John McCain speech on health care reform - Oct 11 2007

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I should point out that this opposition to all any regulation extends to McCain's economic policies as well. In a speech he made a couple of weeks ago - in relation to the current credit crunch / sub-prime mortgage crisis - McCain indicated that he wouldn't impose any sort of regulatory measures on the financial services industry: essentially ignoring the issue of irresponsible lending practices.

A rather strange attitude to take - IMO.

Well, that's what separates the liberals from the conservatives as conservatives don't believe it's incumbent on themselves to regulate, into minutia, every industry based on short term and anomalous problems. The government could never have foreseen this problem, and instituting regulation in hindsight does nothing but add cost to home ownership in the future in compliance measures that won’t ever be needed again.

I can guarantee you that these kinds of sub-prime loans will never be marketed again as the markets themselves, particularly those banks and brokerages that manage Hedge Funds, won't invest in bundled mortgages without guarantees of quality.

The problem corrects itself and government interference isn't necessary.

The implicit assumption there is that corporate businesses operate in ethical ways. What we've seen in the financial services and also in healthcare insurance is that this just isn't the case.

[kaydee457 13]

I should point out that this opposition to all any regulation extends to McCain's economic policies as well. In a speech he made a couple of weeks ago - in relation to the current credit crunch / sub-prime mortgage crisis - McCain indicated that he wouldn't impose any sort of regulatory measures on the financial services industry: essentially ignoring the issue of irresponsible lending practices.

A rather strange attitude to take - IMO.

Well, that's what separates the liberals from the conservatives as conservatives don't believe it's incumbent on themselves to regulate, into minutia, every industry based on short term and anomalous problems. The government could never have foreseen this problem, and instituting regulation in hindsight does nothing but add cost to home ownership in the future in compliance measures that won’t ever be needed again.

I can guarantee you that these kinds of sub-prime loans will never be marketed again as the markets themselves, particularly those banks and brokerages that manage Hedge Funds, won't invest in bundled mortgages without guarantees of quality.

The problem corrects itself and government interference isn't necessary.

The implicit assumption there is that corporate businesses operate in ethical ways. What we've seen in the financial services and also in healthcare insurance is that this just isn't the case.

No, the implicit assumption is that they learn when they get burned and they will demand assurances of the quality of the product from those that bundle mortgages before investing.

Wouldn't you?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I should point out that this opposition to all any regulation extends to McCain's economic policies as well. In a speech he made a couple of weeks ago - in relation to the current credit crunch / sub-prime mortgage crisis - McCain indicated that he wouldn't impose any sort of regulatory measures on the financial services industry: essentially ignoring the issue of irresponsible lending practices.

A rather strange attitude to take - IMO.

Well, that's what separates the liberals from the conservatives as conservatives don't believe it's incumbent on themselves to regulate, into minutia, every industry based on short term and anomalous problems. The government could never have foreseen this problem, and instituting regulation in hindsight does nothing but add cost to home ownership in the future in compliance measures that won’t ever be needed again.

I can guarantee you that these kinds of sub-prime loans will never be marketed again as the markets themselves, particularly those banks and brokerages that manage Hedge Funds, won't invest in bundled mortgages without guarantees of quality.

The problem corrects itself and government interference isn't necessary.

The implicit assumption there is that corporate businesses operate in ethical ways. What we've seen in the financial services and also in healthcare insurance is that this just isn't the case.

No, the implicit assumption is that they learn when they get burned and they will demand assurances of the quality of the product from those that bundle mortgages before investing.

Wouldn't you?

Do you think this is working in relation to health insurance?

I'm not even sure it works in relation to financial services. Perhaps you can explain why, for example most high street banks charge fees for using another bank's ATM, for having a checking account or for replacement checks? We had those fees in the UK - they were abolished because they were deemed completely unjustifiable.

[kaydee457 13]

I should point out that this opposition to all any regulation extends to McCain's economic policies as well. In a speech he made a couple of weeks ago - in relation to the current credit crunch / sub-prime mortgage crisis - McCain indicated that he wouldn't impose any sort of regulatory measures on the financial services industry: essentially ignoring the issue of irresponsible lending practices.

A rather strange attitude to take - IMO.

Well, that's what separates the liberals from the conservatives as conservatives don't believe it's incumbent on themselves to regulate, into minutia, every industry based on short term and anomalous problems. The government could never have foreseen this problem, and instituting regulation in hindsight does nothing but add cost to home ownership in the future in compliance measures that won’t ever be needed again.

I can guarantee you that these kinds of sub-prime loans will never be marketed again as the markets themselves, particularly those banks and brokerages that manage Hedge Funds, won't invest in bundled mortgages without guarantees of quality.

The problem corrects itself and government interference isn't necessary.

The implicit assumption there is that corporate businesses operate in ethical ways. What we've seen in the financial services and also in healthcare insurance is that this just isn't the case.

No, the implicit assumption is that they learn when they get burned and they will demand assurances of the quality of the product from those that bundle mortgages before investing.

Wouldn't you?

Do you think this is working in relation to health insurance?

I'm not even sure it works in relation to financial services. Perhaps you can explain why, for example most high street banks charge fees for using another bank's ATM, for having a checking account or for replacement checks? We had those fees in the UK - they were abolished because they were deemed completely unjustifiable.

What was the topic at hand? I'm confused.

Anyway, we're not talking about your neighbor bank here, we're talking about investment banks and brokerages on a scale a bit larger than those involved in day to day transactions with the public.

The investment banks will demand that assurances and quality be incorporated into those products bundled for their purchase, else they won't buy them!

Top down......Those that can't demonstrate the practices that assure some level of security will be stuck holding the mortgages as likely they won't be able to sell them.

Edited April 17, 2008 by kaydee457