Financial Reform

This morning, I read Volcker's editorial in the NY Times, and with the reforms he thinks of putting in place - he advocates more control over banks than most of those with any say - the banks "would be free to to innovate, to trade, to speculate, to manage private pools of capital...". My sense is that trading can't go backwards, and that the use derivatives and securitization will continue unabated, albeit correlated with ups and downs in market activity.

Comments

Why Amazon Is Caught in an Unexpected Brawl in New York

#1 I was surprised that less affluent groups and minorities were for Amazon coming to NYC, although I was aware that locals in my area would be in favor. I live in Murray Hill, and it has a large number of software developers, in number and percentage, in Manhattan, and many - most? - people in our zip code earn in the six figures. I've worked as a software developer for over 15 years, and have occasionally been contacted by Amazon for my skills, although I would not put too much on this as I am always being contacted by recruiters, much of worthless. Although I am likely to benefit from Amazon coming to NYC, I am not a fan of the deal in its current incarnation. It takes too much money from our coffers, circumvents city governance, will place a large burden on existing resources, and will drive up costs for many New York residents. It seems the biggest boosters would be the real estate industry, along with anyone that might be able to profit from selling to the behemoth... h...

Polls Show Government Shutdown Is Eroding Faith in Economy

It's obvious that much economic sentiment is simply political allegiance, although even that has some fact-based reasoning behind it. When Republicans harm Democratic-leaning states or focus on the industries of the Rust Belt, Democrats worry. Conversely, Republican worry when the newer industries common in Blue states are given prominence by Democrats. That said, little that Trump has done is good for the long-term welfare of the country, and much of the short-term benefits are really long-term losses, specifically, the reductions in taxes which will likely entail future belt-tightening, loosening of corporate regulation will lead to future costs for healthcare, environmental cleanup, and consumer debt. Rather than play the safe hand of trying to bring down an inflated market, Republicans instead chose to 'put out the fire with gasoline'. Eventually, there will be pain, suffering, and loss, but who will suffer, and by how much, is yet to be seen. As for outright ignorant...

How Much Will Americans Sacrifice for Good Health Care?

I'm am often reminded of a statement, paraphrased from Amartya Sen, that one person's equality is another man's inequality when discussing social welfare. Making the system work could mean increasing taxes on the wealthy, reducing the military expenditure, reducing payments for unproven medications, reducing the power of insurers, doctors, and medical/pharmaceutical companies. American wellbeing, on the whole, might improve substantially, but the flip side is that all of those impinged upon would take umbrage as if their freedom was reduced. In the end, we have to realize there is a greater good to human welfare and life, and that the interests of the powerful matter less. Even then, if we tried, expect lawsuits and smears, accusations of socialism and tyranny... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/medicare-for-all-universal-health-care.html?comments#permid=30660804

Foxes and Hedgehogs

Search This Blog