Price gouging, or capitalism?

[R.H. Lee]

Here2Learn:What is seen and what is unseen. What are we losing out on die to these regualtions? Maybe better services at lower cost or maybe a different type of money storage scheme that would be better overall than what we have now

Government regulation of banking and insurance has been beneficial for these industries and their customers alike because it has produced a stable, predictable system. When you deposit money in any bank in this country you don't give it a second thought. You know it is safe. When you purchase a life insurance policy you are assured that your family will recieve the proceeds in the event of your death. It's essentially a worry free system.

Without oversight, you can bet banks and insurance companies would engage in all sorts of corner cutting when it came to reserves on loans and underwriting. They would because their only concern is the current bottom line. Banks are required to maintain a minimum reserve of cash on deposit as a ratio to outstanding loans. In turn you, as a depositor, are assured that your money is safe; it hasn't been loaned out on some shaky deal to a borrower who will likely default. Without oversight, banks would loan out 100% of their depositor's money to high risk borrowers at the highest interest rates possible; after all it isn't their money. The result would be chaos.

Insurance companies likewise, although they are state regulated. I once heard that to qualify as an insurance company in Texas, all you needed was $25,000 in assets, and that could be in the form of a Cadillac!! I think things have changed, and for good reason.

We have come a long way from the days of the Robbers Barons and J.P. Morgan, when the average American earned only $500/yr. Government regulation historically has been in response to abuses by industry, who have proven that when unrestrained, know no limits to exploitation.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

So I'm sure this has already been said somewhere. but

What about the .75$ or more that your all paying in taxes?????

Exxon sells for what $50 a barrel??

So .50 cents a gallon. right add $.10 or so for refining (probably +/- .05)

you get $.60 per gallon to make.. Again probably lower than that...

Add 100% mark up you have $1.20..

Then you have Taxes..

Most of the price you pay for gas is to the welfare queens, Eviro-Wackoloons,
Tax subsidized society for the advancement of illegal immigrants and terrorists, the society of rich white people that hate themselves, the national Hate Whity society E.L.F, the buy the son of a U.N. ambassidor a Mercedes fund. Not to mention the $15,000 a month retirement for each and every former senater and Representative in congress.



You wanna arrest someone for profiteering perhaps you should re-consider your target.

Just my .02 ($.56 after taxes)

 

[R.H. Lee]

Lord, have mercy. No, those taxes on gas fund the roads and bridges you drive on. Unless you're driving a hovercraft and don't need no steenking roads.

 

[AF_INT1N0]

if the taxes funded the roads and nothing else than the roads would look like the ones in Germany(ie. awesome)

Most of the roads here. (Nebraska) suck! This is despite being in the top ten states for gasoline taxes..

some taxes pay for the roads..granted

However if your in the Senate and you have a pet project with no funding you have two choices.
1. steal from Social Security, (why I will never see Social security.)
2. Increase taxes on Gasoline and "luxuries".

Both happen regularly...

 

[Warren]

Government regulation of banking and insurance has been beneficial for these industries and their customers alike because it has produced a stable, predictable system. When you deposit money in any bank in this country you don't give it a second thought. You know it is safe. When you purchase a life insurance policy you are assured that your family will recieve the proceeds in the event of your death. It's essentially a worry free system.

Without oversight, you can bet banks and insurance companies would engage in all sorts of corner cutting when it came to reserves on loans and underwriting. They would because their only concern is the current bottom line. Banks are required to maintain a minimum reserve of cash on deposit as a ratio to outstanding loans. In turn you, as a depositor, are assured that your money is safe; it hasn't been loaned out on some shaky deal to a borrower who will likely default. Without oversight, banks would loan out 100% of their depositor's money to high risk borrowers at the highest interest rates possible; after all it isn't their money. The result would be chaos.

You assume that. Is it your view there is no chance of more rational behavior by bankers? That is a firm that looks at the formenting chaos and decides to do something different? Maybe by attracting customers by not harming them?

I rember back when the Jack-in-the-Box e. coli tragedy happened a fellow called into the Rush Limbaughumbug show and made the startling claim that it was in JitB's best interest to serve poisoned meat, and that without gov oversight they and other restaurants would just continue to poison their customers willy-nilly.

Absurd, no?

Im my line of work I am not regulated at all. Do I harm my customers? No. By the logic of Rush's caller it would somehow benefit me to punch people in the face during each transaction.

We have come a long way from the days of the Robbers Barons and J.P. Morgan, when the average American earned only $500/yr. Government regulation historically has been in response to abuses by industry, who have proven that when unrestrained, know no limits to exploitation.

Robber Barons? Please.... and proven....right.


Not everyone considers the great early capitalists to have been evil exploiters. I mean since they managed, while making huge profits, to bring much needed things like cheap fuel, food and transportation to the masses.