« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mitt Romney can seal the Presidency with one single move

President Obama graciously pushed the Presidential race into Mitt Romney’s hands the other day with his same-sex marriage push that catapulted social conservative independents into Romney’s camp.

There is another issue out there that will further solidify the “I only care about the economy”  moderates and probably even guarantee a unification of the Ron Paul supporters as members of the Romney 2012 coalition.

The issue out there which makes great political AND policy sense is to end the notion of “too big to fail” by identifying those institutions that are too big to fail and by breaking them up.

 

Policy

1) While I am generally a fond believer in lower regulations, when regulations allow a company to become too big to fail then those regulations put our country on the hook for the nastiness of something like TARP.  While I was against TARP, I do understand that there is a point in time when as the leader of the country you become concerned about the unknown. This is what pushed Bush and many other Republicans over the edge.

2) Part of what is good in America is the fact that some businesses DO fail and so we want it to be safe for the country to make all business “Small Enough To Fail.” No business should hold the government hostage and moving forward, if we want a smaller government then we need a structure that doesn’t REQUIRE government to step in and save business from itself.

3) Romney does not need to DEMONIZE the banks in doing this. He can go out and say that banks have had to become this large in order to compete because of the flawed government setup. However, we can’t allow them to put themselves and the country into such a state.

4) Breaking up the bigger companies has in the past always lead to more competition and job growth (see the ATT breakup for details)

Politically

1) TARP was the #2 reason behind Obamacare that is cited as the beginning of the Tea Party movement.

2) Many moderates who are dissatisfied with government are against our government helping big business.  With this move, Romney agrees with them and moves our country towards more economic stability.

3) Romney should ask the banks to voluntarily make these changes with the promise that he will give them up to two years to do this on their own or he will force them to be broken up.  By asking them to make the change voluntarily, he allows them to win at the bank (by making their best deal on their terms) and he allows them to win a public relations battle by being the good guys.

4) TARP is one of Ron Paul’s big issues and so by doing this, he helps diffuse Paul’s concerns and he helps bring some of the Ron Paul people into the fold.

 

 

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Actually forcing the banks to split may be a tad too much government intervention. I think that a better approach would be strengthening leverage and reserve requirements, and perhaps considering the Volcker rule, or even Glass-Steagall (not that I am convinced of their merits yet).

    Jon Huntsman did have some ideas: http://jon2012.com/index.php/issues/financial-reform-ending-too-big-to-fail

    But then some of them are anathema to us. But in another part of his financial reform plan, he did have another interesting idea:
    eliminating the deduction for interest payments that gives a preference to debt over equity. Would anyone enlighten me on the effects of this?

    • Change Jar Conservative

      There are many articles out in the press about how to break them up.

      You could put caps on the amount of assets that they hold or look at the types of investments that make them risky and only allow a company to own certain classes of investments.

      A lot of rules like this were in place until a few years ago when they were removed and set up some of the issues that have lead to too big to fail.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Capping assets or restricting investments seems a bit harsh, as would reinstating Glass-Steagall.

        But perhaps a more vigorous policy of enforcing existing regulations would help. Self-regulation has clearly failed because of the lack of transparency and complexity in the financial system.

        Maybe even a bank tax? :P

      • trimulchio

        investment bank (a true creature of pure market forces) and savings or commercial banks (which are more creatures of statute). I think there is practical (as opposed to legal) justification on this basis for bringing back a more pointed Glass-Steagall. The brilliant economic historian Tom Woods, Jr. points out that the major investment banks could not have been bailed out if Glass-Steagall were still in force, but I think it is an open question if this would have been needed or justified if Glass-Steagall were still in effect in 2008 and there were fire breaks in the financial system.

  • mikeymike143

    or the same paulbots who are so far outside of conservative ideas that this site bans them on sight.

    let him and his cult followers spread their anti semitic and anti war cancer someplace other than the republican party.

    • acat

      The ban isn’t IIRC over views, although Paulistines are pretty heterodox… it’s because they’re annoying, they have a tendency to copy/paste arguments without understanding them, and to try to shout others down or drown them out.

      Oh, and didn’t the Paulistines do pretty well in Alaska, Maine, and a couple other States? (hint: if you’re just watching GOP delegates to GOPCON, you’re missing the influence they’ll have in 2014 and 2016…)

      Mew

    • Change Jar Conservative

      While I disagree greatly with Ron Paul on many issues and have supported in order Daniels, Gingrich, and now Romney, Paul is nothing if not a fighter for the 10th amendment and smaller government.

      And the thing about Ron Paul people is that they are energized and involved. Also, 99% of them have nothing to do with the anti-semetic, anti-war pitch of which you speak. Most, like my good friend Jack, just want to see the Federal government neutered.

      I would like to get them involved helping Romney retire Obama. Wouldn’t you?

      ==============
      On another topic, since you are a Florida Tea Party guy, let me ask you (off topic), what is going on with the Senate race?

      Mack seems like a train wreck.

      Lemeiux is a moderate based on his time in the Senate.

      McCallister seems good enough, but doesn’t even have a Issue page on his website.

      • Dave_A

        Paul and his followers are an ideological cancer.

        No different than inviting Democrats into the party – except that the Paul folks oppose welfare…

        They want to destroy everything that makes the United States… United…

        Our military – and with it our national power & prestige…

        Our money – by deflating it to the point where it’s so rare it’s only useful as a collector’s item…

        Our system of law – to the point where no one who presently has the power to enforce law has the money or the ability to do so…

        Paul & his followers are deconstructionists – they won’t be happy until they’ve torn it ALL down…

        And the GOP should have nothing to do with them… It’s not like they’re going to vote for Obama….

        • trimulchio

          Anti-Federalist. Given the hypertrpphy og the Federal Government, I have more sympathy now than I might have in 1791 . . . .

          Rep. Paul’s last book dared to ask a pretty good question no one really wants to ask: did the Constitution lead inevitably to today’s Federal Leviathan, where the Articles would not have?

          • Dave_A

            The Articles would have lead to anarchy/collapse and re-colonization.

            They provided no room for a functional monetary system, insufficient power to tax (required to repay the debts we’d incurred from the great-powers of Europe in our war for independence – and to build a military capable of retaining that independence (something we didn’t have until after 1820, even with the Constitution)), and thus (along with a few other things) insufficient power to hold a nation together & keep it free…

            The Articles were as close as you can get to anarchy while still claiming to have a govt.

            Unacceptable.

          • trimulchio

            Is the current Federal system too central, even if it worked as intended? I don’t have an answer.

        • conservativerock5

          I want to deconstruct the fascist government in charge.

          Ron Paul’s views on the military do not concern me, only his views on rogue nuclear states. I agree with him on money-your deflation comment is hogwash. Not sure what you are talking about when it comes to law…do you support McCain-Feingold?

          • Dave_A

            Ron claims our money supply is too big.

            He wants to reduce it, and eliminate any reasonable ability to grow it by abolishing the Federal Reserve.

            Reducing the money supply = DEFLATION. There’s no way around it, that’s what deflation IS.

          • tcgeol

            I admit that I see very little legitimate purpose behind the Federal Reserve. I have heard the arguments in its favor, and while I can understand important aspects, I see the whole concept as unnecessary and an unconstitutional abandonment of congressional oversight.

            To say that those who oppose the Federal Reserve are a cancer on the party is a horrible idea. I frankly don’t believe that the founders would have generally held the FR in high regard either, except for Hamilton.

          • Dave_A

            BTW, Yes, the anti-FED folks ARE a cancer on the party – they bring a whole bunch of irrational crap in with them, too…

            There exists a party for people who hate banks – and it’s been the same party all throughout US history, ever since it was created by our original anti-finance politician, Thomas Jefferson… They have a jackass for their mascot…

            For the rest of us, a functional banking system is a vital part of the economy, and defending it is one of the core differences between the GOP and the Dems.

            Always has been, just replace GOP with Federalist or Whig….

            Hamilton was right, to begin with – and it’s his ideas that indirectly lead to the US becoming the economic & military power we are today.

      • trimulchio

        pull votes from Obama if Rep. Paul were to run as an independant.

        • PowerToThePeople

          of a scumbag POS to consider doing that. If he does, one can only hope he jaywalks during a drag race.

          • trimulchio

            more Democrat votes than Republican?

          • PowerToThePeople

            but he would also pull the idiots who would usually vote republican. The idiots I am referring to are the ones who are purist who are looking for any reason not to vote Romney but do not want to be accused of voting for Obama, the ones who think the nonsense Paul spews makes sense in their nightmares, and so on.

            It is hard enough to bear an incumbent president especially one who caters to every radical, activist, weirdo, lazy, government tit sucking loser out there that we can ill afford to have a portion of our voter bloc split by a POS man who has been 100% ineffectual in his many years of service, has alienated every single person ever to be in Congress including greats like DeMint, who is as hypocritical as any democrat and scumbag politician that has ever served, and so on. If he refuses to do the right thing and support the party and support the effort to rid this nation of Obama, the party should kick him out and seize every bit of power he has so that he becomes a nothing warming a seat. And every federal and state dollar should be stopped to the areas that have voted him into Congress.

            It is time to reject this POS and throw him out as we should have done many years ago.

          • Xasteius

            http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/may_2012/three_way_race_romney_44_obama_39_ron_paul_13

          • trimulchio

            Pres. Obama or Gov Romney?

          • trimulchio

            James Tarnto at the W.St.J.:

            Latest word from the
            Ron Paul Survival Report
            Is that he didn’t

  • checkmate2012

    Your intentions seem good but self-defeating if you support capitalism and Romney. A few counter-points to ponder:

    1. Romney said he supported TARP so to go back on that would be a huge mistake.

    2. We need less gov’t regulations not more. I don’t hear anyone talking of breaking up Apple, Facebook, etc. so why do we want gov’t to decide what companies should and should not be broken up.

    3. Gov’t is the cause of the financial meltdown by forcing banks to make sub-prime loans. Yes the banks got creative with the derivatives but that was in response to gov’t forcing them to make unwise loans. Frank and Dodd on the banking committee pushed thru the “it’s a right to own a home and the gov’t is here to make sure it happens” in a nutshell. Look at the all the taxpayer money to keep propping up Fannie and Freddie (now Sally too! )

    4. Between Sorbanes-Oxley, Frank-Dodd, SEC, FTC and more, TARP should not have been needed IF gov’t did their job in the 1st place. The signs were there of the bubble & all agencies stood by and did nothing.

    5. Post Bush’s TARP, it opened the door for O to then force banks to buy up each other, so not only did we have less competition, those that were forced to buy weaker financial institutions and take on huge debt (BoFA was force by the feds to buy Merrill Lynch) had now BECOME too large to fail. Don’t foget when some tried to repay TARP money the gov’t would not let them…wow.

    6. AT&T breakup- well I started with MCI 30 days after divesture and having spent my whole career in telecom, watched as the feds put it all back together leaving a virtually duopoly, The break-up was good for competition but the FCC interferred and now we all pay higher prices again. Where is the competition in cable from Cox vs. Time Warner for instance? It’s not there b/c the FCC said they were immune unlike their forcing the shared use of telecom facilities.

    So by saying Romney or in essence the gov’t should determine who is too big to fail is a horrible mistake. Banking is a unique biz that people put their money into so I agree that it should have stringent regulations but the laws only work when they are enforced and they weren’t on so many levels by the buracrats when TARP was enacted. And now they pile on with more onerous regs that increase the cost of biz and squash competition, especially for small businesses. We all pay higher prices in the end.

    Free market principle is the only logical answer to all of the messes our country is in right now. Gov’t needs to get out of the way.

    • aynrand2012

      Yes, free markets and not government intervention in the marketplace is the answer. Dodd-Frank is counter-productive. We need less regulation in the financial marketplace to free up capital so that businesses can start starting investing. This is the best way to solve the unemployment crisis.
      http://www.campaign.jrsv.com/

      • commonsenseobserver

        I understand many conservatives want to repeal it- how would we replace it?

        • Dave_A

          SarbOx was a ‘Smash & Bash’ reaction to Enron, kind of like Dodd-Frank was to this…

          It generates a huge amount of absurd paperwork & ‘compliance requirements’, makes products/services provided by subject firms more expensive, and thus makes everything more expensive…

          All for what?

          SarbOx, Dodd-Frank, and the Obama Credit-Card bill all need to join Glass-Stegall in the trash…

          Government caused the 08 crash, we don’t need them messing up the markets any more….

          • checkmate2012

            glad we’re in a parallel universe…hopefully others will be enlightened by free market principles and join us :)

      • commonsenseobserver

        I understand many conservatives want to repeal it- how would we replace it?

        • checkmate2012

          Thx for my spelling correction BTW. Once again, it was gov’t over reaction to a few bad apples i.e. Enron and WorldCom (I wrote a diary on SS bad apples not too long ago).

          Had the Board of Directors, mostly figure heads if you ask me, and up high mngt as in directors, VPs, etc. done their job to protect the shareholders, we would not have needed this bill, regardless of their desire to protect employess. Now if a whole company is corrupt then my theory falls, but I’ve not seen that case other than some lowly scam pyramid stuff.

          We have the SEC and FTC ad nauseum and yet bad stuff still happens…JP Morgan this week. Why aren’t the fed agencies and Boards held responsible for not catching a few bad apples in large and mostly honest corporations? So we punish all in response to a few with more onerous knee jerk legislation that hurts everyone in the end.

          • checkmate2012

            They have a job to do and if they fail, they should be fired but we all know that’s not the case as is GS15 at GSA . No culpability or accountability….shameful the whole lot.I take the 5th.

          • Dave_A

            What would happen if your department lost the company where you work about 5%? Someone might get fired, or demoted… But would the press show up in hordes…

            Nope…

            JPMC gets the attention becasue (A) they’re a megabank, (B) they’re an even more-mega bank after 08, because while their competition was floundering in the recession, they were buying everything they could get their hands on, and (C) it fits the populist narrative – OMG, they lost TWO BILLION DOLLARS…

            Note the complete absence of a discussion of how much money the unit in question (Chief Investment Office) was working with, when they lost 2BN, either (from what little reports I’ve seen, it was upwards of 30BN)

            That’s not a failure of regulation, that’s life in the market. It happens sometimes – and when it does, generally the shareholders & the execs take care of it…

            Of course, if you’re trying to stoke populist anger, nothing works better than a big bank with gobs of money losing a gob-let or two in the market….

    • trimulchio

      disclosure) might have helped with derivatives.

      I see a need for three general types of regulations: 1) definition of terms; 2) transparency requirements; and 3) prohibitions against pure self-dealing.

      COMPLETE de-regulations may not be the aswer. Ayn Rand may not have seen it, but Madison did: “If men were angles, no government would be necessary/”

      • checkmate2012

        and if there was or is one on derivatives that’s a good thing. I too agree that clear and simple terms in all regulations should be the norm and definitely don’t think no regulations is the answer, especially for financial companies. I just think that there are enough laws, regs and agencies that failed to uphold them to prevent the meltdown.

        Less regs for other types of companies is needed where the risk taking isn’t tied to people’s money deposits.

      • Dave_A

        Adding more won’t fix anything…

        Derivatives are just a fancy form of insurance… A logical reaction to ‘You WILL make these loans, and we don’t care if you get paid back’….

        Eliminate the lending to uncreditworthy borrowers (forced by the govt) and you eliminate the root-cause that made everything else go bad.

        Derivatives aren’t ‘bad’ by themselves…

        Easy credit isn’t bad by itself…

        Combine those with ‘make loans to those who won’t pay them back, or face the full force of the Feds’ and you have a disaster in the making.

        • trimulchio

          that very few of the people selling or buting these instruments knew how they worked. Requiring disclosures would have helped. The vitrually complete deregulation of the derivative market in 2002 was not a positive. Three basic types of regulation should exist: 1) common definition of terms; 2) tranparency requirements; and 3) prohibition against PATENT self-dealing (not applicable here).

  • checkmate2012

    I guess I was on a rant as my comment is longer than some diaries! Glad you agree :)

  • trimulchio

    basis? There may be some, but the first question that much be asked.

    • Change Jar Conservative

      but I’m sure somewhere along the line there is something that can b used.

      Also, as I noted somewhere above, many of these banks have only been able to grow this large because of a change in the laws from around the 2004/2006 timeframe.

      Whatever law was changed then needs to be changed back as a starting point.

  • lineholder

    What if the orgs that are “too big to fail” are in the realm of healthcare?

    If we’re going to consider trending patterns, that’s the direction it has been heading for the past eight years or so. O-care is solidifying it. What’s taken place under Obamacare won’t automatically be undone simply by repealing it.

    How would what you are suggesting apply to health care?

    • Dave_A

      Public Hospitals and Universities…

      On a Federal Level? Two Words: Post Office – at least if the Dems get their way….

      • lineholder

        I’ve been trying to figure out how to put this, because I do understand what the concerns are pertaining to TBTF and in many ways, I agree with them. But I do have some rather significant questions about it as well.

        No, not all health care entities that might be considered TBTF are publicly funded. What has been happening in the health care industry, and has picked up speed under O-care, is that large FPOs with the capital to do so have been investing in or buying up smaller entities that are at risk and rapidly reaching the point where they can not stand independently. This is a portion of what is included in a process called “integration”.

        Without integration, those smaller entities would probably collapse and fail. What we end up seeing if they do fail is less care being provided by primary care docs, less care being provided by rural hospitals, followed by an increase in inpatient admissions, extended LOS, and an increase in demands of ERs.

        But integration is leading to a scenario where TBTF can exist.

        In some ways, by pursuing integration, the health care industry is “bucking the system” of what liberals and Dems might want to achieve. They’re trying to keep as many independent practitioners and health care facilities in business under a FPO, independent-from-government category for as long as they possibly can.

        If we start busting them up, is it possible that it would make it easier for the scenario you’ve referenced above to take place, i.e. where the government says “for the sake of society, we will establish, direct, and control said entities”?

    • Change Jar Conservative

      Any institution that puts our nation’s stability at risk is too large to exist.

      It’s possible that it might take a new law to limit them to types of things they can be involved in.

  • Pingback: Resource

  • Dave_A

    And breaking up the big banks is an absurdly pointless action.

    It doesn’t matter if we had just a few big banks – or lots of little ones…

    The 2008 crash was a *systemic failure* – and lots of small banks would likely have been MORE vulnerable…

    In fact, the FDIC siezed & sold a whole bunch of small banks during the crisis, to prevent them from failing… Mostly to the oft-villified ‘Too Big to Fail’ institutions.

    The ‘big’ banks – particularly BoA and JP Morgan Chase, along with Wells Fargo – actually helped lighten the impact by buying up the remnants of the small-to-medium sized banks & finance companies that didn’t make it (How much worse would it have been, if WaMu, Merryl Lynch, and Wachovia had actually *failed*)…

    They were also the first institutions to BUY BACK their TARP stock & repay the government.

    So, back to the systemic failure thing…

    The problem we faced in 08 is not something breaking up big banks would (or will) prevent. It’s caused by government meddling in the economy.

    We need to stay on-message with this subject, and NOT GO POPULIST & start trashing the companies that survived…..

    The message is simple: Government picking winners & losers creates all losers…

    Get the government out of housing, out of trade, out of higher education – and most of our problems will fix themselves.

    If we go populist and start raging against profitable American businesses, promising to ‘break them up’ over the fact that they got screwed by the government, we walk right into Obama’s hands…

    We can’t out-populist the Democrats, and when we move in that direction, we give up the argument that doing so is WRONG!

    P.S. We need to get the Paulbots OUT of the GOP, not pander to them with bank bashing….

  • checkmate2012

    and too big to fail. Wrong answer is the answer in both cases.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Wasn’t that caused by the fact that some banks were simply overextended and held terribly risky assets, though?

    I agree that government intervention is generally wrong, especially in cases such as TARP. At most, the role of the state should have been in coordinating banks’ actions to prevent the spread of contagion.

  • trimulchio

    like Glass-Steagall might have kept 2008 under control, as would having some law firm have to write offering plans on instruments NO ONE understood. Some regulations mighthave helped.

  • checkmate2012

    better than feds, I agree. Still there are existing laws to prevent fraud, deception and theft, not to mention those charged with over seeing the institutions before it happens.

    As I said, it was the gov’t that made banks take on risky assets in the case of mortgages, not all assets but that was the leading cause of the downfall.

  • Dave_A

    The banks positions were caused by government over-regulation.

    The systemic failure was the feds (and a few states) meddling in the credit markets, in an attempt to make home ownership ‘accessible’ to all – and with the cavalier attitude that what they were doing was no different than making a building add a wheelie-ramp out front…

    The banks did their best to create a system to deal with the fallout from this political meddling, but in the end that system could only contain so much bad debt… Meltdown… Game Over…

    This is where ‘too big to fail’ is absurdly short-sighted: No amount of breaking up or regulating will change the fact that certain market activities are ABSOLUTELY VITAL TO OUR WAY OF LIFE.

    Banking is one of those activities. The banks build and maintain our money supply (We don’t really print money anymore – we create (or destroy) it by increasing (or decreasing) the rate at which our banks make loans) – if they collapse, the amount of dollars in the world IMPLODES.

    So if all the banks just STOP lending (say, because they go bust), then there will only be 1.3 Trillion USD in the entire world (that’s how much paper money there is, give or take a little)… Overnight.. And that is an unrecoverable, nation-ending event (deflationary spiral).

    This is what people miss about the 08 crash, when they focus on ‘too big to fail’. Too big is the wrong phrase – too critical is more like it.

    The size of the banks isn’t the issue, when the ENTIRE BANKING SECTOR is threatened. We’d see the same problem with lots of small banks, as we do with a few big ones – except lots of small banks lack the resources to deal with the situation – there would be no JPM Chase (Chase was less exposed than say, Citi – which in true free-market style, allowed them to take advantage of the situation to enhance their market position) to buy up the busted small banks & paper-over the situation….

    The ‘bailout’ (and TARP wasn’t really a ‘bailout’ per-se, at least not for the big guys that draw all the fire from the ‘too big to fail’ crowd) wasn’t for individual banks – it was for THE ENTIRE BANKING SYSTEM.

    Because as explained above, America cannot survive having our banks fail.

    And that is just life in a capitalist, credit-driven society – there’s nothing we can do about it – there is absolutely NO WAY to make banks NOT a critical, too-important-to-fail thing, any more than there’s a way to not make oil a vital national resource…

    What we NEED to do, is to protect the banks from bleeding-heart politicians who think that mucking with the credit markets & playing ‘robin hood’ is as harmless as building a wheelchair ramp.

  • trimulchio

    and Savings Banks to have more reserves in less risky assets. Those kinds of Banks are creatures of statute and I see more need to regulate them than Investment Banks, which are creatures of the pure market.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Because of government meddling…

    But I think that implementing more stringent transparency and capital requirements would be a feasible idea.

  • conservativerock5

    There is a need for *some* regulations in banking because the entire system is bordering on fraud to begin with. We have to decide what practices constitute fraud or not. Bundling mortgages by the thousands and selling them on stock markets does.

    However, I prefer to get rid of this whole government created fractional reserve system, only then will we stop having massive financial crashes like we did in 2008.

  • conservativerock5

    There is also the risk to taxpayers thanks to the FDIC and the Federal Reserve as lend of last resort. The moral hazard problem is enormous.

  • Dave_A

    There’s nothing fraudulent about mortgage backed securities…

    Not ONE THING. It’s no different than bundling a bunch of stocks together into one fund, and selling shares….

    In the end, given that a small minority of mortgages actually end up defaulting, there are going to be some people who make a good amount of money scooping up these ‘junk’ assets at today’s rock-bottom prices… There will also be a bunch of people who lose money… But that’s life in the markets – securities trading is not a low-risk venture…

    As for your comments on the banking system, there is NO ALTERNATIVE to the fractional-reserve system that ACTUALLY WORKS.

    Without fractional-reserve, you can’t have ANY banks AT ALL – there is simply no profitable business model for a bank, if there is no fractional-reserve lending. Welcome to the middle ages, and perpetual stagnation due to no possible way to finance new innovation. No banks, no credit, no economy.

    And it’s not government-created, either, as banks are not an ‘invention’ of government. The business model of taking money on deposit, paying interest, and then lending out part of that money while charging interest is entirely a creation of the market.

  • Dave_A

    ntxt…

  • Dave_A

    And the FDIC is supposed to be an insurance fund, not a lender-of-last-resort.

    As for the FED, someone needs to ‘make the money’, and a single originating bank has been found – by a long history of trial-and-error (mostly error, see the fixation with gold) to be the only way that actually works…

  • trimulchio

    understood by, well, anyone.

    Some really smart, Harvard-trained junior associate at a white shoe firm, telling her/his supervising partner, “I don’t understand the instrument I’m writing the prospectus on,” MIGHT have given people a clue that there were real design flaws in these instruments. Some mid-level partner at one of these firms then asking, “How will you value these instruments if the underlying valuation algorithym does not hold?” MIGHT have changed history.

    I’m not a big fan of government intervention, but interventions that increase transparency usually do have value.

    There are real issues with central banks and fiat currency. Of course, many of the same problems exist with specie and private banking.