Why We Need Derivatives Regulation

[scandal 951]

Please try to state your positions without resorting to name-calling - it adds nothing to the discussion and certainly doesn't add any credibility to your position.

He knows exactly why I called him a #######.

He earned that label.

[mRx 16]

Spare me the wiki-education, scandal.

Paulson insuring the risk of favored banks by hedging it to the backs of the American populace hardly makes him a savior of America--it makes him scum.

I provided you a thorough analysis of the function of money in an economy (for which you never replied) a few months ago. The wild and tyrannical government involvement with our medium of exchange does nothing to the real and actual production of goods and services-- it only hampers their exchanges; which is what we are experiencing now.

Our entire pyramided economy is crumbling; Paulson just delayed the necessary and inevitable market corrections that would purge the malivestment and revalue our economy on real and actual terms.

[mRx 16]

Please try to state your positions without resorting to name-calling - it adds nothing to the discussion and certainly doesn't add any credibility to your position.

He knows exactly why I called him a #######.

He earned that label.

Because he's dissented from the standard Federal-worshipping model bourgeois?

[scandal 951]

Please try to state your positions without resorting to name-calling - it adds nothing to the discussion and certainly doesn't add any credibility to your position.

He knows exactly why I called him a #######.

He earned that label.

Because he's dissented from the standard Federal-worshipping model bourgeois?

Nope. Because he keeps his PM box permanently full.

I provided you a thorough analysis of the function of money in an economy (for which you never replied) a few months ago.

So sue me. Ah, but that requires a framework of civil law, which in turn requires a government.

Well, I guess you can't sue me then.

You could try crying I suppose. :crying:

[mRx 16]

I provided you a thorough analysis of the function of money in an economy (for which you never replied) a few months ago.

So sue me. Ah, but that requires a framework of civil law, which in turn requires a government.

Well, I guess you can't sue me then.

You could try crying I suppose. :crying:

Law requires no government, my friend.

Try reading Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy. It's available for free here. It's a short book and shouldn't take more than an hour to read.

The book postulates a conceivable market based system of law, punishment, defense, and many other institutions once thought only malleable by government hammer.

Edited October 15, 2009 by -Matt-

[Heracles 417]

Matt did I mention that a house was auctioned next to mine in Melbourne for over $815K this weekend. Not too shabby considering I purchased it for a little over $280K and it's in a better condition. Federalist are not doing too bad are they. Did you also catch which country was the first of the g20 to increase their interest rate? Mattanomics, yet again, seem to be proven wrong.

Regulation 1 - Mattanomics 0

I won't start on the abolition of over limit fees or the late payment fees being reduced to no more than $4. That sort of regulation may bring on a heart attack.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Booyah!

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

Please try to state your positions without resorting to name-calling - it adds nothing to the discussion and certainly doesn't add any credibility to your position.

He knows exactly why I called him a #######.

He earned that label.

he threw your sheep over the fence?

[scandal 951]

Please try to state your positions without resorting to name-calling - it adds nothing to the discussion and certainly doesn't add any credibility to your position.

He knows exactly why I called him a #######.

He earned that label.

he threw your sheep over the fence?

You should catch up on Expats. All is explained.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A bank can do whatever they want with their investors money but they should not be able to gamble on or risk any cash that is deposited with them. Why should the FDIC and account holders bear the burden when some dichkead gambles our money, walks away with a hefty bonus, while I lose any money over x amount not covered by the FDIC?

That is what needs to be protected. Not to mention, no single player should ever be big enough to able to take down an entire economy. US financial markets are like the wild wild west. Hence why to this day, not one single dollar of mine is invested in them.

That's just it. They were gambling with their depositor's money, which was backed by the FDIC. A real recipe for disaster and the reason why we were in the mess in the first place.

Why not just eliminate the moral hazard, then? Bailouts, the FDIC, the "lender of last resort" Fed, and other schemes meant to socialize losses among the American people enable such risk and wildcat behavior, for they disable the function of "loss" in the profit/loss system.

Because people want a safe and reliable place to put their money away instead of stuffing it in their mattress or burying it in their backyard. The FDIC was as much a benefit to banks as it has been to depositors.

[웃 910]

I have some C call options so I need a good report card from Citigroup this morning...

Scandal, did you hear about this? I just came across it...

Thai stocks dive amid worries over king's health

BANGKOK - The Associated Press October 15, 2009, 5:26AM ET

Thailand's stock market tumbled Thursday amid concerns about the health of 81-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

In late afternoon trading the benchmark index was down 4.8 percent at 696.82 after diving more than 8 percent earlier in the day. Brokers said selling accelerated after "stop loss" levels were triggered -- requiring some investors to sell their stock holdings to limit losses.

It was the second straight day the market had fallen. A statement from the royal place that the king, hospitalized since Sept. 19, was recovering from a "lung inflammation" failed to reassure investors.

Bhumibol is a constitutional monarch with no formal political role, but he has repeatedly brought calm in times of turbulence and is widely revered as the country's moral authority and a unifying figure.

Although the palace has issued almost daily statements on his condition, they have not been very detailed, and no photos of him during his hospital stay have been released.

Thailand has been divided between opposing political camps following the 2006 coup that ousted Thaksin Shinawatra as prime minister.

[mRx 16]

I'm in Bangkok right now, and it's crazy how inflated the prices have become. Minimum 150 basis point increase!

My market basket consists of cigarettes, beer, and 7-11 munchies. Base year 2006.

[mRx 16]

A bank can do whatever they want with their investors money but they should not be able to gamble on or risk any cash that is deposited with them. Why should the FDIC and account holders bear the burden when some dichkead gambles our money, walks away with a hefty bonus, while I lose any money over x amount not covered by the FDIC?

That is what needs to be protected. Not to mention, no single player should ever be big enough to able to take down an entire economy. US financial markets are like the wild wild west. Hence why to this day, not one single dollar of mine is invested in them.

That's just it. They were gambling with their depositor's money, which was backed by the FDIC. A real recipe for disaster and the reason why we were in the mess in the first place.

Why not just eliminate the moral hazard, then? Bailouts, the FDIC, the "lender of last resort" Fed, and other schemes meant to socialize losses among the American people enable such risk and wildcat behavior, for they disable the function of "loss" in the profit/loss system.

Because people want a safe and reliable place to put their money away instead of stuffing it in their mattress or burying it in their backyard. The FDIC was as much a benefit to banks as it has been to depositors.

Then you must accept the excessive risk, socialized losses, and financial disasters inherent in a market that fosters moral hazard.

[Ban Hammer 13,656]

My market basket consists of cigarettes, beer, and 7-11 munchies. Base year 2006.

sounds like dinner that mom used to make.

[mawilson 2,133]

Paulson insuring the risk of favored banks by hedging it to the backs of the American populace hardly makes him a savior of America--it makes him scum.

Indeed.

Not to mention that any business that can't "make payroll next month" without having to

borrow money from short-term credit markets is NOT a responsible business.

I have a small business. I don't need "commercial paper" to make payroll.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Paulson insuring the risk of favored banks by hedging it to the backs of the American populace hardly makes him a savior of America--it makes him scum.

Indeed.

Not to mention that any business that can't "make payroll next month" without having to

borrow money from short-term credit markets is NOT a responsible business.

I have a small business. I don't need "commercial paper" to make payroll.

Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

Cash is king. Credit is a trap. I would rather pocket the 1-1/2% each month than pay it to a creditor. Plus, I can get a 2% discount for paying within ten days of invoice date.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Lone Ranger