I would wager it's the latter. This will be the golden age of white collar crime, cons, and machinations. This is how this always ends.
Oh, your taxes will go up - someone will have to foot the bill.
Oh, your taxes will go up - someone will have to foot the bill.
So another S&L?
> At the end of 1988, 2,969 thrifts remained active. This was over three hundred less than in 1985 and over a thousand less than in 1980. These failures were highly geographically concentrated: a third of the failures from 1985 forward occurred in just three states: California, Texas, and Florida;[74] Texas accounted for 40 percent of thrift failures in the worst year of the crisis, 1988.[53]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Intens...
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sl-crisis.asp
*What Could Regulators Have Done Better to Solve the Savings and Loan Crisis?*
"Regulators failed to stop savings and loans from using federally insured deposits to make risky loans. Reagan also cut the budget of the regulatory staff at the FHLBB, removing its ability to investigate high-risk loans. Certain states also passed laws that allowed savings and loans to invest in speculative real estate."
Remains to be see if the current administration's views on oversight and regulation allow a repeat.
>An Office of the Comptroller of the Currency study in 1988 indicated fraud in 11 percent of failures between 1979–87; a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation study in 25 percent of failures in 1989; a Resolution Trust Corporation study in 1992 found fraud in 33 percent of its cases; and a 1994 General Accounting Office study reported 26 percent of banks that failed in 1990–91 had issues with fraud.
10%-25% fraud in the industry. Yay, can't wait until I have to judge whether my bank is outright fraudulent again.
Touché.
Capitalism interprets regulation as damage and routes around it, as someone might have said.
How long will it manifest, 4, 8, 10, 20 years? The deregulated mortgage started in the 1980s and it took almost 25 years to break everything.
Most likely it will hit foreign the hardest and set off a global recession for those countries that bought in.
Will there be any that are smarter and either buy in early and sell early or go to another country for a stable investment? Those would be the ones to most easily weather the storm.
Guessing USA retirement investments will take a big hit. So more homeless.
Also foresee politics pushing companies to invest in the Texas stock market for tax subsidies and to gain government contracts and benefits. Could be bigger than 2008.
This is what real capitalism does. It has a built-in incentive to support a state that enables firms to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.
Whether or not that outcome is an inevitable consequence of the ideology is an entirely different discussion.
Seems like a purposefully-constructed straw-man to me, really.
> This will be the golden age of white collar crime, cons, and machinations.
Your interpretation of their comment is far-fetched, and not a useful entry into a conversation about their point.
I think it is a good point to enter the conversation because it should shift to which regulations are being removed and their consequence. Rather than the notion of less regulation being inherently catastrophic.
Another answer would be yes, NYSE is already full of scams, why would we go further?
The position I am pointing it is a little weird without more information is yes NYSE is good but I can’t support the Texas version.
Perhaps you didn't intend it but your original reply reads as though your "question" is actually an assertion about his position and that you disagree with it. AKA a strawman.
If they don't like NYSE then there isn't much conversation to be had here. Texas is just another exchange, which they already take issue with.
If they like NYSE, but not this, I'm interested to learn why. That's why I asked.