aceventura3

I question the premise that massive over-leveraging was a direct result of "deregulation" leading to market failures. Short of having no leverage, firms always have the risk of failure due to leverage (I know some will call what I just wrote tautology or stating something that need not be stated, so let's just say we already know I am guilty of it or whatever, I just think the point needed to be put on the table). In addition there are far more firms that did not fail due to leverage than those that have. The real issue is the decisions made or the judgment of those who employed leverage. The regulation governing the use or non-use of leverage is a false indicator of the cause of failure.

So based on my view, people who hold the view that the lack of regulation lead to market failure are going to attempt to fix the problem with a solution that is not going to be workable or with a solution that is not relevant to the issue.

I understand what I don't accept on this issue and I know why I don't accept it. I wonder if those who disagree with my position can say the same.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."