Re:Regulators systematically ignore evidence that deregulati...
by onemoreact on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @10:28AM
(#3319580)
I think when you compare "often in" with 'but also in" most people would assume the first is far more prevalent than the second. Regulatory capture is often an issue, but dispute being blamed for the instability Freddy and Fanny lost far less money than other banks relative to their size. Which suggests that they where not major players in the most toxic assets. So, while I have no problem suggesting they in some small way contributed to the mess that just happened I take issue with people suggesting they are the major causes of the collapse.
Re:Regulators systematically ignore evidence that deregulati...
by yummyfajitas on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @10:40AM
(#3319624)
Huh? The government made a profit on most of the bank bailouts. The main exceptions are AIG (lost $6B) and GM (maybe $5B, but I don't understand the GM bailout so well).
The losses on Fannie/Freddie are estimated to be in the range of $100-200B, depending on what house prices do.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020368750457700...
If Fannie/Freddie lost less money relative to their size (citation?), it's only because the denominator is so large.
Re:Regulators systematically ignore evidence that deregulati...
by onemoreact on Tuesday December 06, 2011 @11:26AM
(#3319779)
Your confusing the size of the bailouts with the size of their losses.
"Our results show that government policy decisions, often in deregulation but also in regulation, have undermined the ability of our economic system to function and made it highly susceptible to crises." (emphasis mine)
Seems you missed a key point. Also,
"...other acts of regulation and deregulation have been carried out under the influence of corporate interests."
So it seems regulation or deregulation isn't the real issue. The real issue is manipulation of laws based on corporate interest.