated and money control be state run (as the state cares about the "public interest". Sounds like no more private banks and the only one's allowed are state owned.

Again you take it out of context, deliberately:

Sure and then you re-quote the statement leaving out all the bits you didn't like. Nice try.

Again, you show your dishonest intent in argument, by saying I claimed nationalization is irrelevant to a planned economy, when what I said, is that nationalization of one industry (like banking) does not make a planned economy, because a planned economy is much more than just that, which you know full well, but will happily ignore where it suits your argument.

What you wrote was this when attacking my analogy:

KyussBishop wrote: »

You know that's an incredibly lazy argument, just spouting the 'Communist' label (it's about as accurate as labeling social welfare 'communist'); removing money creation from private control does not end for-profit enterprise, and governments can even provide debt-based money just like a private bank would, but without profits (generated from money created out of nothing) going to private use.

To liken the link between communism to control of the means of production to its link to social welfare is claiming that it is incidental or irrelevant as many economic philosophies have social welfare at their core. How many have nationalization of private banking at their core?

Best of all what is particularly funny is how the emboldened bit actually contradicts what hatrickpatrick specifically seeks. Seems you jumped to conclusions without really reading what hatrickpatrick wrote.

You can't engage honestly, so you try to twist words around, obtusely ignore the point of what is said, and apply your own straw-man interpretation to others views; the same kind of sophist nonsense that has previously been abundant on the Humanities forum, which is subtle enough to go undetected by most, yet has a very negative effect on debate.

Ahh, finally you decide to get personal.

I did not engage you in this discussion, you engaged me. You are the one who decided, either because you didn't bother to read what hatrickpatrick wrote or because of some more deep rooted personal reason, to attack an analogy I made in relation to another poster.

Now I decided some time back I'd avoid engaging with you because I avoid precisely the kind of 'special' poster who has his revolutionary views and will drag you down some bottomless flame-war if you have the temerity to not recognise their greatness; hence this argument, where you cannot even admit that hatrickpatrick did not say what you presumed he said. Or that nationalization has been exclusively been linked to communist (and fascist) ideologies and in particular the model of command economies, making my comment to hatrickpatrick perfectly valid.

KyussBishop

The Corinthian wrote: »

More BS; so "for profit banking" should be obliterated and money control be state run (as the state cares about the "public interest". Sounds like no more private banks and the only one's allowed are state owned.

That's your own ignorance in assuming that is the only possible system when money creation is under state control; nothing stopping the existence of private banks under such a system, they would need to be at full reserve, and would not be able to profit from money created out of nothing, but on banking service charges, and excess money loaned out at interest and for investment banks, fees for acting as investors.

Again, it's your own ignorance and straw-man here, in assuming the only possible system that could be in place, with public control over money creation, is a 'Communist' one; absolutely transparent straw-man.

You chide me about knowledge of economic theory, and you haven't got the first clue about monetary reform.

Here is what you are replying to with this as well:

KyussBishop wrote:

You're being very deliberately obtuse here; nationalizing an industry, on its own, does not make a planned economy, and the original post doesn't even require nationalization either.

You don't even address my main point above, that nationalization of one industry, does not make a planned economy, thus the 'Communism' comparison is totally false.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sure and then you re-quote the statement leaving out all the bits you didn't like. Nice try.

You try to wriggle out of every contested point here, and its facially obvious; you said hatrickpatrick wanted to obliterate the banking industry, when that is wrong, it was obliteration of the financial industry.
Even then, given the context of the rest of his post, 'obliterate' is far more likely to be read hyperbolically not literally.

The Corinthian wrote: »

To liken the link between communism to control of the means of production to its link to social welfare is claiming that it is incidental or irrelevant as many economic philosophies have social welfare at their core. How many have nationalization of private banking at their core?

You're trying to engage in generalization/pigeonholing here; you don't need to link every policy to an ideology, and when an ideology is made up of multiple policies A, B, C, then adopting policy A on its own, does not mean you are suddenly following that ideology.

Again, a planned economy (and Communism) is a very specific thing, so when you adopt one policy that is shared by a planned economy (or Communism), it does not mean you are adopting a planned economy, or Communism; really simple.

If we did nationalize banking tomorrow (and this is not something that has to be mandated by hatrickpatrick's post), then that is not a planned economy. That is not Communism either.

The Corinthian wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

You know that's an incredibly lazy argument, just spouting the 'Communist' label (it's about as accurate as labeling social welfare 'communist'); removing money creation from private control does not end for-profit enterprise, and governments can even provide debt-based money just like a private bank would, but without profits (generated from money created out of nothing) going to private use.

Best of all what is particularly funny is how the emboldened bit actually contradicts what hatrickpatrick specifically seeks. Seems you jumped to conclusions without really reading what hatrickpatrick wrote.

If "the only people with the power to create money [] are those whose only motivation is providing a public service", then that precisely means money creation would be under control of government, who provide public services.

The Corinthian wrote: »

KyussBishop wrote:

You can't engage honestly, so you try to twist words around, obtusely ignore the point of what is said, and apply your own straw-man interpretation to others views; the same kind of sophist nonsense that has previously been abundant on the Humanities forum, which is subtle enough to go undetected by most, yet has a very negative effect on debate.

Ahh, finally you decide to get personal.

I did not engage you in this discussion, you engaged me. You are the one who decided, either because you didn't bother to read what hatrickpatrick wrote or because of some more deep rooted personal reason, to attack an analogy I made in relation to another poster.

Now I decided some time back I'd avoid engaging with you because I avoid precisely the kind of 'special' poster who has his revolutionary views and will drag you down some bottomless flame-war if you have the temerity to not recognise their greatness; hence this argument, where you cannot even admit that hatrickpatrick did not say what you presumed he said. Or that nationalization has been exclusively been linked to communist (and fascist) ideologies and in particular the model of command economies, making my comment to hatrickpatrick perfectly valid.

It's a pretty valid criticism of your methods of argument, which are quite all over the place in trying to deflect the simple basic criticism of your post: What hatrickpatrick advocated, was not a planned economy or Communism, and straw-manning it like that is a very lazy form of argument.

The thing I have issue with, is with that kind of fallacious argument, and the reams of sophist nonsense used to try and back it up; I've seen how that kind of nonsense, when done subtly enough, can be very effective in trying to railroad through others views in a debate, here and elsewhere, and I dislike that and usually won't leave it uncontested (regardless of the poster engaging in it).

[Deleted User]

MOD REMINDER:
Some posters are getting a bit "too personal" in their replies. Please focus on making meaningful contributions to the thread topic, and not each other.

The Corinthian

KyussBishop, I've already repeatedly pointed out that my comment was exclusively related to something said by a previous poster and not by your increasingly fanciful interpretations of what you feel he meant (not even said). I've repeatedly said I have no interest in engaging with you on your special economic theories.

You may disagree that nationalization of the banking system is indicative of a command economy, but there you go; you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how misguided it is - actually if you Google the words "nationalization banking system command economy" you'll likely find it disagrees with you.

However, you've done little other than fling insults at me at this stage for a few posts, and they're escalating. So why don't we leave it at that?

KyussBishop

Criticisms of your fallacious/disingenuous methods of argument, are not insults, they are criticisms. If you take offense at them, fine; that doesn't make them insults, they are well warranted criticism based directly on your posts as I reply to them.

You know it takes a lot more than nationalization of the banking system, to make a command/planned economy, and the way you are trying to spin this, is extremely obvious and is well representative of what I have been criticizing.

I mean straight away, one of the primary elements of a command/planned economy is government setting of prices, and potentially deciding the allocation of resources and labour; there is nothing like this proposed by anyone here, yet when you say what people propose is Communist or a planned/command economy, you are inherently saying they support this as well, when they are not (if you try to move the goalposts, and say you were not saying this, then that makes you bringing it up in the first place a totally irrelevant point).

If government nationalized the banks tomorrow, and continued to loan money as normal, then that does not mean control over prices, or over resources/labour, and in general it would be nothing like a command economy; that's a total false analogy and straw-man.

To try and move towards something that is (remotely) relevant to the thread:
Here is a good article, which touches upon the Gresham's Dynamic in economics, which is the core of most fraud in economics/finance, founded on 'informational asymmetry' i.e. lets say a mortgage broker who knows his bank is overinflating the housing market, and that it is going to collapse (thus the mortgage/house is overvalued), where the buyer does not; even cases where the borrower knows he is unable to (or has no intention of) fully repaying, and the creditor does not:
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2013/04/what-if-george-akerlof-had-written-about-lethal-lemons.html

Having regulations which properly criminalize this kind of fraud, most of which goes back to informational asymmetries, I think would be key to enabling proper prosecution for financial malpractice; when people promote deregulation, much of the time that means rolling back (or preventing new) laws which have previously criminalized fraud like this.

It's also a good wider point, that before there can be financial malpractice suits, you likely need robust regulations (another word simply for 'laws') in the first place, in order to actually enable such prosecutions.

clairefontaine

Well I'm utterly bewildered by the zebra crossing argument you are both having, but between the jigs and the reels, I would think that nationalised banking would have a communist aspect or value to it, even if it is not indicative of a communist regime in totality.

I would also be uncomfortable with certain banks having specialised relationships with the EU via their nationalisation, it seems inherintly anti-competitive to me, but that is a hunch and I am hardly an expert.

Anyway, it also seems to me that prices on the Dublin southside are still in a bubble because they seem phenomenally expensive for what they have on offer. The prices just don't ring true.