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.
|
No-one saying so in response to this particular incident, maybe, but the background noise is still a general clamor for deregulation.
Perhaps a "value destruction tax" on banks or financial institutions that destroy value through neglect or risky business practices
