London Banker: Why I oppose financial stability

[Winehole23]

Financial Stability became a topic in the late 1990s, at a time of peak laxity in international financial supervision. The same minds which promoted the Financial Stability Forum (now the Financial Stability Board (http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/)) also crafted the deeply flawed and destructive Basel II.

I have never understood why Financial Stability should be an objective of public policy. Desirable, measurable outcomes of benefit to the public should be the objectives of public policy. Stability is a silly and impractical goal in a capitalist economy. Success and failure of competitive firms are the basis for economic progress, capital allocation and market pricing. Capitalism requires recognition of failure, and failure always causes economic loss and some instability as past assumptions are re-examined and re-assessed more objectively in light of current painful reality.

The management of failure can contribute to better future outcomes, but only if the costs of failure are born by those who caused the failure and not by those innocent of it. The 1990s policies promoted by regulators during the Great Moderation aimed to forestall failure by disguising it, delaying it, and subsidising it. Since the collapse of securitisation and inter-bank credit markets in 2008, governments have been too willing to socialise the costs of failure (by then magnified with leverage) to taxpayers through serial bailouts.http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/2011/12/why-i-oppose-financial-stability.html?m=1

[Winehole23]

I oppose Financial Stability because it is the most misleading banner for a set of bad, harmful and expensive public policies protecting bad executive management and preventing recognition of realistic market outcomes.

[boutons_deux]

"recognition of realistic market outcomes."

such as WF, BoA, Citi, AIG, JPMorgan Chase, etc, etc. ALL GOING BANKRUPT when they really are bankrupt, rather than being Fed/taxpayer bailed out.

How's that for "realistic"?

[Winehole23]

that's realistic

[cheguevara]

:lol a guy who worships money putting in his 2 cents

[coyotes_geek]

"free market" boutons makes an appearance....

[boutons_deux]

I'm asking the banker if he likes that kind of "realistic", not you assholes.

[Winehole23]

read the article. seems pretty clear to me.

[coyotes_geek]

IIRC, boutons was pro-bailout. Understandable that he'd take offense to a banker having the audacity to suggest that the government not protect bankers from realistic market outcomes at taxpayer expense.

[boutons_deux]

The only thing better than bailout would have been govt nationalizing all the bankrupt companies, asset-stripping and breaking them up, while screwing all the investors and bondholders. Of course, that would have been totally unacceptable politically, both domestically and internationally. Iceland is the perfect example of the Human-Icelanders screwing the Financial-Icelanders rather than bailing them out, including criminal prosecutions. Totally impossible in USA where the financial sector owns the govt.

[Winehole23]

Of course, that would have been totally unacceptable politically, both domestically and internationally.so then how could the RTC do it in the 1990s?

[boutons_deux]

RTC was nearly 25 years ago. The govt still hadn't been totally caputured as is now the case.

40 of Nixon's staff went to prison. That ain't never gonna happen again.

Ameria is fucked and unfuckable.

[Winehole23]

RTC was nearly 25 years ago. The govt still hadn't been totally caputured as is now the case.when did the government become totally captured?

[coyotes_geek]

when did the government become totally captured?

You mean there was a time when we might have been fucked, yet were still somewhat fuckable?

[Winehole23]

might have been, in the not too distant past.

[boutons_deux]

The S&L disaster wasn't nearly as big as the MBS/CDO liabilities. the S&L disaster bailout of $200B didn't screw up the planet's or even the USA's economy.

the financial deregulation, killing Glass-Steagal, and "innovations" really changed the game completely, and none of that has been been touched significantly, if at all.

meanwhile, the Repugs are killing the CFPB to protect the financial sector's predations, ripoffs, crimes.

the 2000s were a very different financial world from the S&L disaster.

[Winehole23]

that's one excuse for not stopping your exploitative ways, mr boss man.

[Winehole23]

what am i saying? it's the only one you ever use.

[boutons_deux]

Are You Talking To Me? GFY

[Winehole23]

unnecessary. corporate citizens like you already fucked me.

[boutons_deux]

Where do you get the straw man that I'm a UCA supporter or employee?

[Winehole23]

does the monotony bother you, boss man?

[LnGrrrR]

You mean there was a time when we might have been fucked, yet were still somewhat fuckable?

:lol :tu

[boutons_deux]

we can and will always be fucked harder and deeper.

eg, the "simplified cc contract" the came out this week is only "suggested" not mandatory. How many cc companies, headquartered in states where there are no usury laws, gonna voluntarily drop their minefield-gonna-getcha 4-pt text contracts for something readable?

[Winehole23]

what do you mean we, boss man? your wage slaves are listening...

[Winehole23]

i think the monotony got to him

[Winehole23]

Where do you get the straw man that I'm a UCA supporter or employee?Ultimately from the GM bailout thread where you revealed yourself as a rank corporatist (on behalf of the 99%, of course)

[Winehole23]

now, because I enjoy it.

[boutons_deux]

I was/am pro GM bailout because the WORKERS' jobs, at GM and their suppliers and their suppliers, were at risk. GM's old mgmt got cleaned out.

[Winehole23]

Can't save the jobs without saving the corporation.

[Winehole23]

no comeback, no denial

[Winehole23]

just a half assed excuse

[Winehole23]

:lol:toast

[boutons_deux]

"GM's old mgmt got cleaned out."

most of the workers and the suppliers' workers kept their jobs. GFY

[Winehole23]

there's the lame excuse I was talking about.

[Winehole23]

the corporation is not its officers, boutons. GM never died.

[Winehole23]

your scheme of corporatism saves any sufficiently massive corporate concern. anyone employing "10s of 1000s of the 99%," is entitled to the help, according to you.

[Winehole23]

which leads us back to:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5502088&postcount=2

[boutons_deux]

your scheme of corporatism saves any sufficiently massive corporate concern. anyone employing "10s of 1000s of the 99%," is entitled to the help, according to you.

no, not "anyone". case by case

So you were for letting GM and all its employees and suppliers go down?

[Winehole23]

oh, so only where massive trade unions are in place then?

[Winehole23]

off the rack interest bloc corporatism

[Winehole23]

no, not "anyone". case by case

So you were for letting GM and all its employees and suppliers go down?I don't see why not. Why not?

[boutons_deux]

too many jobs lost in GM and all the supplier, a pro-cyclic move.

should have done the same with TBTJ, take them over, fire the top layers of mgmt with no golden parachutes, "asset strip" and sell of the assets, and wipe out shareholders and bond holders.

[Winehole23]

but you're pro-cyclic guy, so no problem, right?

[Winehole23]

(silence implies agreement)

[coyotes_geek]

I was/am pro GM bailout because the WORKERS' jobs, at GM and their suppliers and their suppliers, were at risk. GM's old mgmt got cleaned out.

So you're using trickle-down theory to justify corporate welfare. How Republican of you.

[Winehole23]

bump. boutons showed his ass here.

[boutons_deux]

bump. boutons showed his ass here.

what? you pitifully dig up a 2 yr old thread and think you got a point? which is?

[Winehole23]

I have no response to your spit take. The thread speaks for itself for anyone who reads through.

[Winehole23]

it's understandable you're sore. no one likes to be reminded of bone-headed remarks.

[boutons_deux]

Saving GM and Chrysler (even if it were owned by a capitalist predator), a side effect of saving 100Ks job at GM and suppliers in the middle of the Banksters Great Depression, was right, and has proven The Great Boutons to have been right, too.

So GFY