 old_dawg"I Know Noting..."
join:2001-09-22
Westminster, MD | Sure Just have the nanny state get deeper into our lives. Maybe an IQ test should go along with that service contract?. Wait, we can't even get that as a requirement for a driver's license, parenthood... 
--
"Our network engineers are aware of the problem..." |
|
|
|
 GuspazGuspazPremium,MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC
kudos:16 | Insanely high bills are not always the fault of the user. Take my account with Fido, for example. I've got an iPhone data plan, 6GB for $30 with tethering. If I go over my cap, I pay $30/GB extra. If I leave the country and enter the US, I pay $6,292/GB extra.
Fine, you might say, just don't use your data plan while in the US. Easy.
Not so easy when you consider that the phone will simply pick the strongest signal it can find, regardless of what country it's in. Since the vast majority of the Canadian population lives within something like 150KM of the US border, you can imagine that there are occasions where your phone will decide that a US tower has a better signal than a Canadian tower, and boom; you're paying US roaming rates for usage in Canada!
I've only seen this myself when I've driven down the 401 (the major highway between Montreal and Toronto, Canada's two largest cities). At a few points, my phone jumped to US networks.
Luckily, the iPhone has an option to disable international data roaming, so I don't need to worry about that, although I could still get billed the ridiculous voice roaming rate if I was making (or in the middle of) a call. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
1 edit | reply to old_dawg
said by old_dawg:Just have the nanny state get deeper into our lives. Maybe an IQ test should go along with that service contract?. ... Would you abolish the SEC and FDIC? Just let companies and banks operate "full of surprises?" Leaving it to investors and depositors to figure it out?
Capitalism (markets) work best when there is transparency and predictability. That's why we have zoning laws and building codes.
Requiring informed consent when using a wireless provider is just more of the same.
If you wouldn't get rid of the above-mentioned "nanny-state" interventions in the "market," it's not clear why requiring overage limits goes too far.
If you would get rid of the above-mentioned (things we take for granted as part of ordered liberty and civil society), then you're part of the irrelevant fringe. Your views can be judged accordingly.
Mark |
|
| reply to old_dawg
Regulation is a necessary evil when big corps don't play fair. The carriers need to have better mechanisms before overcharges get unreasonably high, such as texting when going $20 over or stopping data after a particular limit with permission to continue with the overcharge. There are many ways to prevent multi-$K bills yet they don't make the effort. If the carriers don't manage this themselves within reason, they are asking for regulation. |
|
approval from:
doc69 
Bubba Rock
| reply to old_dawg
For those, who again promote anarchism = no rules and regulations. Please show me one country where this has actually worked for the well being of the people. We need regulations, that set the framework for fair competition. Otherwise, there is just anarchy. |
|
| reply to old_dawg
said by old_dawg:Just have the nanny state get deeper into our lives. Maybe an IQ test should go along with that service contract?. Wait, we can't even get that as a requirement for a driver's license, parenthood... How about some old fashioned truth in advertising and eliminating such things as the word "unlimited" in ads for mobile broadband. People have been duped long enough.
--
Capturing the images of Colorado
»jdebordphoto.com |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
 ·DIRECTV
 ·Optimum Online
·Cablevision
| reply to old_dawg
So you'd rather not be warned of a super high cell phone bill?
This idea seems like common sense, and given how cell phone regularly use data to check mail, etc without the users interaction this is a good thing. Tech people probably don't need this, but the average user doesn't know what a megabyte is.
This isn't the government watching us, it's regulation of big corporations for fair consumer protections and if they are going to take away my unlimited 3G, as an iPhone customer I actually do that truly unlimited 3G, they should help the customer manage overages. |
|
cghh
join:2001-01-15
Milpitas, CA
1 edit | reply to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:Not so easy when you consider that the phone will simply pick the strongest signal it can find, regardless of what country it's in. Since the vast majority of the Canadian population lives within something like 150KM of the US border, you can imagine that there are occasions where your phone will decide that a US tower has a better signal than a Canadian tower, and boom; you're paying US roaming rates for usage in Canada! Doesn't the GSM protocol have the notion of priorities among candidate systems? With CDMA, the Preferred Roaming List prioritizes various systems, with the phone hanging onto a higher priority system until it is essentially unusable, no matter if a lower priority system has a much stronger signal. |
|
 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | reply to old_dawg
said by old_dawg:Just have the nanny state get deeper into our lives. Maybe an IQ test should go along with that service contract?. Wait, we can't even get that as a requirement for a driver's license, parenthood... There's another way to look at this, from the perspective of the cell phone company. Many times when users get bills like these they get negotiated down to something much less than what the original is, and the company has to eat the costs.
By putting in a set maximum spending limit (the way other forms of credit already operate) the phone company avoids taking a massive loss from a customer who simply won't pay a multi-thousand dollar bill.
--
"Net Neutrality" zealots - the people you can thank for your capped Internet service. |
|
| reply to old_dawg
Sure just let the corporations who are greedy or folks like Madoff take all your savings away or price gouge you.
In t his age as much as I hate the Goverment you are going to have to have agancies and laws to protect the little folk like me because in the business world not all of them are decent folk.
And then if they are bad who will speak for you ???
So in other words do not blame us consumers for added laws maybe you ought to look closer at the companies instead. |
|
 SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | reply to old_dawg
Calling gov't protections a "nanny state" is just thinly veiled corporatist venting. I suppose you'll call it "Socialism" (ohhhh!) next... |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
"Capitalism (markets) work best when there is transparency and predictability. That's why we have zoning laws and building codes."
That was one of Goldman Sach's arguments too. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by airtouch25:"Capitalism (markets) work best when there is transparency and predictability. That's why we have zoning laws and building codes." That was one of Goldman Sach's arguments too. Actually, Goldman (derivatives) flourished because transparency was defeated in 1998. We were told "markets get it right."
See PBS, Frontline: The Warning. There's a link in the top-right corner to watch the hour-long program. It's very interesting. Especially at the end, watching an emaciated Greenspan (a libertarian) saying the worldview (markets get it right) which guided his life was proven wrong.
Mark |
|
| reply to Thomas9
said by Thomas9 :
For those, who again promote anarchism = no rules and regulations. Please show me one country where this has actually worked for the well being of the people. We need regulations, that set the framework for fair competition. Otherwise, there is just anarchy.
But dude, you haven't heard how totally awesome Somalia is these days?!
I mean warlords and pirates and shit man, you can't get much more free market than that! |
|
BWX
join:2006-10-10
Elmira, NY | Socialism works great, just ask Greece.
But really- customers sometimes deserve what they get (in a phone bill) and sometimes companies are to blame by straight out lying to technologically unsophisticated people, or misleading them to the point of being liable themselves. The laws should have absolutely no problem figuring it out. When both parties are slightly dissatisfied, that's usually close to the right answer. |
|
1 edit | said by BWX:Socialism works great, just ask Greece. But really- customers sometimes deserve what they get (in a phone bill) and sometimes companies are to blame by straight out lying to technologically unsophisticated people, or misleading them to the point of being liable themselves. The laws should have absolutely no problem figuring it out. When both parties are slightly dissatisfied, that's usually close to the right answer. The situation in Greece has zero to do with socialism. That's just ludicrous. You've got the wrong "ism" here. It's pure insanity that socialism is the current bogeyman instead of say corporatism.
There was (and is) a global economic crisis. This was not brought about by socialism that's for sure. It was brought about by years of deregulation right here at home (let the financial industry regulate itself!) and here we have plenty folks wishing for the status quo to continue.
Amazing!! |
|
BWX
join:2006-10-10
Elmira, NY | said by Bubba Rock:said by BWX:Socialism works great, just ask Greece. But really- customers sometimes deserve what they get (in a phone bill) and sometimes companies are to blame by straight out lying to technologically unsophisticated people, or misleading them to the point of being liable themselves. The laws should have absolutely no problem figuring it out. When both parties are slightly dissatisfied, that's usually close to the right answer. The situation in Greece has zero to do with socialism. That's just ludicrous. You've got the wrong "ism" here. It's pure insanity that socialism is the current bogeyman instead of say corporatism. There was (and is) a global economic crisis. This was not brought about by socialism that's for sure. It was brought about by years of deregulation right here at home (let the financial industry regulate itself!) and here we have plenty folks wishing for the status quo to continue. Amazing!! unfunded cradle to grave entitlements have EVERYTHING to do with it.. and Freddy and Fanny was and IS out of control. That is a quasi government entity that started this entire financial meltdown. It was government giving out loans for McMansions that would never get paid back.. and government requiring other financial institutions to take the same stupid risks.. It was all for "social justice". Look where that got us, and look where socialism got Greece. You are blind if you think big evil corporations are at fault- it is big evil (and corrupt) GOVERNMENT that is the wasteful parasite- and the problem here and in Greece.
WAKE UP! |
|
| waste of my time in this thread. such rabid and fanatical ignorance will surely be the undoing of this country. |
|
| said by Bubba Rock:waste of my time in this thread. such rabid and fanatical ignorance will surely be the undoing of this country. no response, says it all.... |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to BWX
said by BWX:Freddy and Fanny was and IS out of control. That is a quasi government entity that started this entire financial meltdown. It was government giving out loans for McMansions ... That's a gross over-simplification. To the extent that it's false.
There were many factors contributing to the meltdown:
1. Community Reinvesment Act (CRA) legislative and regulatory changes of
... - 1992, requiring Freddie/Fannie to devote a percentage of their loans to "affordable housing."
... - 1995, requiring banks to lend money to so-called "red-lined" areas (changing the anti-redlining standard from proving loans were at least considered on their merits, not just their geographic location, to a standard which required a percentage of loans to actually be made by geographic location regardless of merits).
... - 1999, repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which required banks to keep casino-like investment services separate from their commercial deposit business (guaranteed by the government's FDIC).
2. President Bush's "Ownership Society" policy contributed significantly to the problem of lowered lending requirements.
Although originating in 1995, and increased in 1999 under President Clinton[1], sub-prime lending actually exploded under President Bush:
said by "Wash. Post" :In 2001 [a year before President Bush's election], HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime loans. "Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern," an agency report said. But by 2004 [two years into the Bush Presidency], when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure rates also were rising.That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C. Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged behind even the private market and "must do more." For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still, their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market. "That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a disaster." In 2003, [fannie/freddie] bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20 percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more heavily on the securities to meet goals. --» www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···6_2.html I think that's an important point because those who toss the socialism word-bomb often suggest democratic socialism -- while ignoring republican socialism.
For example, President Bush didn't stop HUD. And, that happened at a time when Republicans controlled the House, Senate and Presidency for 4 years! (Jan. 2003 to Jan. 2007.) At the height of the maddness!. Just 18 months before the meltdown began!
Not only that, but Republicans controlled Congress (both the House and Senate) for 6 years between Jan. 1995 to Jan. 2001.
In other words, Republicans were the Congress who gave us the two problematic CRA revisions ('95 and '99). They were also the Congress of '99 which barred states from regulating Credit Default Swaps (regulation which had been on the books since the 1907 Panic). And, they controlled the agenda (committees, bringing bills to the floor) for an astonishing 10 years during the 12 years that we are told today (by Republicans) should have been obvious to everyone a problem was brewing. Not a single revision brought to the floor for a vote!
At the signing of the '99 CRA deregulation Greenspan, McCain and Gramm looked like they were peeing down their legs.[2]
3. Greenspan held interest rates too low, too long.
This had the effect of inducing investors into riskier investments in search of better returns. As we will see, that was fuel for the the growing derivatives market (casino).
4. Bernanke raised interest rates too high, too fast.
This was like a short squeeze on all the sub-prime borrowers (who had essentially bet on low interest rates).
If anyone should have known the huge dependence on low interest rates, Bernanke should have. (He should have also understood the dependence of the peripheral derivative market. But, since it was unregulated, he couldn't know.).
5. The "carry trade."
Japan's "lost decade" created nearly free money. Investors could borrow the yen at almost 0% interest, and invest it in another currency.
Like point #3 above, this was a toxic combination for the growing derivatives market which produced exceptional yield with no apparent risk (which unregulated derivatives hid very well).
6. The growth of unregulated (over-the-counter) derivatives.
A cross between naked shorting (betting against a stock you don't actually own, which is banned by the SEC without heavy margin requirements) and insurance (which is regulated by states to require the insurer maintain adequate capital reserves to pay claims in a worst-case scenario.).
It was this market of exotic financial vehicles which was unregulated and completely opaque. The chairperson of the CFTC recommended they be regulated in 1997. But, she was beat down by Greenspan (an ideologicial libertarian), Rubin (former chairman of Goldman Sachs) and Summers (now an economic adviser to President Obama).[3]
As a result of non-regulation:
According to the British Bankers Association, the CDS market expanded from just $180 billion in 1996 to a stunning $20 trillion a decade later. That’s a 111-fold expansion in this esoteric, opaque market. And by all accounts, it continued to grow LAST year [2007] as well — to a whopping $57.9 TRILLION, according to the Bank for International Settlements. --» moneyandmarkets.com/Issues.aspx?···CDS-2279
This led to greater demand for more mortgages which Wall St. banks could package and sell on the market as securitized investment vehicles:
said by "Barr testimony" :Despite the fact that CRA appears to have increased bank and thrift lending in low- and moderate-income communities, such institutions are not the only ones operating in these areas. In fact, with new and lower-cost sources of funding available from the secondary market through securitization, and with advances in financial technology, subprime lending exploded in the late 1990s, reaching over $600 billion and 20% of all originations by 2005. More than half of subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies not subject to comprehensive federal supervision; another 30 percent of such originations were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts, which are not subject to routine examination or supervision, and the remaining 20 percent were made by banks and thrifts. Although reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret the evidence, my own judgment is that the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight. --» financialservices.house.gov/hear···1308.pdf The worst part of these derivatives were Credit Default Swaps (CDS). These allowed owners of toxic assets to "sell" risk like insurance.
However, unlike insurance, anyone could sell risk -- even when they had no interest in the insured item. It was like me buying car insurance on your car when I had no financial stake in your car.
And, anyone could sell CDS contracts (insurance) without regulation of their capital reserves (ability to pay claims). Nor any visibility of an underwriter's exposure to any particular risk. Nor, their exposure to any counterparty (an entity selling risk, who's eggs may be in one overweighted basket).
That made it more like a "side bet" than insurance.
However, CDSs were used like insurance. For example, they were used by banks to reduce the risk associated with assets held by the bank, and thereby reduce the bank's capital reserve requirements.
For example:
This excerpt from a recent Minyanville column pretty much sums up the problem: "A hedge fund trader once told me that they insured/sold 50 times their capital in CDS with the counterparty being a very large, well-known investment bank. "When I asked him if he was worried about that kind of leverage, he responded by saying that is the bank’s problem because if he is wrong about writing all these insurance policies (in the form of CDS), they can only lose their investment capital in the fund." --» www.moneyandmarkets.com/i-have-s···ds-25793
No doubt that a financial meltdown can change the calculus of social institutions, making them greater burdens to maintain. And, Europe has had a history of greater dependence on social institutions.
But, it is incorrect to suggest that social institutions were the cause of the meltdown (and continuing fallout).
CRA and "ownership-society" social engineering were strong factors. As were poor monetary policy, and non-enforcement of extant regulations.
But, (IMO) the leading component was unregulated, opaque derivatives which were at the heart of obscuring risk. Turning sub-prime mortgages into AAA-rated bonds sold on the open market.
Nobody held a gun to the head of private investors who were literally pouring cash into mortgaged-backed securities. They saw high yields with low risk due to the opaque gimmicks which were performed in the background to structure sub-prime mortgages into AAA-rated bonds. They created the demand for Wall St. to keep buying more and more mortgages regardless of their quality. The securitization process (derivatives) would eliminate the "quality problem."
Strongly recommend watching the Frontline piece footnoted below. The following are also very good for background:
•60 Minutes: The Bet that Blew Up Wall Street, Wall Street's Shadow Market
• 60 Minutes: Credit Default Swaps (A follow-up to the previous show 3 weeks earlier).
• Credit and Credibility (The ratings agencies contribution to the obliteration of risk through derivatives)
• A recent article on Credit Default Swaps.
Mark
[1] said by "Wash. Post" :In 1995, President Bill Clinton's HUD agreed to let Fannie and Freddie get affordable-housing credit for buying subprime securities that included loans to low-income borrowers. The idea was that subprime lending benefited many borrowers who did not qualify for conventional loans. HUD expected that Freddie and Fannie would impose their high lending standards on subprime lenders. --» www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co···626.html said by "NY Times" :In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae, the nation's largest home mortgage underwriter, relaxed credit requirements on the loans it would purchase from other banks and lenders, hoping that easing these restrictions would result in increased loan availability for minority and low-income buyers. Putting pressure on the GSE's (Government Sponsored Enterprise) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Clinton administration looked to increase their sub-prime portfolios, including the Department of Housing and Urban Development expressing its interest in the GSE's maintaining a 50% portion of their portfolios in loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. --» en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_l···oponents [2] Photo of Greenspan, McCain and Gramm uncontrollably giddy over the '99 CRA reform.
[3] PBS Frontline: The Warning. An outstanding one-hour documentary of attempts to regulate the derivatives market, just months before the '97 crash (which was largely a result of derivative speculation on Russian bonds by LTCM.).
There is a link on the upper-right corner of the page to watch the program. |
|
