4 ms·
> but pretending that regulation are not needed because there is some way for some people to get some insight about what's going on under the hood is just not a
by _trackno5 4y ago
> but pretending that regulation are not needed because there is some way for some people to get some insight about what's going on under the hood is just not a receivable argument.
What are you going on about?
If you listen to the All-in-podcast, where Sacks and the other guys talked about what happen, they actually point out that the problem was improper regulation that allowed banks to get in that state in the first place.
- LargeWu 4y ago"improper regulation" is a funny way of saying "deregulation" Banks want deregulation so they can have riskier investment profiles, but suddenly when that risk materializes, it's somebody else's fault that they can't cover their obligations.
- _trackno5 4y agoThe point is not covering the banks though. The point is covering the people that deposited money with them. In this case the bank shareholders should take the hit and not be bailed out at all. I'm on the side that the depositors got screwed here and they are the ones that need help, not the bank.