And will be even more too big to fail once Dodd-Frank is finished because they've made their money off said practices, and nobody else will reach them.

First thing that should of been done when TARP was being considered was insisting that banks who agreed to tarp funds be broken up AT&T style.

And that gets framed as the government meddling with the choices markets make.  And attempts to fight against mergers is against free markets.  It would make sense though.  However, with the top getting the money, and it seen as a crisis that had to be adverted now, it didn't happen.  TARP was passed under the same panic mode that the Patriot Act was passed under.

Also, that may be what Dimon said.... I'm not sure I buy it though.

The guy was known for ALWAYS taking big risks. The risks he took weren't actually extraordinary at all.

If you read the account of what happened it basically boiled down to Boaz Weinstein noticing the issue and pouncing. Forcing JP Morgan to push back (and usually big banks win when they do push back) however he didn't blink, because the guy is about as aggressive and "reckless" as it gets....

So JP Morgan got screwed.

http://www.newser.com/story/146838/meet-the-man-who-took-down-jpmorgan.html

They knew the risk fine. They just took it.

What people don't ever seem to get about investment is.... if there is a 10% chance it can blow up.... there is a 10% chance it can blow up!

Just because something vaguely unlikely happened doesn't mean you calculated wrong, because there was a chance for it to go wrong. Only if it's consistent that such things happen does it suggest a problem in your methodology.

You might blame them for hiring a guy who likes to take such gambles sure, not sure how you regulate that, but the dude likes to take gambles.

Sometimes something needs to die for something better to come in. When the government keeps bailing out these banks/companies, it prevents something newer and better from coming in. Let them go bankrupt and close down. The economy will rebound.

How so?   If someone tries to frame it that way I'd simply say.   "They don't have to take the money if they don't want it."  It's no more meddling in the markets as TARP was anyway.  Hell i'd say less so in that it's actually "forcing back" some of the punishment that the government is preventing.

As for attempts to fight against mergers... I didn't see that anywhere in there... outside banks that fail and accepted government intervention being forced to stay apart for a while.

Just letting them die would be better.  However if you aren't going to do it... at least fix the damn problem!

Besides, i'm not against government regulations... I'm just against stupid blanket regulations that hit all buisnesses equally.  It's the same issue i'd have with a flat tax.... and that democrats should have with the regulations they purpose.

If we're going with regulations they should be progressive as well... allowing smaller companies to riskier, since smaller companies failing are going to have a much smaller effect on the economy.   Instead we want to implement laws treating every invesment bank and hedgefund the same as if the falling of some small mom and pop investment fund equals JP Morgan.

i don't often agree with you on political things but to this, 100%.

If only that were the case... I'd gladly become a Republican.

Was that without qualification? Just as he said, Dodd-Frank doesn't work, and no one should be surprised by that because Dodd and Frank are the two legislators most responsible for stoking the problem in the first place. That's a good enough reason to repeal it just as it was a good enough reason not to let them anywhere near financial regulation in the first place - let alone to craft the damn law - but everyone was screaming about the need to DO SOEMTHIN!!!1 so what we got was, as usual, worse than doing nothing.

So the answer is to get rid of useless regulation like this, which only makes doing legitimate business more difficult and only helps the "fat cats" to anyway, and have only the regulations we really, truly need, and enforce the shit out of them.

Exactly. Why can't people see that by not doing this, all they've done is guarantee that it will absolutely, 100% happen again?

You had said this prior: 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.

And now you are actually saying, "Derp, less regulation".  So, now am I to conclude you became no one?  It is without qualification, because there isn't talk of there being a fixing of regulation, it is LESS regulation.  This is what is said over and over politically, and apparently you are in favor of either.  All you are saying is, "get rid of useless regulations".  In your above stament, there isn't any place there above where you say different, just less.  And if the GOP just stood for less regulations, you would be a Republican.  So, there you go, you are saying, "Derp, less regulations!"  

People do change.  It is interesting to see it happen in the same thread though.  If only others changed as fast as you did. 

"Less regulation is a Republican talking point, ALL THE TIME, in response to everything."

Except for when it comes to drugs. Or letting people marry who they want. Or myriad other issues where they love intruding into people's lives. Those are the reasons I would never be a Republican. If they were as laissez-faire as you always make them out to be with your constant pearl clutching over mythical Republican anarchists, I'd have to reconsider. But they aren't, and simply not being quite the fucking fascists that the Democrats are isn't going to cut it.

However, I did say any regulations that are well and truly needed, let's have them and enforce the hell out of them. You seem to have missed that part. But let's also get rid of the reams and reams of regulations that apparently do nothing whatsoever except pose a burden and make it harder and more expensive for people to do business. I'm honestly not even sure why you find the idea of fewer (and better, and not written by and named after the same two asshats who were at the center of the storm) regulations to be so risible in this case when you explicitly stated your belief that regulations can't and won't stop the JP Morgans of the world from engaging in stupidly risky behavior. Since you don't even believe that getting their fingers burned without any possibility of Uncle Sam bailing them out can't stop them, you must believe that nothing on Earth can stop them. So why even have this conversation?