c******s
发帖数: 428 | 1 法律规定的清楚，监督一直就应该有，
没有监督是因为美国官僚政府根本不想监督，
为何改了就监督了 |
B******e
发帖数: 5730 | 2 银行，金融，华尔街，不是一直都有监督吗？
闹出金融危机，才发现，还是有漏洞
监督必须不断进步
保险啥时有监督了？
过去20年，保费每年平均以10-15% 速度增长
以前从来没有，check and balance
现在，要涨价，必须经过监管机关核准
不是进步吗？ |
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 3
It is the regulation that caused the 金融危机. Had there been no FDIC and
FED, there'd never been a credit bubble.
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: 银行，金融，华尔街，不是一直都有监督吗？
: 闹出金融危机，才发现，还是有漏洞
: 监督必须不断进步
: 保险啥时有监督了？
: 过去20年，保费每年平均以10-15% 速度增长
: 以前从来没有，check and balance
: 现在，要涨价，必须经过监管机关核准
: 不是进步吗？
|
n******h
发帖数: 2482 | 4 Take a break, bro. People on this board never understand why FDIC is evil.
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: It is the regulation that caused the 金融危机. Had there been no FDIC and
: FED, there'd never been a credit bubble.
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 5
That figures, the way they support the big government programs, hoho.
【在 n******h 的大作中提到】
: Take a break, bro. People on this board never understand why FDIC is evil.
|
B******e
发帖数: 5730 | 6 说说 why FDIC is evil
是那个经济学派的理论？
还是你老独家见解？ |
n******h
发帖数: 2482 | 7 Both Austrian and Neoclassical would agree with this. Of course keynesians
don't. Pick your own cup of tea.
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: 说说 why FDIC is evil
: 是那个经济学派的理论？
: 还是你老独家见解？
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 8
Were there no FDIC, you wouldn't just leave your money in the bank and
walk way. You'd want to know what the bank is doing w/ your money. If
you notice they run subprime loans or gamble on derivatives, you would
want to get out. "WTF? What if you screw up and cannot pay me back? What
if you overleverage in that fractional reserve crap? I'm not depositing
in your bank. Whoever wants my money better convinces me you are safe in
1st place." That prudence would keep many banks honest.
FDIC is not r
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: 说说 why FDIC is evil
: 是那个经济学派的理论？
: 还是你老独家见解？
|
B******e
发帖数: 5730 | 9 要 consumers 去 monitor 银行有没有 risky investment
不切实际吧
多半人连 financial statements 都看不懂
而且，银行那么大，又不是所有的 investment portfolio 都会 disclosed
这次 financial crisis, 有那个人的银行存款不见了吗？
这不是 FDIC 的功用发挥了？ |
n******h
发帖数: 2482 | 10 Consumer is an aggregate, not an individual. As long as there is one
person who can read the financial statements and free speech is
available, it's enough to deter the banks not to engage in stupid and
highly-risky activities.
Yes. Your money was safe in this financial crisis. "Thanks" to FDIC.
Just don't forget -- FDIC has been in negative balance for a long time
and the hole is just getting deeper by day -- just pay a bit attention
on how many banks fail every Friday. How will FDIC make up th
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: 要 consumers 去 monitor 银行有没有 risky investment
: 不切实际吧
: 多半人连 financial statements 都看不懂
: 而且，银行那么大，又不是所有的 investment portfolio 都会 disclosed
: 这次 financial crisis, 有那个人的银行存款不见了吗？
: 这不是 FDIC 的功用发挥了？
|
|
|
n***b
发帖数: 5914 | 11 FDIC doesn't have that much money to cover the loss if any of those big
players like C or Chase falls.
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: 要 consumers 去 monitor 银行有没有 risky investment
: 不切实际吧
: 多半人连 financial statements 都看不懂
: 而且，银行那么大，又不是所有的 investment portfolio 都会 disclosed
: 这次 financial crisis, 有那个人的银行存款不见了吗？
: 这不是 FDIC 的功用发挥了？
|
n******h
发帖数: 2482 | 12 C already failed. The government plugged the hole, yes, with tax payer
money. Was the problem fixed permanently? Sadly no. Nothing has been done
to change wall street's behavior. Just wait for the shit to hit the fan
again next time. Only that the government will be dragged down as well and
there is no cure. Fasten your seatbelt.
【在 n***b 的大作中提到】
: FDIC doesn't have that much money to cover the loss if any of those big
: players like C or Chase falls.
|
n***b
发帖数: 5914 | 13 FDIC is just a pacifier, a false hope,
done
and
【在 n******h 的大作中提到】
: C already failed. The government plugged the hole, yes, with tax payer
: money. Was the problem fixed permanently? Sadly no. Nothing has been done
: to change wall street's behavior. Just wait for the shit to hit the fan
: again next time. Only that the government will be dragged down as well and
: there is no cure. Fasten your seatbelt.
|
B******e
发帖数: 5730 | 14 No, depending on individual consumer alert is not even feasible.
How can I trust another person's comments? Most of the analysts cannot even
predict this financial crisis. If I trust any Joe-Blow's comments, I might
as well just put my money under my bed.
And I may not even have time to mind if there are any new comments or criticism every second.
Granted, the loss of FDIC is not a small matter. Yet, the function of FDIC
is to ensure that consumers have trust in the retail banks and put money i
【在 n******h 的大作中提到】
: Consumer is an aggregate, not an individual. As long as there is one
: person who can read the financial statements and free speech is
: available, it's enough to deter the banks not to engage in stupid and
: highly-risky activities.
: Yes. Your money was safe in this financial crisis. "Thanks" to FDIC.
: Just don't forget -- FDIC has been in negative balance for a long time
: and the hole is just getting deeper by day -- just pay a bit attention
: on how many banks fail every Friday. How will FDIC make up th
|
n***b
发帖数: 5914 | 15 这不会是个人alert的case, 如果银行因为经营不善而传出不利甚至亏损的消息，就很
容易造成公
众恐慌而出现滞堤的情况，
香港80年代就出现过类似的情况，几家中小银行就这样倒闭了，
FDIC也许可以保住一些小银行， 一旦它的底子被掏空，
民众照样会因为恐慌而立刻去自己的银行取消帐户把资金转移。。。
这种骨牌效应是很可怕的
cannot even
might
criticism every second.
FDIC
money in
number
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: No, depending on individual consumer alert is not even feasible.
: How can I trust another person's comments? Most of the analysts cannot even
: predict this financial crisis. If I trust any Joe-Blow's comments, I might
: as well just put my money under my bed.
: And I may not even have time to mind if there are any new comments or criticism every second.
: Granted, the loss of FDIC is not a small matter. Yet, the function of FDIC
: is to ensure that consumers have trust in the retail banks and put money i
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 16
You are assuming you have to put money in the bank, which is not the case.
You'd rather put the money inside the mattress if you don't trust any of
those guys.
That prudence is a natural marketing force demanding the banks to act
responsibly if they want any business. It's not fool-proof but effective.
To get your money, banks would therefore have to convince you w/ their
performance, track record and so on.
There would be a two-tiered banking system. One runs like warehouse that
stores your mo
【在 B******e 的大作中提到】
: No, depending on individual consumer alert is not even feasible.
: How can I trust another person's comments? Most of the analysts cannot even
: predict this financial crisis. If I trust any Joe-Blow's comments, I might
: as well just put my money under my bed.
: And I may not even have time to mind if there are any new comments or criticism every second.
: Granted, the loss of FDIC is not a small matter. Yet, the function of FDIC
: is to ensure that consumers have trust in the retail banks and put money i
|
