Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
SVB is Now In the Hands of the FDIC
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Klaus" data-source="post: 16890466" data-attributes="member: 190070"><p>Trick question. There is no such thing as a "better regulator." </p><p></p><p>Regulations are merely a subsidy for the largest operators in a particular industry. </p><p></p><p>The net effect in banking is that it results in a concentration of risk in the largest banks. </p><p></p><p>Smaller banks cannot afford to comply with the additional tax of regulation. </p><p></p><p>It is in fact large banks that are most in favor of regulation. They lobby for it and write the rules themselves. </p><p></p><p>Who would not jump at the chance to create a monopoly for one's self? This is what JPM, C, WAF have done. </p><p></p><p>They are the net beneficiaries of all of this despite ****ing up in exactly the same fashion. Perhaps worse. C and BAC should have been put out of their misery long ago. </p><p></p><p>The irony is that all of the reforms that attempted to disburse risk and get rid of the "too big to fail" banks have had the opposite effect. They are bigger than ever and have fully captured the regulatory apparatus to their benefit. </p><p></p><p>The MOAR REGULATION fetishists are either ignorant of this or in fact simping for this outcome. We need less regulation not more.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Klaus, post: 16890466, member: 190070"] Trick question. There is no such thing as a "better regulator." Regulations are merely a subsidy for the largest operators in a particular industry. The net effect in banking is that it results in a concentration of risk in the largest banks. Smaller banks cannot afford to comply with the additional tax of regulation. It is in fact large banks that are most in favor of regulation. They lobby for it and write the rules themselves. Who would not jump at the chance to create a monopoly for one's self? This is what JPM, C, WAF have done. They are the net beneficiaries of all of this despite ****ing up in exactly the same fashion. Perhaps worse. C and BAC should have been put out of their misery long ago. The irony is that all of the reforms that attempted to disburse risk and get rid of the "too big to fail" banks have had the opposite effect. They are bigger than ever and have fully captured the regulatory apparatus to their benefit. The MOAR REGULATION fetishists are either ignorant of this or in fact simping for this outcome. We need less regulation not more. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
SVB is Now In the Hands of the FDIC
Top