The Anti-Regulators are the Job Killers

[ILoveRegulation]

[quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.[/quote]

The article was posted yesterday and my account was created before that. Further, Bill Black is probably the foremost authority on effective banking regulation. So your theory about this being a troll is way off.

American needs effective, sensible regulation to have any hope of crawling out of this deep hole the anti-regulators have put us in.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.
2) The referenced article is simplistic. Much more simplistic than a professor of Economics and Law should come up with. He took a something which had a surprisingly simple cure and spun it into a justification for something much more far reaching. The author also did not distinguish between regulation and the enforcement of existing regulation. There is a big difference between having regulation and not enforcing it versus not having the regulation in the first place.

The cause of the whole financial collapse of cards is actually fairly simple. Risk was not correctly priced when it came to mortgage loans. Why?
1) You had Congress tampering with risk pricing through Freddie and Fannie.
2) Credit Default Swaps, which are really insurance policies, are not regulated as such. Credit Default Swaps are the sacred cows of the banking industry because they allow almost unlimited leverage.

You can also expand this to include:
3) Lack of basic financial knowledge on the part of most of the populace.
4) Reduction in concepts of personal responsibility on the part of a large portion of the populace. (Entitlement generation).[/quote]

5) Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.

6) Financial deregulation that enabled taxpayer-insured institutions (specifically “private” institutions with direct or indirect govt backing, that were able to gamble on their own behalf, using investors’/depositors’ money,) to create “financial innovations” that were specifically designed to misprice risk (yep, the derivatives you’ve mentioned, above), and leverage up, because they knew that the taxpayers would be forced to bail them out when the SHTF.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.
2) The referenced article is simplistic. Much more simplistic than a professor of Economics and Law should come up with. He took a something which had a surprisingly simple cure and spun it into a justification for something much more far reaching. The author also did not distinguish between regulation and the enforcement of existing regulation. There is a big difference between having regulation and not enforcing it versus not having the regulation in the first place.

The cause of the whole financial collapse of cards is actually fairly simple. Risk was not correctly priced when it came to mortgage loans. Why?
1) You had Congress tampering with risk pricing through Freddie and Fannie.
2) Credit Default Swaps, which are really insurance policies, are not regulated as such. Credit Default Swaps are the sacred cows of the banking industry because they allow almost unlimited leverage.

You can also expand this to include:
3) Lack of basic financial knowledge on the part of most of the populace.
4) Reduction in concepts of personal responsibility on the part of a large portion of the populace. (Entitlement generation).[/quote]

5) Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.

6) Financial deregulation that enabled taxpayer-insured institutions (specifically “private” institutions with direct or indirect govt backing, that were able to gamble on their own behalf, using investors’/depositors’ money,) to create “financial innovations” that were specifically designed to misprice risk (yep, the derivatives you’ve mentioned, above), and leverage up, because they knew that the taxpayers would be forced to bail them out when the SHTF.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.
2) The referenced article is simplistic. Much more simplistic than a professor of Economics and Law should come up with. He took a something which had a surprisingly simple cure and spun it into a justification for something much more far reaching. The author also did not distinguish between regulation and the enforcement of existing regulation. There is a big difference between having regulation and not enforcing it versus not having the regulation in the first place.

The cause of the whole financial collapse of cards is actually fairly simple. Risk was not correctly priced when it came to mortgage loans. Why?
1) You had Congress tampering with risk pricing through Freddie and Fannie.
2) Credit Default Swaps, which are really insurance policies, are not regulated as such. Credit Default Swaps are the sacred cows of the banking industry because they allow almost unlimited leverage.

You can also expand this to include:
3) Lack of basic financial knowledge on the part of most of the populace.
4) Reduction in concepts of personal responsibility on the part of a large portion of the populace. (Entitlement generation).[/quote]

5) Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.

6) Financial deregulation that enabled taxpayer-insured institutions (specifically “private” institutions with direct or indirect govt backing, that were able to gamble on their own behalf, using investors’/depositors’ money,) to create “financial innovations” that were specifically designed to misprice risk (yep, the derivatives you’ve mentioned, above), and leverage up, because they knew that the taxpayers would be forced to bail them out when the SHTF.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.
2) The referenced article is simplistic. Much more simplistic than a professor of Economics and Law should come up with. He took a something which had a surprisingly simple cure and spun it into a justification for something much more far reaching. The author also did not distinguish between regulation and the enforcement of existing regulation. There is a big difference between having regulation and not enforcing it versus not having the regulation in the first place.

The cause of the whole financial collapse of cards is actually fairly simple. Risk was not correctly priced when it came to mortgage loans. Why?
1) You had Congress tampering with risk pricing through Freddie and Fannie.
2) Credit Default Swaps, which are really insurance policies, are not regulated as such. Credit Default Swaps are the sacred cows of the banking industry because they allow almost unlimited leverage.

You can also expand this to include:
3) Lack of basic financial knowledge on the part of most of the populace.
4) Reduction in concepts of personal responsibility on the part of a large portion of the populace. (Entitlement generation).[/quote]

5) Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.

6) Financial deregulation that enabled taxpayer-insured institutions (specifically “private” institutions with direct or indirect govt backing, that were able to gamble on their own behalf, using investors’/depositors’ money,) to create “financial innovations” that were specifically designed to misprice risk (yep, the derivatives you’ve mentioned, above), and leverage up, because they knew that the taxpayers would be forced to bail them out when the SHTF.

[CA renter]

[quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.
2) The referenced article is simplistic. Much more simplistic than a professor of Economics and Law should come up with. He took a something which had a surprisingly simple cure and spun it into a justification for something much more far reaching. The author also did not distinguish between regulation and the enforcement of existing regulation. There is a big difference between having regulation and not enforcing it versus not having the regulation in the first place.

The cause of the whole financial collapse of cards is actually fairly simple. Risk was not correctly priced when it came to mortgage loans. Why?
1) You had Congress tampering with risk pricing through Freddie and Fannie.
2) Credit Default Swaps, which are really insurance policies, are not regulated as such. Credit Default Swaps are the sacred cows of the banking industry because they allow almost unlimited leverage.

You can also expand this to include:
3) Lack of basic financial knowledge on the part of most of the populace.
4) Reduction in concepts of personal responsibility on the part of a large portion of the populace. (Entitlement generation).[/quote]

5) Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.

6) Financial deregulation that enabled taxpayer-insured institutions (specifically “private” institutions with direct or indirect govt backing, that were able to gamble on their own behalf, using investors’/depositors’ money,) to create “financial innovations” that were specifically designed to misprice risk (yep, the derivatives you’ve mentioned, above), and leverage up, because they knew that the taxpayers would be forced to bail them out when the SHTF.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.[/quote]

The article was posted yesterday and my account was created before that. Further, Bill Black is probably the foremost authority on effective banking regulation. So your theory about this being a troll is way off.

American needs effective, sensible regulation to have any hope of crawling out of this deep hole the anti-regulators have put us in.[/quote]

It’s a hack piece. Any piece starting with ‘The new mantra of the Republican Party is the old mantra — regulation is a “job killer.” ‘ is a hack job.

The first posters are right. It’s overly simple. It blames the republican party for overriding regulation while ignoring that without the bubble employment over that same period probably would have been negative.

Finally, it ignores personal responsibility. The products are too complex. Sorry, don’t buy it. In the words of someone I know that lost their house, ‘I should have known I couldn’t really have that home for $1200 a month.’

In other words, they really knew, they just wanted to roll the dice and see if they hit it and got ‘the dream’ for free.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.[/quote]

The article was posted yesterday and my account was created before that. Further, Bill Black is probably the foremost authority on effective banking regulation. So your theory about this being a troll is way off.

American needs effective, sensible regulation to have any hope of crawling out of this deep hole the anti-regulators have put us in.[/quote]

It’s a hack piece. Any piece starting with ‘The new mantra of the Republican Party is the old mantra — regulation is a “job killer.” ‘ is a hack job.

The first posters are right. It’s overly simple. It blames the republican party for overriding regulation while ignoring that without the bubble employment over that same period probably would have been negative.

Finally, it ignores personal responsibility. The products are too complex. Sorry, don’t buy it. In the words of someone I know that lost their house, ‘I should have known I couldn’t really have that home for $1200 a month.’

In other words, they really knew, they just wanted to roll the dice and see if they hit it and got ‘the dream’ for free.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.[/quote]

The article was posted yesterday and my account was created before that. Further, Bill Black is probably the foremost authority on effective banking regulation. So your theory about this being a troll is way off.

American needs effective, sensible regulation to have any hope of crawling out of this deep hole the anti-regulators have put us in.[/quote]

It’s a hack piece. Any piece starting with ‘The new mantra of the Republican Party is the old mantra — regulation is a “job killer.” ‘ is a hack job.

The first posters are right. It’s overly simple. It blames the republican party for overriding regulation while ignoring that without the bubble employment over that same period probably would have been negative.

Finally, it ignores personal responsibility. The products are too complex. Sorry, don’t buy it. In the words of someone I know that lost their house, ‘I should have known I couldn’t really have that home for $1200 a month.’

In other words, they really knew, they just wanted to roll the dice and see if they hit it and got ‘the dream’ for free.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.[/quote]

The article was posted yesterday and my account was created before that. Further, Bill Black is probably the foremost authority on effective banking regulation. So your theory about this being a troll is way off.

American needs effective, sensible regulation to have any hope of crawling out of this deep hole the anti-regulators have put us in.[/quote]

It’s a hack piece. Any piece starting with ‘The new mantra of the Republican Party is the old mantra — regulation is a “job killer.” ‘ is a hack job.

The first posters are right. It’s overly simple. It blames the republican party for overriding regulation while ignoring that without the bubble employment over that same period probably would have been negative.

Finally, it ignores personal responsibility. The products are too complex. Sorry, don’t buy it. In the words of someone I know that lost their house, ‘I should have known I couldn’t really have that home for $1200 a month.’

In other words, they really knew, they just wanted to roll the dice and see if they hit it and got ‘the dream’ for free.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=ILoveRegulation][quote=ucodegen]1) I think the OP is trolling in this case. The account name was created just to post this.[/quote]

The article was posted yesterday and my account was created before that. Further, Bill Black is probably the foremost authority on effective banking regulation. So your theory about this being a troll is way off.

American needs effective, sensible regulation to have any hope of crawling out of this deep hole the anti-regulators have put us in.[/quote]

It’s a hack piece. Any piece starting with ‘The new mantra of the Republican Party is the old mantra — regulation is a “job killer.” ‘ is a hack job.

The first posters are right. It’s overly simple. It blames the republican party for overriding regulation while ignoring that without the bubble employment over that same period probably would have been negative.

Finally, it ignores personal responsibility. The products are too complex. Sorry, don’t buy it. In the words of someone I know that lost their house, ‘I should have known I couldn’t really have that home for $1200 a month.’

In other words, they really knew, they just wanted to roll the dice and see if they hit it and got ‘the dream’ for free.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter]Alan Greenspan lowered rates and pegged them there for far too long, forcing everyone further out on the risk curve in order to obtain a decent yield.[/quote]

The fed loans money in order to provide liquidity and help capital flow to the businesses that drive our economy.

The Fed doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care what kind of yield anyone gets in their savings account.

I know capitalism is a dirty word to some, but it is the the system that is most beneficial to all when the rules are in place so that risk and rewards are allocated properly.

Risk takers should be rewarded when they make the right choices: Invest in a new company that is successful and you should receive a nice return.

But there’s a reason it’s called “risk:” If investment doesn’t work out, you should lose.

I agree with the basic gist of the “trolling” OP:

The financial markets are still configured so that outcomes for the bankers and derivatives traders are limited to “I win” or “you lose.”

We still do not have a properly functioning capitalist system, but this problem is only peripherally related to the Fed. (There are plenty of other criticisms of the Fed, which may or may not be valid, but CAr’s point #5 simply doesn’t make sense. )

Point #6, however, is very much on the mark.

[Author]

Posts