5 ms·

> Were actual, material numbers to have been objectively published, we wouldn't have had a crisis in 2008, because nobody would have bought bundles of crap, and

> Were actual, material numbers to have been objectively published, we wouldn't have had a crisis in 2008, because nobody would have bought bundles of crap, and the market would have needed no correction because it wouldn't have gotten out of hand. This is circular reasoning. The market works on the information that is available at a given time, which includes all the fudging of numbers that salespeople and marketers do as part of their quest for maximising their individual interest - being handsomely rewarded by the market for this.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
No, it's not circular logic. Lying to the public, to the government, false reporting is illegal, and against a lot of other controls and regulations that are in place to support a healthy free market. There is a lot of information that does not have to be made public and people can do as they please with it - but this was not the cause of 2008, for the most part.
- rtpg 8y ago
  Maybe a bit tangential, but do you feel if regulatory bodies were given more power to execute on already existing laws and to investigate this kind of fraud, we could prevent 2008-style crises in general?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- danmaz74 8y ago
  Yes, it's illegal, but it's part of every real market that has ever existed, and will ever exist. The circular logic IMHO is in thinking that the market can prevent this by itself, without having to go through corrections like we had in 2008.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  " The circular logic IMHO is in thinking that the market can prevent this by itself" It's not circular logic because nobody really thinks that the market will stop corruption by itself. And FYI if regulations and laws were not in place, forget about 'market correction', there would be no market to begin with. See: dysfunctional, corrupt states. They barely have 'markets'. "but do you feel if regulatory bodies were given more power to execute on already existing laws" I don't know. It might not be a matter of law or even policy, but failure of those in the office. Maybe they were understaffed, or had the wrong incentives. Banks have tons of oversight committees and auditors, and they call kind of failed as well. Major funds buying huge bundled up mortgages were maybe a little lazy in not doing diligence, but that's a 'market' thing not a regulatory thing. It was a lot of big and small failures - market and regulatory, that caused 2008. If everyone is cheating it's not going to work.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

sonnyblarney 8y ago

No, it's not circular logic. Lying to the public, to the government, false reporting is illegal, and against a lot of other controls and regulations that are in place to support a healthy free market. There is a lot of information that does not have to be made public and people can do as they please with it - but this was not the cause of 2008, for the most part.

rtpg 8y ago
Maybe a bit tangential, but do you feel if regulatory bodies were given more power to execute on already existing laws and to investigate this kind of fraud, we could prevent 2008-style crises in general?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
danmaz74 8y ago
Yes, it's illegal, but it's part of every real market that has ever existed, and will ever exist. The circular logic IMHO is in thinking that the market can prevent this by itself, without having to go through corrections like we had in 2008.
sonnyblarney 8y ago
" The circular logic IMHO is in thinking that the market can prevent this by itself" It's not circular logic because nobody really thinks that the market will stop corruption by itself. And FYI if regulations and laws were not in place, forget about 'market correction', there would be no market to begin with. See: dysfunctional, corrupt states. They barely have 'markets'. "but do you feel if regulatory bodies were given more power to execute on already existing laws" I don't know. It might not be a matter of law or even policy, but failure of those in the office. Maybe they were understaffed, or had the wrong incentives. Banks have tons of oversight committees and auditors, and they call kind of failed as well. Major funds buying huge bundled up mortgages were maybe a little lazy in not doing diligence, but that's a 'market' thing not a regulatory thing. It was a lot of big and small failures - market and regulatory, that caused 2008. If everyone is cheating it's not going to work.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]