Dodd-Frank: House Republicans vote to roll back Obama's Wall Street regulations

[OriZ 3,165]

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

You guys are hanging your hat on Dodd-Frank?

 

That's kinda what I was thinking. What a useless piece of garbage anyway. In every metric, it seems that the big banks are at least as risky as they were before the crisis, in part because they have lower capital values. Furthermore, insurance against defaults has gotten more expensive as measured by credit-default swap spreads for the big banks. They’re now about three times higher than before the financial crisis. Does that indicate greater bank risk or a stronger belief that if there were another crash a government bailout might not come? Here's the irony though as history tends to repeat itself; My opinion on where the economy is headed with Trump without Trump, with Obama without Obama, with Dodd-Frank or without it, with the FED or without it is already well known. Even if you're skeptical, lets assume for a moment that I'm right. Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, right before the bursting of the dot com bubble. When certain events happen, something like this being one of them, it's usually a sign as it's part of a bigger psychological phenomenon of peak optimism near the peak of a bubble, when policymakers as well as the public feel comfortable and think there is nothing to fear anymore. We know what happened in 2000-2003 so we'll see if the same happens now. Now where is the irony - I believe in hindsight, this move will be blamed, even though it will have had nothing to do with it. So while I am not a fan of the law, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot here; This is not the right time and will create the wrong impression in the future by those analyzing the causes for the impending crisis wrongly.

Edited June 10, 2017 by OriZ

[IAMX 3,055]

9 minutes ago, OriZ said:

That's kinda what I was thinking. What a useless piece of garbage anyway. In every metric, it seems that the big banks are at least as risky as they were before the crisis, in part because they have lower capital values. Furthermore, insurance against defaults has gotten more expensive as measured by credit-default swap spreads for the big banks. They’re now about three times higher than before the financial crisis. Does that indicate greater bank risk or a stronger belief that if there were another crash a government bailout might not come? Here's the irony though as history tends to repeat itself; My opinion on where the economy is headed with Trump without Trump, with Obama without Obama, with Dodd-Frank or without it, with the FED or without it is already well known. Even if you're skeptical, lets assume for a moment that I'm right. Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, right before the bursting of the dot com bubble. When certain events happen, something like this being one of them, it's usually a sign as it's part of a bigger psychological phenomenon of peak optimism near the peak of a bubble, when policymakers as well as the public feel comfortable and think there is nothing to fear anymore. We know what happened in 2000-2003 so we'll see if the same happens now. Now where is the irony - I believe in hindsight, this move will be blamed, even though it will have had nothing to do with it. So while I am not a fan of the law, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot here; This is not the right time and will create the wrong impression in the future by those analyzing the causes for the impending crisis wrongly.

Indeed. All the regulations in the world won't help if government turns around and guarantees risky loans, especially the subprime programs run through Countrywide et al last decade. All part of this cheap credit/debt monetization strategy which hasn't turned the dollar to garbage only because the other options (Euro, RMB, etc.) are even worse.

[OriZ 3,165]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Indeed. All the regulations in the world won't help if government turns around and guarantees risky loans, especially the subprime programs run through Countrywide et al last decade. All part of this cheap credit/debt monetization strategy which hasn't turned the dollar to garbage only because the other options (Euro, RMB, etc.) are even worse.

Too many deflationary pressures. That's been the greatest risk in the recent decade + is not inflation but deflation and that's what they are trying to fight, yet the velocity of money, oh the velocity of money...no avail.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V

 

[iwannaplay54 985]

11 hours ago, Teddy B said:

Fast forward 7 months from Nov 8th 2016 and Ted Cruz isn't lookin so bad now, is he?

 

Still looks pervish.  Plastic surgery maybe?

[iwannaplay54 985]

4 hours ago, OriZ said:

Too many deflationary pressures. That's been the greatest risk in the recent decade + is not inflation but deflation and that's what they are trying to fight, yet the velocity of money, oh the velocity of money...no avail.

 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2V

 

The printed money never circulated.  It accumulated.

[OriZ 3,165]

4 hours ago, iwannaplay54 said:

The printed money never circulated.  It accumulated.

Indeed. That's what happens during deflationary periods.

[Dashinka 25,898]

11 hours ago, OriZ said:

That's kinda what I was thinking. What a useless piece of garbage anyway. In every metric, it seems that the big banks are at least as risky as they were before the crisis, in part because they have lower capital values. Furthermore, insurance against defaults has gotten more expensive as measured by credit-default swap spreads for the big banks. They’re now about three times higher than before the financial crisis. Does that indicate greater bank risk or a stronger belief that if there were another crash a government bailout might not come? Here's the irony though as history tends to repeat itself; My opinion on where the economy is headed with Trump without Trump, with Obama without Obama, with Dodd-Frank or without it, with the FED or without it is already well known. Even if you're skeptical, lets assume for a moment that I'm right. Glass-Steagall was repealed in 1999, right before the bursting of the dot com bubble. When certain events happen, something like this being one of them, it's usually a sign as it's part of a bigger psychological phenomenon of peak optimism near the peak of a bubble, when policymakers as well as the public feel comfortable and think there is nothing to fear anymore. We know what happened in 2000-2003 so we'll see if the same happens now. Now where is the irony - I believe in hindsight, this move will be blamed, even though it will have had nothing to do with it. So while I am not a fan of the law, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot here; This is not the right time and will create the wrong impression in the future by those analyzing the causes for the impending crisis wrongly.

What is sad is we cannot get rid of a bad law because of the potential negative impact to economy.

[OriZ 3,165]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

What is sad is we cannot get rid of a bad law because of the future after-the-fact wrongly perceived potential negative impact to economy.

I fixed it for ya since I don't actually believe there will be much of an impact.

Edited June 10, 2017 by OriZ

[Póg mo 1,749]

14 hours ago, IAMX said:

Indeed. All the regulations in the world won't help if government turns around and guarantees risky loans, especially the subprime programs run through Countrywide et al last decade. All part of this cheap credit/debt monetization strategy which hasn't turned the dollar to garbage only because the other options (Euro, RMB, etc.) are even worse.

True, if the government refuses to break up wall Street and the big banks, then regulations by themselves won't help.

[IAMX 3,055]

35 minutes ago, Póg mo said:

True, if the government refuses to break up wall Street and the big banks, then regulations by themselves won't help.

More like stop giving them bailouts, priority is always golden parachutes for the upper echelon. This is why government shouldn't be involving itself anyways on your subject except to enforce antitrust. The same people who pass Dodd Frank then pass laws a few years later incentivizing reckless loans to subprime.. rendering the supposed benefits of regulations moot at best. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by IAMX

[OriZ 3,165]

9 hours ago, IAMX said:

More like stop giving them bailouts, priority is always golden parachutes for the upper echelon. This is why government shouldn't be involving itself anyways on your subject except to enforce antitrust. The same people who pass Dodd Frank then pass laws a few years later incentivizing reckless loans to subprime.. rendering the supposed benefits of regulations moot at best. 

 

Not to mention they are all in bed with the same "evils" they claim they are trying to stop. The same people that gave us the student debt crisis which make no mistake about it will implode eventually, the same people that are about to give us a major pension crisis(you heard it here first unless you know where else to look), the same people who are responsible for consumers being in debt, homeowners, car owners, you name it...they want to "protect" us by passing stupid laws. If it wasn't so sad it would be the funniest joke ever.

[IAMX 3,055]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

 

Not to mention they are all in bed with the same "evils" they claim they are trying to stop. The same people that gave us the student debt crisis which make no mistake about it will implode eventually, the same people that are about to give us a major pension crisis(you heard it here first unless you know where else to look), the same people who are responsible for consumers being in debt, homeowners, car owners, you name it...they want to "protect" us by passing stupid laws. If it wasn't so sad it would be the funniest joke ever.

Funny thing is banks would have never lent to subprime or others if they had to take on the risk themselves, and wouldn't receive financial incentives+write-offs and bailouts when they inevitably went under. Every time government gets involved they incentivize behavior that is detrimental to the very consumers who want big government.

[OriZ 3,165]

2 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Funny thing is banks would have never lent to subprime or others if they had to take on the risk themselves, and wouldn't receive financial incentives+write-offs and bailouts when they inevitably went under. Every time government gets involved they incentivize behavior that is detrimental to the very consumers who want big government.

Of course. They knew they would not be held accountable, but some would tell you they should lend to them because "everyone deserves a house". Then the same people will blame other people for the crises their policies cause.

[IAMX 3,055]

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

Of course. They knew they would not be held accountable, but some would tell you they should lend to them because "everyone deserves a house". Then the same people will blame other people for the crises their policies cause.

The obvious solution is, more government!

[Dashinka 25,898]

10 hours ago, IAMX said:

The obvious solution is, more government!

Yes, let the government take over everything.  All will be perfect!