Based on your theory, why would should there be a federally insured limit at all?
[/quote] actually no, but that’s not realistic. The private market could underwrite banks as well or better than the Fed. But whatever.
And do you really not understand risk-return. Of COURSE, savings is an investment. But historically, they have been considered quite safe ones. ALMOST non-investments. That’s why interest rates on savings accounts are low. The risker the investment, the higher the rate of return must be.
[/quote] anyone with half a brain knows that they are safe the insured levels. what aren’t you getting?
Then you are not paying attention. Someone else did a better job of elborating. Look for the moral hazard post.
The only thing that will really work for the future is regulations that force executives to give up their bonuses and face criminal penalties for irresponsible lending practices. Make it in their self-interest to behave properly and live the details to them.
[/quote] This is rediculous. How could you get any closer to nationalization. Prosecute someone for being a bad businessman? If there was any fraud, there are already laws that cover this.
Your kidding right? SOX is a disaster and is causing companies to go private to avoid it.
By your reasoning all wars shoudl be good for the economy. We should just stay in a perpetual state of war. Maybe that’s why the economy is slow. Stop bringing the troops home, it’s fucking up the market. Which economists by the way? Smith, Von Mises, Hayek, Bastiat, Hobbs, Hume, Friedman, Rothbard, Haslett? I don’t think so. Christ, even the Keynesians wouldn’t agree. Greenspan didn’t even believe that. You need to quite reading highshcool economics books.
But if you’re an Adam Smith fan, you should agree with the point about making it it executives self-interest to behave properly. We should have some common ground on that point.[/quote]
It already is. No additional regulation is needed.