The Regulatory Agencies

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

• Oversees:  Commodity trading firms and futures exchanges
• Status:  Independent
• Year created:  1974
• Leadership:  5 commissioners
• Rules:  No more than three may belong to the same political party
• Funding:  Congress
• Employees:  450
  

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC)

• Oversees:  State-chartered banks that aren't members of the Fed system
• Status:  Independent agency
• Year create:  1933
• Leadership:  Five directors, including Comptroller of the Currency and head of the OTS
• Rules:  No more than three may belogn to the same political party.  Chairman also serves on board of Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
• Funding:  Its own insurance premiums
• Employees:  4,700

FEDERAL RESERVE

• Oversees:  Bank holding companies and state-chartered banks that are members of the Fed system
• Status:  Part-public, part-private central banking system
• Year created:  1913
• Leadership:  Seven-Member Board of Governors
• Rules:  Chairman and vice chairman sever four-year terms.  Only one member may be selected from any one of the 12 Federal Reserve districts.
• Funding:  Interest on government securities, foreign-currency investments, loans to depository institutions and fees for services.
• Employees:  1,800

OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY

• Oversees:  National banks
• Status:  Bureau of the Treasury Department
• Year created: 1863
• Leadership: Comptroller
• Rules: Comptroller also serves as a director of FDIC and FFIEC
• Funding: Assessments on national banks and investment income, mostly from Treasury securities
• Employees:  3,100

OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION

• Oversees: Thrift holding companies and thrifts
• Status:  Office within the Treasury Department
• Year created: 1989
• Leadership: Director
• Rules: Director also serves on board of FDIC and FFIEC
• Funding: Assessments to thrift industry
• Employees: 1,000

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC)

• Oversees: Brokerage firms and stock exchanges; sets disclosure rules and enforces securities laws
• Status: Independent agency
• Year created: 133-34
• Leadership: Five commissioners
• Rules: No more than three may belong to the same political party
• Funding: Congress and money from assessments
• Employees:  3,500

QUESTIONS

(1)  Did deregulation contribute to the financial crisis?

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 cemented the Federal Reserve as the top regulator for giant firms such as Citigroup, Inc. and Bank of America Corp, but it did not give any regulator powers over investment banks such as Bear Sterns Cos. or Lehman Brothers or insurance giants such as American International Group Inc. 

Some say the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was a good thing because it allowed investment banks, now reorganized as federal bank holding companies, to borrow from the Fed to stay afloat.

Chairman Barney Frank of the House Financial Services committee has said that the crisis was less deregulation and more "non-regulation," meaning non-enforcement of rules on the books.

(2)  What is on the horizon for regulation?

1. A bill that would make the Federal Reserve a super-regulator with even more powers.
2. More thorough overhaul of regulation including enhanced consumer-protection and the consolidation of some agencies such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. 

(3)  Will hedge funds and credit-default swaps face government oversight?

Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve Chairman, claimed that regulating hedge funds would do more harm than good.  The idea is that large, sophisticated institutions should be able to use hedge funds to offset the risk in other investments to spreadk risk more broadly in the financial system.  Access to hedge funds and swaps is also limited to wealth and more sophisticated investors. 

AIG, however, required the American taxpayer get bailed-out because of unregulted business units sold credit-default swaps.

(a)  What does the hedge fund lobby say?

Well, they are fine with the Federal Reserve regulating it, so long as YOU (THE PUBLIC) does not get any information from the result of such regulation.  Any disclosure made to the Federal Reserve will be non-public.  The SEC, on the other hand, wants access to the book s hedge funds and possibly even more disclosure rules.

(4)  Will Congress over-regulate?

It depends on where you sit.  Are you a wealthy hedge fund investor?  You probably do not care if the Federal Reserve "regulates" you and your books are NON-PUBLIC.  Who cares?  How can they care?  They, the public and Congress, do not even know anything.

Banking has fought off attempts to beef up rules.  They are highly influential, and with simple phone calls --yes, simple phone calls-- can have "watch dogs" called-off their backs.

Hell no they do not need more regulation.  IN fact the government has NO business regulating any business.. that isn't their job.  You only posted part of the problem .. like where is the community of reinvestment act and the alterations made by clinton on your post as that directly applies to this as well?

I do not think that our federal  government should have any say in what our businesses do, their job is uphold and protect the constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and domestic ...not meddle in business affairs. ALL business laws should be left up to the indvidual states, and let the people who live in the state determine what needs to be applied to their state.  The only thing the federal government is supposed to do is protect our rights .. yup that is it. 

Originally posted by deviliscious

Hell no they do not need more regulation.  IN fact the government has NO business regulating any business.. that isn't their job.  You only posted part of the problem .. like where is the community of reinvestment act and the alterations made by clinton on your post as that directly applies to this as well?

I do not think that our federal  government should have any say in what our businesses do, their job is uphold and protect the constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and domestic ...not meddle in business affairs. ALL business laws should be left up to the indvidual states, and let the people who live in the state determine what needs to be applied to their state.  The only thing the federal government is supposed to do is protect our rights .. yup that is it. 

 

Watching the elderly in this country lose their life savings clearly means your full of it devil.

I think hedge funds should be regulated, at least in the sense that funds become more transparent so individual traders can see what they're up to or what's the real deal.  They throw their money around to manipulate stock prices, engage in "pump and dump" schemes, spread malicious rumors to short-sell, and are frequently investigated for acquiring illegal/insider information.  They also sometimes end up being ponzi schemes, even if it was never their original intent to take the money and run. 

And we're supposed to look the other way because only billionaires and mega millionaires get to play?  Alan Greenspan is a chump for saying leave the hedge funds alone.  Wall street's bitch.

Originally posted by qazyman

Originally posted by deviliscious

Hell no they do not need more regulation.  IN fact the government has NO business regulating any business.. that isn't their job.  You only posted part of the problem .. like where is the community of reinvestment act and the alterations made by clinton on your post as that directly applies to this as well?

I do not think that our federal  government should have any say in what our businesses do, their job is uphold and protect the constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and domestic ...not meddle in business affairs. ALL business laws should be left up to the indvidual states, and let the people who live in the state determine what needs to be applied to their state.  The only thing the federal government is supposed to do is protect our rights .. yup that is it. 

 

 

Watching the elderly in this country lose their life savings clearly means your full of it devil.

The  Federal government caused this mess, not the other way around .  Why would you think that the feds would be able to take better care of the people than those who live there with them? I am not saying we abandon our people I am saying that each state should  make the decision on how to handle these things, not the FEDS.  I have not seen an adequate solution to our baby boomer crisis by the FEds, maybe they should hand this over to the states.  As it is states already do have their own regulation,  why would this need to be at federal level rather than state level? I see no reason for that. They have messed it up plenty already.
 

US Government Immorality Will Lead to Bankruptcy
www.youtube.com/watch

Originally posted by deviliscious

Hell no they do not need more regulation.  IN fact the government has NO business regulating any business.. that isn't their job.  You only posted part of the problem .. like where is the community of reinvestment act and the alterations made by clinton on your post as that directly applies to this as well?

I do not think that our federal  government should have any say in what our businesses do, their job is uphold and protect the constitution of the United states against all enemies foreign and domestic ...not meddle in business affairs. ALL business laws should be left up to the indvidual states, and let the people who live in the state determine what needs to be applied to their state.  The only thing the federal government is supposed to do is protect our rights .. yup that is it. 

 

Yea I completely agree I mean really that is not the goverments job to regulate private businesses. All the regulations is part of the reason businesses leave the US and move somewhere else. Which then in turn leads to the loss of jobs and look where we are now!

Look at all that regulation, and lifting one or two is what caused the crisis?

Far more likely that this soup of regulation is what caused the problems. No other industry is as regulated, is as in bed with government as the creation of money and credit.

Governments have been wrecking their economies through this control since before the Roman Empire. In fact, it's the FIRST regulation, and the first way government wrecks an economy.

It's time to separate bank from state. The creation of money and the formation of credit is too important to leave to powerlusting central planners, in whose interest whenever they are out of power it is to make thngs go badly, and whenever they are in power it is in their interest to create bubbles of growth.

Originally posted by Fishermage

It's time to separate bank from state.

Might as well wish you could separate 'the stank' from shit you silly right winger.  The more I read your posts, the more it seems to me you have no use for goverment at all and would be happier living in anarchy.  I suggest joining a militia and posting on these boards less.

Why Bother? they will just change the rules in 50 years again...

Leaving the regulations of business to businesses doesn't work. Never has worked, never will work.

Self regulation is stupid due to the fact that capitalist societies are full of corruption and the whole idea of making money and the advantages having money give leads people to be corrupt.

I'm not saying it should neccessarily be "government" who regulate businesses but it certainly SHOULDN'T be the businesses themselves. Thats part of the cause of the problems we face now.

You need an independant body with no axe to grind to regulate the financial services.

Leaving the regulations of business to businesses doesn't work. Never has worked, never will work.

Self regulation is stupid due to the fact that capitalist societies are full of corruption and the whole idea of making money and the advantages having money give leads people to be corrupt.

I'm not saying it should neccessarily be "government" who regulate businesses but it certainly SHOULDN'T be the businesses themselves. Thats part of the cause of the problems we face now.

You need an independant body with no axe to grind to regulate the financial services.

Originally posted by tayschrenn

Leaving the regulations of business to businesses doesn't work. Never has worked, never will work.

Self regulation is stupid due to the fact that capitalist societies are full of corruption and the whole idea of making money and the advantages having money give leads people to be corrupt.

I'm not saying it should neccessarily be "government" who regulate businesses but it certainly SHOULDN'T be the businesses themselves. Thats part of the cause of the problems we face now.

You need an independant body with no axe to grind to regulate the financial services.

The difference in Capitalism.. which we have not enjoyed in the US for a long time, certainly not in my lifetime ... Is that the people have control over the businesses not the government. People can choose how large a business gets by simply buying or not buying their products.  Boycotts ARE the American way, not government control.  Buying power is more effective than government control ever could be.

I think regulations do have a practicality.  I am not for over-regulation, but necessary regulation.  The problem I saw with the Bank melt-down as a failure to enforce already existing regulations.  Adding more would not stop the problem since an adequate amount was already in place.

I think the worst thing done to elderly retirement savings is having the value of the dollar controlled by the fed rather then a tangible asset like precious metals.  By making $200 worth 1oz. of gold instead, and not being able to print money without first having an adaquete amount of gold would have saved many elderly's retirement money.  Instead of them having to preplan for inflation by investment savings, they could saved a set amount for how much money they will need per year until they hit social security age.

Originally posted by goneglockin

Originally posted by Fishermage

It's time to separate bank from state.

 

Might as well wish you could separate 'the stank' from shit you silly right winger.  The more I read your posts, the more it seems to me you have no use for goverment at all and would be happier living in anarchy.  I suggest joining a militia and posting on these boards less.

Obviously you haven't read all that many of my posts. I believe that government is best used for what it is best at -- protecting our right to self ownership, and all derivations thereof.

Obviously you need to read more about government and what our founders wrote about it. Obviously you need to learn about how libertarian thought has developed over the centuries.

I believe in the only kind of government that works -- a limited constitutional Republic.  I believe in the only economic system that works -- a market economy.

I'm not even a right winger, another sign that you haven't read many of my posts.

Originally posted by Cleffy

I think regulations do have a practicality.  I am not for over-regulation, but necessary regulation.  The problem I saw with the Bank melt-down as a failure to enforce already existing regulations.  Adding more would not stop the problem since an adequate amount was already in place.

I think the worst thing done to elderly retirement savings is having the value of the dollar controlled by the fed rather then a tangible asset like precious metals.  By making $200 worth 1oz. of gold instead, and not being able to print money without first having an adaquete amount of gold would have saved many elderly's retirement money.  Instead of them having to preplan for inflation by investment savings, they could saved a set amount for how much money they will need per year until they hit social security age.

The most recent boom-bust, as well nearly all our booms and busts over the past century or so, were due to monetary policy and had little to do with regulation as such. Regulation merely guided WHERE the bubble would occurr. Such is the case here. The only thing that needed to be regulated here is government -- the Fed (created and chartered by government, even though it is called "private" through a semantic myth).

Returning to a gold standard (we left the gold standard through REGULATION, not DE-Regulation) would be a good choice. Some controls on how the Fed creates money might work also, although of course not as well, since like our banking regulations, you need uncorruptible, perfect people for them to actually work.

This is one of the many reasons such things are guaranteed to fail, and always do.

Originally posted by tayschrenn

Leaving the regulations of business to businesses doesn't work. Never has worked, never will work.

Self regulation is stupid due to the fact that capitalist societies are full of corruption and the whole idea of making money and the advantages having money give leads people to be corrupt.

I'm not saying it should neccessarily be "government" who regulate businesses but it certainly SHOULDN'T be the businesses themselves. Thats part of the cause of the problems we face now.

You need an independant body with no axe to grind to regulate the financial services.

This is why regulation won't work. There are no independent bodies with no axes to grind to regulate. Such a thing is impossible. This is complicated stuff, and in order to undersstand enough to regulate, you had to have been IN the industry to understand enough to regulate it. This necessitates the revolving door we see today. Government regulation by its very nature guarantees this corruption.

Originally posted by Fishermage

I'm not even a right winger, another sign that you haven't read many of my posts.

I read them, not send them off to a think-tank for analysis for prophetic meaning.  And since I read them- if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck- it's probably a freakin' duck. 

Banks and lending institutions are in many senses the foundation or the bedrock of the security people need to feel comfortable in a modern economy.

That alone should warrant more regulation. 

Originally posted by goneglockin

Originally posted by Fishermage

I'm not even a right winger, another sign that you haven't read many of my posts.

 

I read them, not send them off to a think-tank for analysis for prophetic meaning.  And since I read them- if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck- it's probably a freakin' duck. 

Okay, so being in favor of gay marriage (even being willing to perform the ceremony), being pro-choice, being pro-drug legalization, being for more open borders, being against all obscenity laws, calling for a repeal of the Patriot Act, against intelligent design or creationism being taught in non-religious schools, against prayer in schools, against all death penalties, want the drinking age lowered to 18 (or not have one at all), in favor of flag burning being legal -- that all constitutes being a right-winger to you?

I agree with conservatives on some things (where they are on the side of individual liberty, such as economics and 2nd amendment issues) and I agree with liberals on others (where they are on the side of individual liberty, such as many social issues and 4th amendment issues). I am what is known as a classical liberal.

I am open about this, and everyone who reads my posts knows this if they take the time to learn. No think tank needed, simple reading and realizing there is more to politics than roght/left wing thinking. Some of us are beyond your whole spectrum.