SS. Serious question, I don't have a dog in this fight, after you "blow up the current system" how would you recreate it? Second question, what flexibility would you add to allow for new technology? This seems like the one area with all the money involved, that the private sector will always outspend the regulators in trying to make a buck.

 

I'll get into more details later.

I'll get into more details later.

 

 

Cool. It seems the decision comes down to smaller but fragmented or huge and cumbersome. But it seems obvious to me that the regulations have not kept up with technology. Plus, with so much money at stake, staying ahead of the regulations is doable and really possible.

Cool. It seems the decision comes down to smaller but fragmented or huge and cumbersome. But it seems obvious to me that the regulations have not kept up with technology. Plus, with so much money at stake, staying ahead of the regulations is doable and really possible.

If I wanted to give my answer in 2 sentence platitudes...the right way to do regulations is to make them idiot-proof. Set up the system at a basic level with rules so simple that at a basic level its impossible for there to be any systemic risk to the system.

 

Some examples of these types of regulations would be; limits to the size of banks, some version of Glass-Steagal preventing you from gambling with FDIC insured funds, a CPFA stronger than the one in the current bill that actually takes the time to go through and make sure credit contracts are readable and not 95% scams, elimination of the regulator shopping with a strong, single regulator for financial firms, executive compensation limits, a financial transaction tax to slow things down, prevention of using off-balance sheet stuff to balance the books, etc.

 

The big problem is...anything that is blunt, anything idiot-proof is something that is going to be opposed by the big 6, because anything idiot-proof means that they can't find a way to work their way around it or capture it. So, we wind up with bills like the current one, which makes things better but not enough...because they're spending $2-3 million a day on lobbying right now.

 

If it's the best we're going to get...it's better than things were 2 years ago, and it's better than anything the Republicans would ever try.

Can anyone seriously read this and tell me that gold isn't the next bubble to burst?

United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi's top hotel is upping the ante in the race for Gulf glitz: adding a gold-dispensing machine.

 

The ATM-style kiosk in the Emirates Palace monitors the daily gold price and offers small bars up to 10 grams or coins with customized designs.

That's awesome. I wish we had one somewhere in Chicago.

Can anyone seriously read this and tell me that gold isn't the next bubble to burst?

 

i keep thinking gold will be, but it keeps going up.

i keep thinking gold will be, but it keeps going up.

lots of fear among those with money right now, and that means gold stays up. But, as the economy continues to improve, as a double dip seems so much less likely now, and as inflation and interest rates begin to rise (which they will, soon), that money will start flowing back into the equity markets. That's when the bottom will drop out on gold.

 

i keep thinking gold will be, but it keeps going up.

 

so did housing and those internet stocks too.

why the hell do we value a shiny rock so much, anyway?

why the hell do we value a shiny rock so much, anyway?

 

because it's shiny

why the hell do we value a shiny rock so much, anyway?

It has an awful lot of uses in electronics and other industrial applications.

It has an awful lot of uses in electronics and other industrial applications.

 

So does copper. It's intrinsic or useful value outside of "looking pretty" isn't really all that much, which is why I don't get the people who think going back to a gold standard is the solution to many problems.

So does copper. It's intrinsic or useful value outside of "looking pretty" isn't really all that much, which is why I don't get the people who think going back to a gold standard is the solution to many problems.

 

^^^

So does copper. It's intrinsic or useful value outside of "looking pretty" isn't really all that much, which is why I don't get the people who think going back to a gold standard is the solution to many problems.

 

This is reason #1 I could never be a Libertarian. The Gold Standard is a relic of the 19th century that needs to be buried and forgotten. The idea that money has to be "real" is so stupid, considering the value of gold is just as subjective as the value of a piece of paper. The one difference is that the fixed supply of currency isn't anything like the fixed supply of gold, so you don't have a massive artificial cap on growth.

So if anyone wants to see something interesting, President Clinton is doing an interview on CNBC right now, in it he saids that he isn't sure the repeal of Stengal Glass had any effect on this mess, and that the regulatory system broke down. I am sure it will be podcasted later.

So if anyone wants to see something interesting, President Clinton is doing an interview on CNBC right now, in it he saids that he isn't sure the repeal of Stengal Glass had any effect on this mess, and that the regulatory system broke down. I am sure it will be podcasted later.

I've heard him say similar elsewhere recently I think.

 

Good to know passing the buck is a universal trait.

I don't think too big really is the deciding factor.

I don't think too big really is the deciding factor.

Depends on how you're defining big. If you're letting companies leverage 40 to 1...they can be pretty small and still be systematically threatening.

then that really doesn't have much to do with size alone being the problem. see Canada.

then that really doesn't have much to do with size alone being the problem. see Canada.

Again, are we talking about size of deposits or size of liabilities.

I've heard him say similar elsewhere recently I think.

 

Good to know passing the buck is a universal trait.

 

He can't blame Steagall-Glass or he smears his own legacy.

Seriously, can anyone or anything smear his legacy worse than he already did?

He can't blame Steagall-Glass or he smears his own legacy.

He can't blame Steagall-Glass or he smears his own legacy.

Didn't he already smear his legacy on a blue dress somewhere?

It is a shame really that for at least a generation or two, that will be his legacy.

Didn't he already smear his legacy on a blue dress somewhere?

Yay! I get to do a CK style acronym post!

 

The LIBOR is starting to spike again.