Man, you are just completely humor-impaired. :lol: However, to seriously respond to your post...No.
But it's about time we stopped "bailing out" investment banks, insurance companies, drug companies, auto companies...
Sorry dude, my funny-button is suffering today. Work is being br00tal and I'm not helping my situation by being all over MG.org today :lol:Man, you are just completely humor-impaired. :lol: However, to seriously respond to your post...
Do you think it would have been better to suffer complete economic collapse, worse than the Great Depression, or bail out Wall Street?
Oh jeez, don't even get me warmed up.Sorry dude, my funny-button is suffering today. Work is being br00tal and I'm not helping my situation by being all over MG.org today :lol:
Complete economic collapse without "bailing out Wall Street"? That's the funny part. The money didn't exactly clean up those horrific "toxic derivatives" we heard so much about. It gave bonuses to the top fraction of a percent of those criminals so that they could continue doing what they did to land themselves in that predicament in the first place.
1. I know. That's why it was "quoted". And I have absolutely no qualms about evil "naked short selling" either, for example. It's simply a futures contract.1. Derviatives are not "toxic."
2. Really, if there's one thing I want to see out of financial reform, it's a mandatory clearinghouse like what's used for futures contracts for over-the-counter instruments like swaps. That, with federal backing, would have given the Fed the option to let a few more banks die along with Goldman and Lehman while containing the spread of counterparty exposure, because the clearinghouse would have been a buffer between each of the banks.
3. I don't know how up on the industry you are, man, but what you're saying is akin to the lungs getting pissed off that the heart was getting shock therapy to restart because, "well, we didn't stop beating..." I can't say I was happy to see it either, but it needed to happen.
1.) Nah, naked shorting is simply selling on margin. It's risky as fuck since your upside is limited and your downside is not, but as long as you know what you're getting into...1. I know. That's why it was "quoted". And I have absolutely no qualms about evil "naked short selling" either, for example. It's simply a futures contract.
2. Doesn't sound like a bad idea. How about mandatory reserve requirements?
3. Fairly up but I've been concerned about other things for a while. And yes, we were backed up against a wall pretty hard. But fractional reserve banking got us in this mess, and it won't get us out of it, and it's still true that we basically got taken for a ride.
See, I take issue with this.Derviatives are not "toxic." They're spectacular instruments for risk control, and honestly in that collateralized debt obligations allow default risk to be better spread amongst investors
Eh, as they say, Bob, it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.See, I take issue with this.
It's kind of like mark to market accounting - the more elaborate the schemes they develop to do things like marginalize risk or skew real profits, the more likely the financial sector is to abuse these new tools. It's happened again and again.
The rise of derivatives and credit default swaps is the exact environment that encouraged such greedy, almost predatory lending practices, and I'm not telling you anything new here, D. If they want to keep these Rube Goldberg financial instruments, there has to be A) far better regulation and oversight, or B) a true laissez-faire system, where if they fuck up, they're gone.
Or just do away with this bullshit, and force the market to be more conservative.