Proposed Water Taxi

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

You mean like when they implemented TARP? You deregulate everything until you're teetering on a systemic failure, then you try to implemented some kind of troubled asset relief program? Or you let AIG sell all the credit default swaps they want, then you try to figure out some way to nationalize them to avoid another Lehman day. Is that what you mean by government stepping in as a last resort?

You need to double check your history there. The claims of a systemic failure were, like the reports of Mark Twain's death, "greatly exaggerated." Now the failure to regulate the issuance of credit default swaps was a real problem, but it was NOT, as you seem to claim, the result of deregulation. In fact, credit default swaps and other debt derivative securities never were regulated prior to the 2008 credit collapse, but not for want of trying. In fact, President Bush's nominee as Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the CFTC, the Regulatory Agency with jurisdiction over derivative securities) issued proposed regulations which would have required public disclosure by issuers of CDSs and required the retention of loss reserves on such CDSs by issuers (i.e., treating them like insurance). But those regulations were killed in the Senate, and NOT by the Republicans. In fact, it was a gang of Democratic Senators, led by Charles Schumer, with help from Christopher Dodd, Dick Durbin, and then-Senator Barack Obama who led the charge to kill these regulations. And the experts which they relied upon to reach the conclusion that the regulations were "unnecessary and counterproductive" included Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner. You really ought to read the record of the hearings in the Senate on that issue; it's highly enlightening, and you'll learn things that you'll NEVER hear from CNN or the mainstream media. As to the real causes of that collapse, it was not so much a result of deregulation as it was a case of counterproductive political intervention. Until 2004, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refused to purchase or securitize subprime mortgages. They did not meet the underwriting standards of the GSEs. But this bothered folks like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, as well as the entire Black Congressional Caucus. Amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act were pushed through, which compelled Banks to make more subprime loans, and Barney Frank (a Democratic Representative from Massachusetts, for those who don't know), Christopher Dodd, and others heavily lobbied the GSEs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to relax underwriting standards to allow the purchase and securitization of subprime mortgages. Between 2004 and 2008, their share of MBSs (Mortgage Backed Securities) backed by subprime mortgages, most written with down payments of 5% or less (no down payment loans were common), went from nothing to more than 80% of that market. Without the huge growth in the origination of subprime mortgages driven by political interference in the market, the credit collapse of 2008 would have been little more than a small shiver.
 
It should be interesting to see how this sorts out. Keep in mind that the cruise lines also have a role in this. This isn't just some guy who wants to start a water taxi. The cruise lines must be frustrated with the taxis as well. Remember they have a lot of business partners in the downtown area that want more traffic and sales and thus more money for the cruise lines as well. If its free to the cruisers as rumored it will most definitely increase the foot traffic downtown. As they say, free is a very good price. There are a good number of older folks on those boats that don't dive, snorkel or have interest in water sports. You can bet that the cruise ships will market these shuttles to downtown and you can can also bet they will promote how safe it is and provide each person with map to all their "approved" retailers. Diamonds this and that will be mucho happy.
If the taxistas are smart and they lose this battle they should turn lemons so to speak and try to capture as much of the return traffic to the piers as they can. Set up a stand next to the pier and lower the rate and offer a prompt easy return rather than stand in line and wait for the next water taxi. Tired people who have been shopping for hours and or have had a number of drinks could be easily captured if the price and convenience is right.

Rich
 
You need to double check your history there. The claims of a systemic failure were, like the reports of Mark Twain's death, "greatly exaggerated." Now the failure to regulate the issuance of credit default swaps was a real problem, but it was NOT, as you seem to claim, the result of deregulation. In fact, credit default swaps and other debt derivative securities never were regulated prior to the 2008 credit collapse, but not for want of trying. In fact, President Bush's nominee as Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the CFTC, the Regulatory Agency with jurisdiction over derivative securities) issued proposed regulations which would have required public disclosure by issuers of CDSs and required the retention of loss reserves on such CDSs by issuers (i.e., treating them like insurance). But those regulations were killed in the Senate, and NOT by the Republicans. In fact, it was a gang of Democratic Senators, led by Charles Schumer, with help from Christopher Dodd, Dick Durbin, and then-Senator Barack Obama who led the charge to kill these regulations. And the experts which they relied upon to reach the conclusion that the regulations were "unnecessary and counterproductive" included Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner. You really ought to read the record of the hearings in the Senate on that issue; it's highly enlightening, and you'll learn things that you'll NEVER hear from CNN or the mainstream media. As to the real causes of that collapse, it was not so much a result of deregulation as it was a case of counterproductive political intervention. Until 2004, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refused to purchase or securitize subprime mortgages. They did not meet the underwriting standards of the GSEs. But this bothered folks like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, as well as the entire Black Congressional Caucus. Amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act were pushed through, which compelled Banks to make more subprime loans, and Barney Frank (a Democratic Representative from Massachusetts, for those who don't know), Christopher Dodd, and others heavily lobbied the GSEs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to relax underwriting standards to allow the purchase and securitization of subprime mortgages. Between 2004 and 2008, their share of MBSs (Mortgage Backed Securities) backed by subprime mortgages, most written with down payments of 5% or less (no down payment loans were common), went from nothing to more than 80% of that market. Without the huge growth in the origination of subprime mortgages driven by political interference in the market, the credit collapse of 2008 would have been little more than a small shiver.

Am I correct that Barney Frank ALSO was overcharged by a taxi when trying to get to WW for a cigar and CCP?
 
You need to double check your history there. The claims of a systemic failure were, like the reports of Mark Twain's death, "greatly exaggerated." Now the failure to regulate the issuance of credit default swaps was a real problem, but it was NOT, as you seem to claim, the result of deregulation. In fact, credit default swaps and other debt derivative securities never were regulated prior to the 2008 credit collapse, but not for want of trying. In fact, President Bush's nominee as Chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (the CFTC, the Regulatory Agency with jurisdiction over derivative securities) issued proposed regulations which would have required public disclosure by issuers of CDSs and required the retention of loss reserves on such CDSs by issuers (i.e., treating them like insurance). But those regulations were killed in the Senate, and NOT by the Republicans. In fact, it was a gang of Democratic Senators, led by Charles Schumer, with help from Christopher Dodd, Dick Durbin, and then-Senator Barack Obama who led the charge to kill these regulations. And the experts which they relied upon to reach the conclusion that the regulations were "unnecessary and counterproductive" included Ben Bernanke and Timothy Geithner. You really ought to read the record of the hearings in the Senate on that issue; it's highly enlightening, and you'll learn things that you'll NEVER hear from CNN or the mainstream media. As to the real causes of that collapse, it was not so much a result of deregulation as it was a case of counterproductive political intervention. Until 2004, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac refused to purchase or securitize subprime mortgages. They did not meet the underwriting standards of the GSEs. But this bothered folks like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, as well as the entire Black Congressional Caucus. Amendments to the Community Reinvestment Act were pushed through, which compelled Banks to make more subprime loans, and Barney Frank (a Democratic Representative from Massachusetts, for those who don't know), Christopher Dodd, and others heavily lobbied the GSEs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to relax underwriting standards to allow the purchase and securitization of subprime mortgages. Between 2004 and 2008, their share of MBSs (Mortgage Backed Securities) backed by subprime mortgages, most written with down payments of 5% or less (no down payment loans were common), went from nothing to more than 80% of that market. Without the huge growth in the origination of subprime mortgages driven by political interference in the market, the credit collapse of 2008 would have been little more than a small shiver.
On September 30, 2008 the fed funds rate was 1%, LIBOR was 6.88%. The financial system was frozen. No exaggeration.

The deregulation I was referring to was the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. That allowed the investment banks to create, and sell the collateralized debt obligations. If you can't sell the CDOs then you don't create a bubble in the MBSs market, and all that garbage never ends up on the banks balance sheets. That's why the banks stopped lending to each other, no one knew who was good and who was bad. Not even the taxi drivers.
 
On September 30, 2008 the fed funds rate was 1%, LIBOR was 6.88%. The financial system was frozen. No exaggeration.

The deregulation I was referring to was the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. That allowed the investment banks to create, and sell the collateralized debt obligations. If you can't sell the CDOs then you don't create a bubble in the MBSs market, and all that garbage never ends up on the banks balance sheets. That's why the banks stopped lending to each other, no one knew who was good and who was bad. Not even the taxi drivers.

First, the comparison of two interest rates, one of which (the Fed Funds rate) is completely artificial, being set unilaterally by the Federal Reserve Board, and the other being set by a flawed market system (which was manipulated by a number of banks) is hardly evidence, much less proof, that the financial system was frozen. The vast majority of banks, including money center banks, continued to accept deposits, honor checks, service loans, etc. Retail banking was almost completely untouched by the crisis. Yes, Lehman Brothers went into Bankruptcy, and the investment banking/security trading side of Lehman became a black hole. But Lehman Brothers Bank, which was not an eligible debtor under Title 11, the Bankruptcy Code, was quickly closed and efficiently liquidated by the FDIC, as receiver. The failure of Lehman Brothers, and the run on AIG triggered by its huge exposure on Credit Default Swaps, did spook other big money center banks, especially those with big investment banking arms like J.P. Morgan (which was forced into a merger with Chase) and Goldman Sachs, but the Federal Government's response was much less motivated by a desire to save the financial system than it was to save the friendly New York bankers who so generously contributed to their campaign coffers (and I am talking about BOTH Democratic and Republican politicians). If you check out the resumes of top movers and shakers in the U.S. Treasury Department going back at least 2 decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, you can't help but notice the incestuous relationship between Treasury and Goldman Sachs. There are quite a few notable economists and financial experts who make a compelling case that the credit squeeze would have been much less of a problem, and the resulting recession both less harmful and shorter lived, if the Government had just let AIG go through Bankruptcy and let the big investment banking operations of J.P.. Morgan and Goldman simply fail. Indeed, the implementation of TARP by the Federal Government, by making an end run around legal niceties like the absolute priority rule, that creditors come before equity holders, caused more distortions in the credit markets than the credit crunch caused by the collapse of the MBS market. The REAL problem for the Federal Government was the implicit guaranty it had always granted to securities issued by the GSEs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and THEIR problems were HUGE, but almost exclusively limited to the subprime mortgage pools, and those were completely a self-inflicted wound, triggered completely by political interference by Washington.

Your claim that this all started with the repeal of Glass-Steagall sounds a LOT like the vapid and baseless excuses blared by Democratic politicians, like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer, and others, who all played a vital role in forcing the GSEs into the business of securitizing subprime mortgage pools, and desperately sought to avoid any accountability. It's complete bull****, and if you knew anything about the history and causes of the financial meltdown, you'd know it.
 
Sorry, but I never read anything over 10 lines without a paragraph ¶ break.
 
First, the comparison of two interest rates, one of which (the Fed Funds rate) is completely artificial, being set unilaterally by the Federal Reserve Board, and the other being set by a flawed market system (which was manipulated by a number of banks) is hardly evidence, much less proof, that the financial system was frozen. The vast majority of banks, including money center banks, continued to accept deposits, honor checks, service loans, etc. Retail banking was almost completely untouched by the crisis. Yes, Lehman Brothers went into Bankruptcy, and the investment banking/security trading side of Lehman became a black hole. But Lehman Brothers Bank, which was not an eligible debtor under Title 11, the Bankruptcy Code, was quickly closed and efficiently liquidated by the FDIC, as receiver. The failure of Lehman Brothers, and the run on AIG triggered by its huge exposure on Credit Default Swaps, did spook other big money center banks, especially those with big investment banking arms like J.P. Morgan (which was forced into a merger with Chase) and Goldman Sachs, but the Federal Government's response was much less motivated by a desire to save the financial system than it was to save the friendly New York bankers who so generously contributed to their campaign coffers (and I am talking about BOTH Democratic and Republican politicians). If you check out the resumes of top movers and shakers in the U.S. Treasury Department going back at least 2 decades, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, you can't help but notice the incestuous relationship between Treasury and Goldman Sachs. There are quite a few notable economists and financial experts who make a compelling case that the credit squeeze would have been much less of a problem, and the resulting recession both less harmful and shorter lived, if the Government had just let AIG go through Bankruptcy and let the big investment banking operations of J.P.. Morgan and Goldman simply fail. Indeed, the implementation of TARP by the Federal Government, by making an end run around legal niceties like the absolute priority rule, that creditors come before equity holders, caused more distortions in the credit markets than the credit crunch caused by the collapse of the MBS market. The REAL problem for the Federal Government was the implicit guaranty it had always granted to securities issued by the GSEs, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, and THEIR problems were HUGE, but almost exclusively limited to the subprime mortgage pools, and those were completely a self-inflicted wound, triggered completely by political interference by Washington.

Your claim that this all started with the repeal of Glass-Steagall sounds a LOT like the vapid and baseless excuses blared by Democratic politicians, like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Charles Schumer, and others, who all played a vital role in forcing the GSEs into the business of securitizing subprime mortgage pools, and desperately sought to avoid any accountability. It's complete bull****, and if you knew anything about the history and causes of the financial meltdown, you'd know it.
If you let the Goldman Sachs fail, then who is the Ben Bernank going to buy the T-bills from?


[video=youtube;PTUY16CkS-k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k[/video]
 


A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

A reminder that this is the Cozumel forum. If you want to talk about politics, then the Pub is the place for that. Further off-topic discussion about U.S. politics will be moved there. Marg, Senior SB Moderator
 
So you are saying they are still the rich getting richer because they are rich now? Even though they started from nothing to become super rich, they don't count as people without money succeeding?

How about:

Guy Laliberté: Was worth nothing, now billions.
John Paul DeJoria same thing
Ursula Burns
That Starbucks guy
Oprah for Heaven sake....
I can keep going.

Or are you saying that if anyone works as hard as any of them, they are entitled to success?

Like if you get in as a Coz taxi guy, you should be guaranteed middle class for life?
Of course there are success stories of people starting with nothing and becoming filthy rich, but that is not at all what I am talking about. No matter how long you keep going it is still a microscopically short list compared to the rest of us. Bill Gates and the like are statistical outliers. Why do oil companies, which are the most profitable corporations the world has ever seen, enjoy huge subsidies of taxpayer money? Why is it that investment income is taxed at half the rate of income from working for a living? The answer to both questions is that them with the gold writes the rules.

A smaller fraction of the population controls more of the wealth in this country now than at any other time in history since the Great Depression. That's not a good thing. A huge portion of this nation's GNP now comes from financial transactions - making money by moving money around rather than from producing tangible goods. That's not a good thing. We have been financing personal wealth with public debt. That's not a good thing.

As to the taxi drivers on Cozumel, my only point was that they aren't doing anything different from many other unions.

---------- Post added December 1st, 2013 at 05:34 PM ----------



A ScubaBoard Staff Message...

A reminder that this is the Cozumel forum. If you want to talk about politics, then the Pub is the place for that. Further off-topic discussion about U.S. politics will be moved there. Marg, Senior SB Moderator
Sorry; I got my last comment in before I read yours. I will comply.
 
I wonder if there is any time savings using a water taxi to the ferry pier (assumption) versus using a taxi.

Using the water taxi seems better in that there would be no stop and go traffic, topes, stoplights, etc.

My opinion is that this could be a winning situation. If it reduces the need for taxis, take those drivers and man an inexpensive tourist bus system that traverses the main road along the west side (Melgar).
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/peregrine/

Back
Top Bottom