Reply With Quote
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.
http://londonbanker.blogspot.com/201...ility.html?m=1Financial 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) 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 compe ive 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.
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.
"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"?
that's realistic
a guy who worships money putting in his 2 cents
"free market" boutons makes an appearance....
I'm asking the banker if he likes that kind of "realistic", not you assholes.
read the article. seems pretty clear to me.
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.
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.
so then how could the RTC do it in the 1990s?Of course, that would have been totally unacceptable politically, both domestically and internationally.
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 ed and un able.
when did the government become totally captured?RTC was nearly 25 years ago. The govt still hadn't been totally caputured as is now the case.
You mean there was a time when we might have been ed, yet were still somewhat able?
might have been, in the not too distant past.
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.
that's one excuse for not stopping your exploitative ways, mr boss man.
what am i saying? it's the only one you ever use.
Are You Talking To Me? GFY
unnecessary. corporate citizens like you already ed me.
Where do you get the straw man that I'm a UCA supporter or employee?
does the monotony bother you, boss man?
we can and will always be ed 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?
what do you mean we, boss man? your wage slaves are listening...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
