Ok. Let me rephrase then.
Do you want to force the banks to trade derivatives in a regulated exchange; to do you want to continue to let them trade in secret?
I agree that we need sweeping change. But failing that, I would rather have some small changes in the right direction than no change at all.
Romantic revolutionaries are great. They generally bring about sweeping change. But along with that comes poverty. I’d rather be rich.[/quote]
Brian: You are too funny. Okay. Let me see if I have this straight: Teddy Roosevelt and FDR ushered in eras of great poverty? How about Eisenhower? Great poverty during his administration, too? So, using your definition, one has to be a “romantic revolutionary” to create significant change? You might want to rephrase that line of thinking, too.
As I’ve opined earlier, I’m all for better controls and more transparency regarding derivatives, including trading, accounting and oversight. I’d would also say that your “trading them in secret” assertion needs a little work, too. They’re not traded in secret, Brian. However, using the Office of Thrift Supervision as an overseer was not a good move and governing bodies/agencies like SEC and FASB clearly need to be a doing a better job.
Lastly, using strawman arguments and cheap rhetorical flourishes (“If the government enacts comprehensive change, we’ll ALL be in soup lines!!!”) destroys what little credibility you have left.
Try being intellectually honest with yourself and others. I think you’ll find it curiously liberating.
