The Stupidity of "Regulating" Banks to Prevent Meltdowns

By -
"The move took place mostly because of the overbureaucratization of the system as paper shufflers (who think work is mostly about paper shuffling) overburdened the banks with rules -- but somehow, in the thousands of pages of additional regulations, they avoided considering skin in the game." -- Nassim Taleb, Skin in the Game, p. 13

Comments

  1. Lord8:41 PM

    Surprising how much skin in the game Bear Stearns, Lehman, even Citi had. That didn't work out so well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:32 PM

      Wow, what a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the concept! "Citi" can't have "skin in the game": it is a corporation, not a person. The point is the *people running things* didn't have skin in the game: Rubin kept all of his money.

      Delete
    2. gcallah2:36 PM

      So, in fact:
      1) There was MASSIVE amounts of regulation in place before the meltdown; and
      2) None of the key players had skin in the game.
      It is, in fact, well know around Wall St. that new regulations always present great opportunities to make riskless profits by gaming them. An 25-year Wall St. pro was just mentioning this to me the other day.

      Delete
  2. Ken B9:27 AM

    This blog's name has not changed in ages. Manatees have lived and died since the last name change.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more