Too Big To Run

[Mac1958]

.

While we're distracted by gay marriage and high school bullying, our country's financial system remains on the precipice. I wonder how many people know that.

Y'know that little "Too Big To Fail" issue that Dodd-Frank failed to properly address? That's not even the biggest problem. We have repealed Glass-Steagall, we have simplistically layered additional regulations to financial processes that don't address the problems, and we have ignored the proposed Volcker Rule that would take significant risk out of markets.

The banks are too big and too complex, kids. They are too big to run. They are so big and complex that even the people running them can't assess risk, they can't control the flow of money, they don't know where the fucking holes are. If we don't break them up into more manageable pieces, and I mean within the next year or so, pretty much anything could happen.

JP Morgan's $2 billion loss last week provides a perfect example. CEO Jamie Dimon didn't have a clue what was happening, nor did his "people". Here's an excellent, if scary, piece:

J.P. Morgan

From the piece:

Dimon’s problem — and this one goes way back — is that he is almost always the smartest guy in the room, and he knows it. But something has happened along the way. The financial system that Dimon and his Wall Street counterparts built became too big to be controlled, much less understood.

The clock is ticking, gang, I'm in the industry, and I'm serious as a heart attack.

.

 

[Mad Scientist]

What you posted is EXACTLY why Gay Marriage is being pushed right now in the MSM.

Mac, do you watch Max Keiser?
http://maxkeiser.com/

 

[Mac1958]

What you posted is EXACTLY why Gay Marriage is being pushed right now in the MSM.

Mac, do you watch Max Keiser?
Max Keiser - Financial War Reports

If the shit hits the fan, that'll change, no doubt. They won't be able to ignore it.

Not familiar with Keiser, I'll check him out, thanks.

.

 

[SniperFire]

The important thing is, Romney gave his dog a ride on the roof 40 years ago.

 

[uscitizen]

Uep Mac and the banks are very much like our government/country in that respect.

 

[uscitizen]

The important thing is, Romney gave his dog a ride on the roof 40 years ago.

You could just admit you are clueless on the topic.

 

[Mac1958]

.

By the way, it would be reasonable to ask, "so how would this be done?"

There would be some uncertainty on this. It would have to come in essentially three waves, with careful analysis and reflection after each wave:

(1) Bring back Glass-Steagall.. This alone would probably take a year or two to play out, at least, since equity ownership of the banks would have to be calculated, divided, holy crap.

(2) Concurrently, repeal the bloated, monolithic dog that is Dodd-Frank and replace it with regulations that are more fluid and able to adjust on the fly to new produces & systems while also dropping regulations when they become redundant and/or counterproductive. Don't even get me started. This is another one to two year process, at least. And the SEC & FINRA have to work with the securities players so that we're just creating punitive measures.

(3) Get all this shit in place, implement, then wait for the dust to settle. Another one year process, easy. Then we go from there.

Another thought is whether the banks can be broken up organically, by motivating stockholders to do it themselves. Don't ask me, I'm not smart enough. I'd love to see a plan, though.

.

 

[Truthmatters]

JPMorgan and the politics of financial reform - May. 11, 2012


Its time to get all teddy on their asses



Almost immediately, advocates for more government regulation of banks cited the trades as evidence that JPMorgan was making an end-around the Volcker Rule.

That rule, a part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law passed in response to the financial crisis, aims to ban risky trading by banks for their own profit, sometimes referred to as proprietary trading.

The rule has not yet been implemented, and banks have spent millions of dollars lobbying against it, which they view as cumbersome and excessive

 

[The Rabbi]

Why arent you running for office with brilliant ideas rather than wasting your time here?

Here's a better idea: no guarantees, no bailouts. You fail, you go to bankruptcy court. The Leftists will no doubt resurrect memories of bank runs but that only speaks to their inability to cede control over anything.

 

[Truthmatters]

Volcker Rule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Truthmatters]

Why arent you running for office with brilliant ideas rather than wasting your time here?

Here's a better idea: no guarantees, no bailouts. You fail, you go to bankruptcy court. The Leftists will no doubt resurrect memories of bank runs but that only speaks to their inability to cede control over anything.

That is becuase your an idiot who doesnt understand TO BIG TO FAIL

 

[Mac1958]

Here's a better idea: no guarantees, no bailouts. You fail, you go to bankruptcy court.

It's just a teeny, tiny bit more complicated than that.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's a better idea: no guarantees, no bailouts. You fail, you go to bankruptcy court.

It's just a teeny, tiny bit more complicated than that.

.

No it really isn't. It's called accountability. And currently there isn't any because teh Dums have coined and enshrined Too Big To Fail into the financial landscape. If I were too big to fail I'd be rolling the dice in the casino every night too.

 

[Truthmatters]

They turned their idiot asses arround and did the smae stupid shit within a couple of years of crashing the entire world economy as if they wanted to PROVE to the American people that they would FUCKING do it all over again oif we dont SIT on their fucking heads and make them behave.

They will do it all over again in a red hot second if we do not give them babysitters.


Why cant you people face the facts.


They will fuck us for money.


We have to regulate them or they will fuck us

 

[Truthmatters]

Here's a better idea: no guarantees, no bailouts. You fail, you go to bankruptcy court.

It's just a teeny, tiny bit more complicated than that.

.

No it really isn't. It's called accountability. And currently there isn't any because teh Dums have coined and enshrined Too Big To Fail into the financial landscape. If I were too big to fail I'd be rolling the dice in the casino every night too.

Your a partisan idiot.

go learn some facts and stop trying to pretend Fox gives you facts

 

[Mac1958]

Here's a better idea: no guarantees, no bailouts. You fail, you go to bankruptcy court.

It's just a teeny, tiny bit more complicated than that.

.

No it really isn't. It's called accountability.

Well, congratulations Rabbi. You've rendered me speechless.

Hey, can you do the same with my mother in law?

.

 

[SniperFire]

Why arent you running for office with brilliant ideas rather than wasting your time here?

Here's a better idea: no guarantees, no bailouts. You fail, you go to bankruptcy court. The Leftists will no doubt resurrect memories of bank runs but that only speaks to their inability to cede control over anything.

That is becuase your an idiot who doesnt understand TO BIG TO FAIL

Published: Friday 3 February 2012

The Democrats Who Unleashed Wall Street and Got Away With

That Lawrence Summers, a president emeritus of Harvard, is a consummate distorter of fact and logic is not a revelation. That he and Bill Clinton, the president he served as treasury secretary, can still get away with disclaiming responsibility for our financial meltdown is an insult to reason.'

At least Summers, in a testier interview by British journalist Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 News, was asked some tough questions about his responsibility as Clinton’s treasury secretary for the financial collapse that occurred some years later. He, like Clinton, still defends the reversal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, a 1999 repeal that destroyed the wall between investment and commercial banking put into place by Franklin Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.'


The Democrats Who Unleashed Wall Street and Got Away With it | NationofChange

 

[Ernie S.]

You do realize that a $2 billion loss to a company with $2.2 trillion is assets is rather insignificant, don't you?
This is just more obfuscation and avoidance of the real issues like a dog on the roof, gay marriage and Treyvon Martin. The real issue is we spend more than we take in. Cut spending and the economy will improve and revenue will increase.

 

[Mac1958]

You do realize that a $2 billion loss to a company with $2.2 trillion is assets is rather insignificant, don't you?
This is just more obfuscation and avoidance of the real issues like a dog on the roof, gay marriage and Treyvon Martin. The real issue is we spend more than we take in. Cut spending and the economy will improve and revenue will increase.

I think you successfully managed to avoid the rest of my post.

JPM is a SYMPTOM.

.