You answered your own question. Every one has the opportunity to build a business, but only those with the motivation and ability do it. In other words, they DID BUILD THAT.
You win a brief moment of clarity into your liberal mindset.
You certainly insinuated it.
they each said what i posted
wealth was not created without state assistance
in every instance
a reality anathema to the white wing
no one is saying they not build that
the point is they did not build it without any assistance
Has anyone explained in this thread yet why this entire thing is political grandstanding over the revocation of a technical and arbitrary rule that has little to no impact on "derivatives trading" and risk allocation in the financial industry? Because this entire thing is pointless politicking. The push out rule is dumb and should be repealed.
Has anyone explained in this thread yet why this entire thing is political grandstanding over the revocation of a technical and arbitrary rule that has little to no impact on "derivatives trading" and risk allocation in the financial industry? Because this entire thing is pointless politicking. The push out rule is dumb and should be repealed.
why is it not prudent to have the banks push out their derivative trades to an affiliate so that any losses sustained would not be subject to government assistance in the form of a bailout
if the financial institution reaps the profits from such trades, why should the taxpayer be subject to absorbing the potential losses resulting from such derivative plays
Because it doesn't do anything, it requires banks to move client's hedging investments in certain swaps out of bank accounts and into broker dealer accounts, which really does nothing. Sure the bank accounts are FDIC insured and the broker dealer accounts aren't, but there's no scenario where the investment banks go down and the banks don't. Also, these types of derivatives (interest rate swaps, for example) had nothing to do with the financial crisis.
So there's what it doesn't do. What does it do? Well, for one it basically lumps a bunch of different types of derivatives together and treats them in the same manner, without understanding the risk profile of the very, very different types of swap and forward contracts that it regulates. It increases issues in the banking industry because banks can't easily determine what kind of "risky" derivatives fall under the rule. The market is very complex, and this regulation shows that the SEC doesn't understand that. Finally, the concept of "risk" in certain derivatives isn't uniform. For example, many of the "riskier" swaps are used by companies to hedge, which actually stabilizes the market.
Why do banks want the push out regulation revoked? Pretty simple. It increase costs and risk for the big banks that don't fully understand how to properly apply the regulation because the SEC themselves don't really know. It makes it more difficult to service these contracts, which aren't inherently risky so that isn't necessarily a good thing like most anti-bankster folks will claim. And so bank costs and difficulty of doing business go up, which translates into a lower level of service for their clients. This isn't a conspiracy to deregulate the financial markets, it's an attempt to revoke a very confusing and ignorant law that doesn't really do anything except make it tougher for banks to do business.
why is it not prudent to have the banks push out their derivative trades to an affiliate so that any losses sustained would not be subject to government assistance in the form of a bailout
if the financial institution reaps the profits from such trades, why should the taxpayer be subject to absorbing the potential losses resulting from such derivative plays
You people had NO problem with the 5 Trillion bailout l of the two biggest players in the run up to the Subprime mortgage crisis.
Neither does that Hack Warren. ( which is WHY she's a unmitigated hack )
TARP was repaid, Fannie and Freddies debt is sitting on the Books of the Fed and the Treasury.
Yours and Warrens selective outrage is a bit hypocritical.
why is it not prudent to have the banks push out their derivative trades to an affiliate so that any losses sustained would not be subject to government assistance in the form of a bailout
if the financial institution reaps the profits from such trades, why should the taxpayer be subject to absorbing the potential losses resulting from such derivative plays
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?