badgenome said:
My god. Are you physically incapable of making a thread without strawmanning something or another? It isn't that this proves we need less regulation, but that existing regulations don't work and simply doing more of the same is fucking stupid, to put it politely. I wonder if that massive bailout and the guarantee that they're all "too big to fail" could have perhaps trained these people to think that risk isn't a concept that's particularly relevant to their existence, hmmm? |
Individuals who don't understand the risks involved with the bets they are making (yes, Dimond used the word bets), don't even think twice about whether or not they will need a bail out. They will still do it.
By the way, am I supposed to use a different font or color or something to indicate when I am using sarcasm? Of course I don't believe the answer is less regulation, if that means reducing both enforcement and also the amount of rules involved in it. What congress does is increase the amount of rules out there, and says it fixes things. Individuals in congress they push for funding cuts to say they are cutting the size of government. End result is that you end up insufficient enforcement, and also a bloated rulebook. And then you have idiots who try to play under these rules who don't even understand what kind of bets they have. Then when it goes south, you have the likes of Jamie Dimond going "Whoopsie". When done on a mass scale, as with the mortgage crisis, the entire system gets threatened, so then here come the bailouts. All along, these masters of risk end up not thinking for once things could go south. Individuals with hubris never think they will fail.
