January 6, 2015: peaceful transition of power

[The Rabbi]

.

We have a national political system that is almost completely controlled by money.

Unless & until that changes, our "leaders" will continue to disappoint.

(That won't stop their flocks from spinning for them, however)

.

What would you like it to be controlled by, military force?

Nope, just a better system:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Short, strict term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

We would see the behavior of these thugs & liars change overnight, and we would see a better class of "leader".

.

Those are exactly the wrong solutions.
While I believe in reducing government spending, a balanced budget amendment wont do it. For starters taxes would have to rise phenomenally to cover the current deficit. Further there are always budget tricks to make it appear balanced.
I am generally against restricting people from doing what they want. Even though lack of term limits results in some pretty undesireable outcomes, like Nancy Pelosi, it is a price to be paid for freedom.
Publicly funded election favor the incumbents, who get free press coverage simply because they are office holders. Again, restricting people's freedoms just isnt the way to go.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

We have a national political system that is almost completely controlled by money.

Unless & until that changes, our "leaders" will continue to disappoint.

(That won't stop their flocks from spinning for them, however)

.

What would you like it to be controlled by, military force?

How about the Constitution?

Ever read it?

What's your point here? What part of the Constitution is being violated?

 

[zeke]

Those are exactly the wrong solutions.
While I believe in reducing government spending, a balanced budget amendment wont do it. For starters taxes would have to rise phenomenally to cover the current deficit. Further there are always budget tricks to make it appear balanced.
I am generally against restricting people from doing what they want. Even though lack of term limits results in some pretty undesireable outcomes, like Nancy Pelosi, it is a price to be paid for freedom.
Publicly funded election favor the incumbents, who get free press coverage simply because they are office holders. Again, restricting people's freedoms just isnt the way to go.

Lets give a big rousing cheer for the status quo. Cause it works so well. And lets be glad that our fucking stupid rabbit has nothing to do with anything.

 

[gipper]

.

We have a national political system that is almost completely controlled by money.

Unless & until that changes, our "leaders" will continue to disappoint.

(That won't stop their flocks from spinning for them, however)

.

What would you like it to be controlled by, military force?

How about the Constitution?

Ever read it?

What's your point here? What part of the Constitution is being violated?

All of it....every single day.

 

[The Rabbi]

Those are exactly the wrong solutions.
While I believe in reducing government spending, a balanced budget amendment wont do it. For starters taxes would have to rise phenomenally to cover the current deficit. Further there are always budget tricks to make it appear balanced.
I am generally against restricting people from doing what they want. Even though lack of term limits results in some pretty undesireable outcomes, like Nancy Pelosi, it is a price to be paid for freedom.
Publicly funded election favor the incumbents, who get free press coverage simply because they are office holders. Again, restricting people's freedoms just isnt the way to go.

Lets give a big rousing cheer for the status quo. Cause it works so well. And lets be glad that our fucking stupid rabbit has nothing to do with anything.

What are your solutions, Zeke? Power to the proletariat? Free Blatz for the masses?

 

[The Rabbi]

.

We have a national political system that is almost completely controlled by money.

Unless & until that changes, our "leaders" will continue to disappoint.

(That won't stop their flocks from spinning for them, however)

.

What would you like it to be controlled by, military force?

How about the Constitution?

Ever read it?

What's your point here? What part of the Constitution is being violated?

All of it....every single day.

Non response noted.

 

[Mac1958]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

 

[Mac1958]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

Wow, financial fraud never happens. Why dont we make it illegal? Oh, wait.
The investors ought to be aware of who they invest their money with. If not, its on them.

 

[Mac1958]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

Wow, financial fraud never happens. Why dont we make it illegal? Oh, wait.
The investors ought to be aware of who they invest their money with. If not, its on them.

Risk is real. The amount of risk still allowed in markets is far beyond safe, and worse, it multiplies on itself.

This isn't about "an investor". It's about the amount of risk that remains at the very core of our financial system, within credit and money markets at the largest possible scale.

Our bumper-sticker politicians can't address the risk because they're paid off. So they ignore it.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

Wow, financial fraud never happens. Why dont we make it illegal? Oh, wait.
The investors ought to be aware of who they invest their money with. If not, its on them.

Risk is real. The amount of risk still allowed in markets is far beyond safe, and worse, it multiplies on itself.

This isn't about "an investor". It's about the amount of risk that remains at the very core of our financial system, within credit and money markets at the largest possible scale.

Our bumper-sticker politicians can't address the risk because they're paid off. So they ignore it.

.

You can eliminate risk entirely. The Soviet Union was a pretty risk free business environment. Of course when you eliminate risk you eliminate reward as well.
Classicaly the penalty for failure in business was bankruptcy and dissolution. Now it is bailouts and loans. Thats the problem.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

We have a national political system that is almost completely controlled by money.

Unless & until that changes, our "leaders" will continue to disappoint.

(That won't stop their flocks from spinning for them, however)

.

What would you like it to be controlled by, military force?

Nope, just a better system:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Short, strict term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

We would see the behavior of these thugs & liars change overnight, and we would see a better class of "leader".

.

1 - Balanced budget amendments don't really accomplish much considering that the government will ALWAYS have an 'out' and, quite frankly, they should. You cannot always run a balanced budget. War, natural disaster etc need funds and sometimes need to be borrowed against. I am all for fiscal responsibility but I don't see a balanced budget actually accomplishing that tbh.

2 - Why? Do you really think that forcing people to vote in new jackasses solves the problem that they vote for jackasses? Freedom is not enshrined in voting restrictions - that is the opposite. I don't feel the need to protect people from their own asinine voting patters because they are simply going to vote in another moron. The monied interests are not buying off CANDIDATES. That is grossly inefficient. They are buying off PARTIES.

3 - Publicly funded elections will do nothing to remove monies influence from politics. Is it the election funds that ensures these politicians become millionaires in office? Do you think that a 5 million a year job to be a 'historian' would suddenly go away?

Money is in politics because politicians can make companies billions. As long as that is a reality, those companies WILL find a way to influence the system.

 

[Mac1958]

.

We have a national political system that is almost completely controlled by money.

Unless & until that changes, our "leaders" will continue to disappoint.

(That won't stop their flocks from spinning for them, however)

.

What would you like it to be controlled by, military force?

Nope, just a better system:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Short, strict term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

We would see the behavior of these thugs & liars change overnight, and we would see a better class of "leader".

.

1 - Balanced budget amendments don't really accomplish much considering that the government will ALWAYS have an 'out' and, quite frankly, they should. You cannot always run a balanced budget. War, natural disaster etc need funds and sometimes need to be borrowed against. I am all for fiscal responsibility but I don't see a balanced budget actually accomplishing that tbh.

2 - Why? Do you really think that forcing people to vote in new jackasses solves the problem that they vote for jackasses? Freedom is not enshrined in voting restrictions - that is the opposite. I don't feel the need to protect people from their own asinine voting patters because they are simply going to vote in another moron. The monied interests are not buying off CANDIDATES. That is grossly inefficient. They are buying off PARTIES.

3 - Publicly funded elections will do nothing to remove monies influence from politics. Is it the election funds that ensures these politicians become millionaires in office? Do you think that a 5 million a year job to be a 'historian' would suddenly go away?

Money is in politics because politicians can make companies billions. As long as that is a reality, those companies WILL find a way to influence the system.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would force both parties to defend their taxing and spending initiatives.

Term limits would change the behavior of politicians because they would no longer put re-election and fundraising over legislating.

Publicly funded elections would have the same effect as term limits.

Additionally, a cleaner environment might very well attract a better class of legislator.

If you're fine with the way things are, great. I'm personally not so thrilled.

.

 

[Old Rocks]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

Ol' Rabid apparently likes Depressions. For that is what would result from his hands off policies. We have seen that repeatedly.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

We have a national political system that is almost completely controlled by money.

Unless & until that changes, our "leaders" will continue to disappoint.

(That won't stop their flocks from spinning for them, however)

.

What would you like it to be controlled by, military force?

Nope, just a better system:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Short, strict term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

We would see the behavior of these thugs & liars change overnight, and we would see a better class of "leader".

.

1 - Balanced budget amendments don't really accomplish much considering that the government will ALWAYS have an 'out' and, quite frankly, they should. You cannot always run a balanced budget. War, natural disaster etc need funds and sometimes need to be borrowed against. I am all for fiscal responsibility but I don't see a balanced budget actually accomplishing that tbh.

2 - Why? Do you really think that forcing people to vote in new jackasses solves the problem that they vote for jackasses? Freedom is not enshrined in voting restrictions - that is the opposite. I don't feel the need to protect people from their own asinine voting patters because they are simply going to vote in another moron. The monied interests are not buying off CANDIDATES. That is grossly inefficient. They are buying off PARTIES.

3 - Publicly funded elections will do nothing to remove monies influence from politics. Is it the election funds that ensures these politicians become millionaires in office? Do you think that a 5 million a year job to be a 'historian' would suddenly go away?

Money is in politics because politicians can make companies billions. As long as that is a reality, those companies WILL find a way to influence the system.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would force both parties to defend their taxing and spending initiatives.

Term limits would change the behavior of politicians because they would no longer put re-election and fundraising over legislating.

Publicly funded elections would have the same effect as term limits.

Additionally, a cleaner environment might very well attract a better class of legislator.

If you're fine with the way things are, great. I'm personally not so thrilled.

.

Obama is term limited. Have you noticed any change in what he does? I mean for the better.
While obviously Id like to see some changes, I think restricting people's choices is always a bad idea. Personally I'm for removing all campaign finance laws except those that mandate disclosure. Campaign finance is about as effective as gun control.

 

[FA_Q2]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

Victims that chose to invest their money in a shady broker that misused the investments. That is and should be illegal. That does not mean the government needs to step in and cover them.

This comes from the need to protect people from themselves. The idea that I can take my life savings, hand it off and then simply walk away is rather insane though seemingly very popular. We have jumped into the largest moral hazard ever conceived - the simple idea of too big to fail has infected the market and allowed them to essentially do whatever they want because there is ZERO risk.

The sad part is that the government covering that broker and his investors ensures only that the wealthy do not lose their shirts. the rest of us are hosed as real value is lost all over the place and they have no idea how to capitalize on it.

The one thing that should make this all obvious is that after to big to fail the banks got BIGGER. How did we allow that to happen?

 

[Mac1958]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

Victims that chose to invest their money in a shady broker that misused the investments. That is and should be illegal. That does not mean the government needs to step in and cover them.

This comes from the need to protect people from themselves. The idea that I can take my life savings, hand it off and then simply walk away is rather insane though seemingly very popular. We have jumped into the largest moral hazard ever conceived - the simple idea of too big to fail has infected the market and allowed them to essentially do whatever they want because there is ZERO risk.

The sad part is that the government covering that broker and his investors ensures only that the wealthy do not lose their shirts. the rest of us are hosed as real value is lost all over the place and they have no idea how to capitalize on it.

The one thing that should make this all obvious is that after to big to fail the banks got BIGGER. How did we allow that to happen?

The average American doesn't fully understand this stuff, and it's not their job to.

But politicians have all the resources they need. They know what's going on, but they choose not to act because they know where their bread is buttered.

Priorities, priorities.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

Victims that chose to invest their money in a shady broker that misused the investments. That is and should be illegal. That does not mean the government needs to step in and cover them.

This comes from the need to protect people from themselves. The idea that I can take my life savings, hand it off and then simply walk away is rather insane though seemingly very popular. We have jumped into the largest moral hazard ever conceived - the simple idea of too big to fail has infected the market and allowed them to essentially do whatever they want because there is ZERO risk.

The sad part is that the government covering that broker and his investors ensures only that the wealthy do not lose their shirts. the rest of us are hosed as real value is lost all over the place and they have no idea how to capitalize on it.

The one thing that should make this all obvious is that after to big to fail the banks got BIGGER. How did we allow that to happen?

The average American doesn't fully understand this stuff, and it's not their job to.

But politicians have all the resources they need. They know what's going on, but they choose not to act because they know where their bread is buttered.

Priorities, priorities.

.

So you want to protect people from their own stupidity and greed? I would disagree. Perhaps we should bail out victims of Nigerian prince scams.

 

[Mac1958]

.

One only needs to look at our financial infrastructure to see the damage that has been, and will be, done by our current electoral/political system.

There is only one (1) reason why Glass Steagall or something like it will not be reinstated to deal with the Too Big To Fail environment that still, amazingly, unbelievably, exists after the Meltdown.

There is only one (1) reason why - perhaps even MORE amazingly, even MORE unbelievably - derivatives markets are not only still under-regulated, but now the subject of further DE-regulation after their role in the Meltdown.

Either we learned NOTHING from the Meltdown or something else is at play.

Our "leaders" are either absolutely stupid or they're paid off for personal political advantage.

And they're not stupid.

.

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

Victims that chose to invest their money in a shady broker that misused the investments. That is and should be illegal. That does not mean the government needs to step in and cover them.

This comes from the need to protect people from themselves. The idea that I can take my life savings, hand it off and then simply walk away is rather insane though seemingly very popular. We have jumped into the largest moral hazard ever conceived - the simple idea of too big to fail has infected the market and allowed them to essentially do whatever they want because there is ZERO risk.

The sad part is that the government covering that broker and his investors ensures only that the wealthy do not lose their shirts. the rest of us are hosed as real value is lost all over the place and they have no idea how to capitalize on it.

The one thing that should make this all obvious is that after to big to fail the banks got BIGGER. How did we allow that to happen?

The average American doesn't fully understand this stuff, and it's not their job to.

But politicians have all the resources they need. They know what's going on, but they choose not to act because they know where their bread is buttered.

Priorities, priorities.

.

So you want to protect people from their own stupidity and greed? I would disagree. Perhaps we should bail out victims of Nigerian prince scams.

No, I want to protect the American economy from the predictable ravages of uncontrolled risk.

And for proof, all I need to do is point at 2008.

.