CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 148,642
- 71,960
- 2,330
Some obscure politician named Hillary something or other recently decried the need for more regulation to punish Wall Street “abuses” and lack of accountability, she said that in the extremely unlikely event she gets her party nomination and becomes President, she would push to mitigate “dangerous financial risks” that can “lurk outside of regulated banks." Blah, blah, blah, stop me if you've heard this one.
Here's a reality check on the best way to protect against losses. Is it:
A. More and more and more and more regulations with a de facto guarantee to bail out an organization, thereby privatizing the gains and sticking the taxpayer with the losses, or
B. You put up your money, you take your chances. The stockholder risk their capital, reap the gain and eat the losses.
Which is better?
Here's a reality check on the best way to protect against losses. Is it:
A. More and more and more and more regulations with a de facto guarantee to bail out an organization, thereby privatizing the gains and sticking the taxpayer with the losses, or
B. You put up your money, you take your chances. The stockholder risk their capital, reap the gain and eat the losses.
Which is better?