2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

To your questions

1. Do you agree this is a fair summary of what the central problem is and how Dodd-Frank was supposed to meet it?

Yes, and then No. A central problem of Dodd-Frank is too big to fail. Dodd Frank met this problem is several ways. 1) capital requirements. If you have enough liquid capital, you are less likely to fail. 2) bankruptcy as you say and 3) the govt's ability to freeze, take over, and wind down failing banks so they don't crash the system which you seem to admit is already in place.

2. Do you agree that Title I of Dodd-Frank has not in a meaningful way yet been implemented?

Yes, but its an extra layer on top of what's already in place to prevent too big to fail (capital requirements and govt takeover and wind down)


3. Do you agree that re: the size of the financial institutions and their domino effect in the economy these entities are still too big to fail and we would have to bail them out yet again?


No I don't. You may need some govt intervention because that's how the federal law is written. However as the last crisis didn't end up costing the Treasury mone (in fact they made money) the next one is less likely to do so.

Doom and Gloom always sells Kep.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

To your questions

1. Do you agree this is a fair summary of what the central problem is and how Dodd-Frank was supposed to meet it?

Yes, and then No. A central problem of Dodd-Frank is too big to fail. Dodd Frank met this problem is several ways. 1) capital requirements. If you have enough liquid capital, you are less likely to fail. 2) bankruptcy as you say and 3) the govt's ability to freeze, take over, and wind down failing banks so they don't crash the system which you seem to admit is already in place.

2. Do you agree that Title I of Dodd-Frank has not in a meaningful way yet been implemented?

Yes, but its an extra layer on top of what's already in place to prevent too big to fail (capital requirements and govt takeover and wind down)


3. Do you agree that re: the size of the financial institutions and their domino effect in the economy these entities are still too big to fail and we would have to bail them out yet again?


No I don't. You may need some govt intervention because that's how the federal law is written. However as the last crisis didn't end up costing the Treasury mone (in fact they made money) the next one is less likely to do so.

Doom and Gloom always sells Kep.

Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall Glass-Steagall

Scooby I don't necessarily agree but its cool.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Scooby I don't necessarily agree but its cool.

Elizabeth does. That's all that matters to me. She also wrote the most significant economics book in US history. Glad to have her on my side.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Elizabeth does. That's all that matters to me. She also wrote the most significant economics book in US history. Glad to have her on my side.

Good thing she was involved in making the Dodd-Frank law.

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Good thing she was involved in making the Dodd-Frank law.

Considering how toxic and moronic the Republicans in Congress are I'm surprised that law even passed. Flawed as it is. Glass-Steagall should have been put back. Greedy Money Humpers have a strong lobby.

[mookie1995]

Elizabeth does. That's all that matters to me. She also wrote the most significant economics book in US history. Glad to have her on my side.

Thank God for Pocahontas

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Meanwhile in Alabama.

ATLANTA — The chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Roy S. Moore, on Wednesday ordered probate judges in the state not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, a move that could cloud the carrying out of the United States Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex unions.

Within hours of the administrative order, the probate court in Mobile County said on its website that it was “not issuing marriage licenses to any applicants until further notice.” That probate office, among the busiest in Alabama, was involved in the litigation that last year prompted a federal judge in Mobile to strike down the state’s marriage restrictions as unconstitutional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us...nses.html?_r=0

[St. Clown]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Alabama confuses me. How can a single judge carry so much power? Does Alabama not have a state supreme court that consists of a panel/quorum of judges that would need to vote to make such a decision? To my understanding, when looking at the Federal model, the Chief Justice there can only decide on seemingly minor things (which probably have large consequences) that impact how the SCOTUS goes about its business, not issue directives without a majority rule.

[Slap Shot]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

I am being too lenient by wanting them punished accordingly? Ok...

If you think this was a 50/50 screw-up you're being too lenient.

[Handyman]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

If you think this was a 50/50 screw-up you're being too lenient.

If yo can kindly find me where I said that I will mea culpa. Since I didnt, nor have I ever thought as such (I usually say 80/20 for the record) I wont go holding my breathe.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Kep you're channeling Karl Rove now. You've made several statements that I've challenged, and now you're hiding behind "oh well you did it too". While we're waiting for your friend, tell me what questions you raised that I refused to answer? I've put mine down here for all to see. Kindly accept the challenge to do the same (again, while we're waiting for your friend )

My friend responded very briefly but hinted when he has time he'll hit it more analytically. His response is concise, at least:

So what if the law requires them to do something? They're a lawless mafia who are never punished because they've captured their regulators and they own Congress. They're more highly leveraged now than they were in 2008 and the next time they fall will be even worse. I'll work on the footnotes.

He's typically more laconic than Spock, so I think we hit a nerve.

[Rover]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

My friend responded very briefly but hinted when he has time he'll hit it more analytically. His response is concise, at least:



He's typically more laconic than Spock, so I think we hit a nerve.

Definitely sounds like he's going to bring a sober, reasoned analysis to all this after those comments. I await his reply....

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

Definitely sounds like he's going to bring a sober, reasoned analysis to all this after those comments. I await his reply....

Actually, if you found something that gets him annoyed I'll be forever grateful. I've been trying to annoy him for 30 years and haven't hit it yet.

[Kepler]

Re: 2nd Term Part X - A link to a fore gone conclusion

A very long piece detailing Obama's domestic policy achievements. The important thing, of course, is to cement and then extend these changes by continuing to hold the White House, which is why in the end liberals should and hopefully will turn out for Hillary.