6 ms·

Yeah it's a pretty odd article. It seems like things were working as they're supposed to and yet it implies that it's gonna be great now that the regulations ha

Yeah it's a pretty odd article. It seems like things were working as they're supposed to and yet it implies that it's gonna be great now that the regulations have been lifted by the Trump admin. Unfortunately though, I'd imagine the banks will just continue with their bad behavior now that the shackles are off and it seems like there won't be anything in their way to slow down or halt their plans. Doesn't seem like a good thing really...

wallace_f 8y ago
I don't find it odd. Economists are typically skeptical of government picking winners and losers. Here this is mentioned as the result of an unwritten rule, and as the title says, it was not done transparently.
- jmlsf 8y ago
  How did you go from "punishment for multiple crimes and regulatory violations" to "picking winners and losers"? Economists typically think laws governing fraud should be enforced.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Laws should also be transparent. If there is a crime, the punishment should be known in advance and be imposed openly. How else will it act as a deterrent?
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    But that's not what happened. The law was an "unwritten rule" which was enforced in secret. As another user here stated, regulatory law needs to be enforced openly and transparently.
- drb91 8y ago
  You could also use this argument to imply we should have allowed banks to fail in the mortgage crisis.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    What we should have done is saved the banks only to break them up. And it's not too late to do just that.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    In fact, at that time, mainstream economists expressed the same concern which I am expressing now: gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/
    - hnmonkey 8y ago
      This is not the same concern you're expressing unfortunately. You're arguing elsewhere that the government punishing outright fraud is manipulating the market and choosing winners and losers. I see nothing about that at your link and nothing that defends your belief in that. He's saying that the fed and the government should step in and make decisions about trying to buoy the market, which is what you want them to do when the economy might go belly up so that people don't all lose their jobs and riot and starve. I do see that it's where you got the phrase 'government should pick winners and losers' from however but the context is vastly different than what the original article we're commenting on is about.
      - wallace_f 8y ago
        I dont disagree that JP Morgan should not be punished. I already explained that. You're confusing some things. Another example of your confusion is you mentioned here that the government is punishing fraud; but in reality, they punished them in secret for "unwritten rules" which were broken. A regulator should not pick and choose who to punish, in secret, and for unwritten rules. That's ridiculous, and this kind of secrecy and ambiguity is not an example of good governance, fair treatment, or competitive markets. In a competitive market where government treat everyone equally (no picking winners and losers) everyone abides by the same rules, transparently. That's not what happened. In fact, when government decides to meddle in markets in secret and without any written rule or law, this raises fear of exactly that. Probably in this case, the end result seems to be not unjust, but the method is horrible, and I have no idea why they did it this way. And yes, this kind of market meddling, or "picking winners or losere," is a type of market meddling, not unlike what I linked to. I would suggest going back over the article to see where your confusion started, and also the posts here, and my other response to you.
- hnmonkey 8y ago
  It's not picking winners and losers in any sense of that phrase. They are literally punishing the bank for bad behavior and that's to be expected from what a regulator should be doing. If someone breaks the law and you send that person to jail you're not picking winners and losers in any way. You're meting out discipline as needed to punish the bad behavior and try to make it so that it doesn't happen again. Also can you show where economists are skeptical of government picking winners and losers since the government has been doing it for ages and the economy has been marching on for a long while. In fact, picking winners and losers in the 2008 recession is what led to moving out of the recession.
  - wallace_f 8y ago
    >t's not picking winners and losers in any sense of that phrase. They are literally punishing the bank for bad behavior This response repeats the confusion that I just responded to, and tried to correct. Note that my post does not actually disagree with enforcement of regulatory authority. I also believe that regulators should enforce their regulations. What I pointed to was something different than this. >If someone breaks the law and you send that person to jail But that's not a valid comparison. I think this is where you, and others, are confused. The judicial branch has the authority to enforce laws for breaking crimes. That's what you're comparing this to. Regulators also have authority to enforce regulatory law. But what is happening is that a regulator is arguably not using their regulatory authority appropriately. They are, "behind closed doors," and using "unwritten rules" using their authority to punish a company for bad behavior. The problems here are of transparency, accountability, fairness, competitiveness, and freedom. I could agree with you if I believed the regulator can do no wrong, but I don't believe that.
    - dd36 8y ago
      Regulators enforce laws too... They are the banking police. JPMorgan has the resources to fight the regulator in court if it’s exceeded its scope. It happens all the time.
      - wallace_f 8y ago

wallace_f 8y ago

I don't find it odd. Economists are typically skeptical of government picking winners and losers. Here this is mentioned as the result of an unwritten rule, and as the title says, it was not done transparently.

jmlsf 8y ago
How did you go from "punishment for multiple crimes and regulatory violations" to "picking winners and losers"? Economists typically think laws governing fraud should be enforced.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Laws should also be transparent. If there is a crime, the punishment should be known in advance and be imposed openly. How else will it act as a deterrent?
- wallace_f 8y ago
  But that's not what happened. The law was an "unwritten rule" which was enforced in secret. As another user here stated, regulatory law needs to be enforced openly and transparently.
drb91 8y ago
You could also use this argument to imply we should have allowed banks to fail in the mortgage crisis.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  What we should have done is saved the banks only to break them up. And it's not too late to do just that.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  In fact, at that time, mainstream economists expressed the same concern which I am expressing now: gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/12/
  - hnmonkey 8y ago
    This is not the same concern you're expressing unfortunately. You're arguing elsewhere that the government punishing outright fraud is manipulating the market and choosing winners and losers. I see nothing about that at your link and nothing that defends your belief in that. He's saying that the fed and the government should step in and make decisions about trying to buoy the market, which is what you want them to do when the economy might go belly up so that people don't all lose their jobs and riot and starve. I do see that it's where you got the phrase 'government should pick winners and losers' from however but the context is vastly different than what the original article we're commenting on is about.
    - wallace_f 8y ago
      I dont disagree that JP Morgan should not be punished. I already explained that. You're confusing some things. Another example of your confusion is you mentioned here that the government is punishing fraud; but in reality, they punished them in secret for "unwritten rules" which were broken. A regulator should not pick and choose who to punish, in secret, and for unwritten rules. That's ridiculous, and this kind of secrecy and ambiguity is not an example of good governance, fair treatment, or competitive markets. In a competitive market where government treat everyone equally (no picking winners and losers) everyone abides by the same rules, transparently. That's not what happened. In fact, when government decides to meddle in markets in secret and without any written rule or law, this raises fear of exactly that. Probably in this case, the end result seems to be not unjust, but the method is horrible, and I have no idea why they did it this way. And yes, this kind of market meddling, or "picking winners or losere," is a type of market meddling, not unlike what I linked to. I would suggest going back over the article to see where your confusion started, and also the posts here, and my other response to you.
hnmonkey 8y ago
It's not picking winners and losers in any sense of that phrase. They are literally punishing the bank for bad behavior and that's to be expected from what a regulator should be doing. If someone breaks the law and you send that person to jail you're not picking winners and losers in any way. You're meting out discipline as needed to punish the bad behavior and try to make it so that it doesn't happen again. Also can you show where economists are skeptical of government picking winners and losers since the government has been doing it for ages and the economy has been marching on for a long while. In fact, picking winners and losers in the 2008 recession is what led to moving out of the recession.
- wallace_f 8y ago
  >t's not picking winners and losers in any sense of that phrase. They are literally punishing the bank for bad behavior This response repeats the confusion that I just responded to, and tried to correct. Note that my post does not actually disagree with enforcement of regulatory authority. I also believe that regulators should enforce their regulations. What I pointed to was something different than this. >If someone breaks the law and you send that person to jail But that's not a valid comparison. I think this is where you, and others, are confused. The judicial branch has the authority to enforce laws for breaking crimes. That's what you're comparing this to. Regulators also have authority to enforce regulatory law. But what is happening is that a regulator is arguably not using their regulatory authority appropriately. They are, "behind closed doors," and using "unwritten rules" using their authority to punish a company for bad behavior. The problems here are of transparency, accountability, fairness, competitiveness, and freedom. I could agree with you if I believed the regulator can do no wrong, but I don't believe that.
  - dd36 8y ago
    Regulators enforce laws too... They are the banking police. JPMorgan has the resources to fight the regulator in court if it’s exceeded its scope. It happens all the time.
    - wallace_f 8y ago