> "Texas is a market leader in fostering a pro-business atmosphere,”
> and business-friendly regulatory agenda.
So whats the deal here? Something about taxes? Or looser regulation/oversight?
> and business-friendly regulatory agenda.
So whats the deal here? Something about taxes? Or looser regulation/oversight?
Oh, your taxes will go up - someone will have to foot the bill.
Capitalism interprets regulation as damage and routes around it, as someone might have said.
How long will it manifest, 4, 8, 10, 20 years? The deregulated mortgage started in the 1980s and it took almost 25 years to break everything.
Most likely it will hit foreign the hardest and set off a global recession for those countries that bought in.
Will there be any that are smarter and either buy in early and sell early or go to another country for a stable investment? Those would be the ones to most easily weather the storm.
Guessing USA retirement investments will take a big hit. So more homeless.
Also foresee politics pushing companies to invest in the Texas stock market for tax subsidies and to gain government contracts and benefits. Could be bigger than 2008.
This is what real capitalism does. It has a built-in incentive to support a state that enables firms to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.
Whether or not that outcome is an inevitable consequence of the ideology is an entirely different discussion.
Touché.
So another S&L?
> At the end of 1988, 2,969 thrifts remained active. This was over three hundred less than in 1985 and over a thousand less than in 1980. These failures were highly geographically concentrated: a third of the failures from 1985 forward occurred in just three states: California, Texas, and Florida;[74] Texas accounted for 40 percent of thrift failures in the worst year of the crisis, 1988.[53]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Intens...
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sl-crisis.asp
*What Could Regulators Have Done Better to Solve the Savings and Loan Crisis?*
"Regulators failed to stop savings and loans from using federally insured deposits to make risky loans. Reagan also cut the budget of the regulatory staff at the FHLBB, removing its ability to investigate high-risk loans. Certain states also passed laws that allowed savings and loans to invest in speculative real estate."
Remains to be see if the current administration's views on oversight and regulation allow a repeat.
>An Office of the Comptroller of the Currency study in 1988 indicated fraud in 11 percent of failures between 1979–87; a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation study in 25 percent of failures in 1989; a Resolution Trust Corporation study in 1992 found fraud in 33 percent of its cases; and a 1994 General Accounting Office study reported 26 percent of banks that failed in 1990–91 had issues with fraud.
10%-25% fraud in the industry. Yay, can't wait until I have to judge whether my bank is outright fraudulent again.
Seems like a purposefully-constructed straw-man to me, really.
> This will be the golden age of white collar crime, cons, and machinations.
Your interpretation of their comment is far-fetched, and not a useful entry into a conversation about their point.
I think it is a good point to enter the conversation because it should shift to which regulations are being removed and their consequence. Rather than the notion of less regulation being inherently catastrophic.
Another answer would be yes, NYSE is already full of scams, why would we go further?
The position I am pointing it is a little weird without more information is yes NYSE is good but I can’t support the Texas version.
Perhaps you didn't intend it but your original reply reads as though your "question" is actually an assertion about his position and that you disagree with it. AKA a strawman.
If they don't like NYSE then there isn't much conversation to be had here. Texas is just another exchange, which they already take issue with.
If they like NYSE, but not this, I'm interested to learn why. That's why I asked.
Can you give some examples of how they used some power recently, that they didn't use before?
Are you suggesting that the current head of state did not commit the crimes he was found guilty of by a jury?
Edit: Nasdaq not NYSE
Texas just has less legal tools and employees ready. It's been evident for years that companies want to avoid scrutiny and make investigations harder. Moving to Texas is essentially "security through obscurity" where they're just hiding from legal apparatus. Similarly, there is a direct correlation between the number of IRS employees and the unpaid taxes found in audits of big companies.
Much of the regulatory power they're wielding is "benign" to the average American - more strict details on reporting and disclosures, ethics, etc. They require more years and documentation of income, strict accounting standards, etc. The big thing is that it brings most companies into NY state jurisdiction for unrelated-to-exchanges things that impact finances. Over time, they've just grown and fine-tuned the "industry" of maintaining these laws. Just like actual wall street has grown.
The NY vs Texas jurisdictions are relevant because different state governments (Texas) compete on being "business friendly" and take a very lax approach to actually enforcing and investigating laws, as a matter of policy. A big and familiar - but political - example is trump's court cases on (allegedly) defrauding banks by lying about his properties worth - cases like that happen all the time (to less politically involved people too) in NY but not in Texas.
As some specific examples, The laws on exchanges in NY are more strict, so most crypto exchanges can't operate there. There are also state taxes on stock transactions.
Many people have written a lot about DEI and ESG requirements in financial disclosures, which is controversial, but they're not actually state laws of NY. They came from the SEC.
The only strong political example of "newly wielding power" would be the growth in attacks against oil and gas companies in NY by claiming that they lied in their financial disclosures related to risks of their product (ie. climate change).
It will come down to a situation where connections matter when enforcement is considered.