What we have now sucks.
Steve Randy Waldman — Saturday October 17, 2009 at 6:32pm permalink
Mises (mail):
a system that allows moral hazard and double count accounting will never be stable, efficient, fair, or worth while.
10.19.2009 12:04pm
linda (mail):
because you can't lasso the intangible
10.19.2009 1:47pm
reason (www):
Mises -
au contraire - moral hazard is an essential part of the system - or should we go back to sending failed entrepeneurs to debtors prison?

Don't talk in absolutes when you really mean to talk in relatives.
10.21.2009 10:19am
Mises (mail):
"Mises -
au contraire - moral hazard is an essential part of the system - or should we go back to sending failed entrepeneurs to debtors prison?

Don't talk in absolutes when you really mean to talk in relatives.
"

huh?

i mean there should be no government backing of banks or investment firms insufficient reserve holdings.

what is it that you mean?
10.21.2009 11:24am
reason (www):
I mean that not punishing mistakes too hard is part of what created the creative system we have. You need to careful not to throw the baby out with bathwater.
10.21.2009 12:10pm
Mises (mail):
"I mean that not punishing mistakes too hard is part of what created the creative system we have. You need to careful not to throw the baby out with bathwater."

we're not only not punishing them, we're encouraging the mistakes.

but in general there are zero good reasons politically connected banks or investment firms should have their insufficient reserve holdings systemically made whole. it fosters a poor economic and moral situation.

for the most part they should be punished harder too. not only should they be forced in to bankruptcy etc., but in many cases fraud and criminal activity should be prosecuted.
10.21.2009 12:19pm
reason (www):
I don't necessarily agree in this particular case, but I don't think it holds in principle. In fact, I think restrictions on leverage for limited liability firms are a better approach to take.
10.22.2009 6:35am
Mises (mail):
"I don't necessarily agree in this particular case, but I don't think it holds in principle. In fact, I think restrictions on leverage for limited liability firms are a better approach to take."

there is no right number to limit their leverage by. i'd rather adjust firms ability to limit their liability. and further cut off money supply injections and explicit and implied guratnees to prevent enabling such dangerous leverage.

in general though i see no reason firms shouldnt be able to take a lot of risk, assuming there is no fraud. the problem with our system is most of the risk taken is fraudulent. people keep balances at the bank, and a hold a receipt for cash at par, but the bank doesnt have cash, they have a cdo cubed. an individuals money cant be held in a cash balance AND invested in a cdo cubed simultaneously. this is just stupid accounting and most often is fraudulent at heart.
10.22.2009 11:35am
Polprav (mail) (www):
Hello from Russia!
Can I quote a post "No teme" in your blog with the link to you?
11.2.2009 8:39pm
Note: You don't have to register to comment! Just use the pull-down menu to comment as "Guest".

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?