By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 13 June 2012
Edit Thread
badgenome said:
richardhutnik said:

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.

Well, then? So what? Let them do it and die and be a lesson to everyone else. It is far preferable to what we're doing now.

And I'm well aware that you were being sarcastic. My point is that no one is actually saying, "Derp, less regulation!" Thus it's yet another one of your strawmen.

You said no one?  Is the chair of the Republican National Committee no one?  He said less regulation is needed:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/rnc-chair-calls-less-regulation-wall-stree

 

DAVID GREGORY: Let me ask you a very important economic question. You listened to Jamie Dimon on the program earlier. Talk about regulation, talk about the mistake that was made by this trading debt and huge loss. Governor Romney and the Republican party position is to repeal Dodd-Frank, which is financial reform. In light of the losses on Wall Street this week do you think we need less financial regulation rather than more?

REINCE PRIEBUS: I think we need less. I mean the fact of the matter is Dodd-Frank didn't work. The reality is we've got about five to 10 banks in this country that earn our GDP. Those five to 10 banks assets' make up a huge majority of this country's GDP. Now that's an issue. I do agree that this too big to fail mentality is a problem, but I don't think Dodd-Frank fixed anything. In fact I think they made things worse.

 

 

Less regulation is a Republican talking point, ALL THE TIME, in response to everything.  It is true this election year.  It is without qualification.  The answer is "Repeal Dodd-Frank" because it is not working and replace it with... nothing.  And this question is in response to the exact issue that was raised originally.  Yes, the GOP says the answer is less regulation.  It is one of their talking points.  It is meant to be a counter to Obama.  Because Obama calls for more regulation, they call for less, to oppose Obama.

And the reality is that, even if there were failures, people taking excess risks don't learn.  They don't.  They don't think it can happen to them.  That is why the do it.  This is particularly true if they don't understand the risks.  End result is the system goes down, and continues to go down.