Regulatory solutions from Emanuel Derman

I had a fantasy in which the Fed and the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) switched roles.

If a bank failed at 9 a.m. one morning and shut its doors, the TSA would announce that all banks henceforth begin their business day at 10 a.m.

And, if a terrorist managed to get on board a plane between Stockholm and Washington, the Fed would increase the number of flights between the cities.

The piece is here and the pointer is from Felix Salmon.


That is hilarious!

Thanks for sharing.

Milk out my nose!
"Open at 10".

Should I read something into the CAPTCHA of nzsux6?
New Zealand sucks

Haven't the Fed and TSA been operating under the same rules?

Neither is allowed by conservatives to regulate the activity of those it is supposedly supervising.

On the whole body scanner issue, a Republican introduced a bill prohibiting its use screening everyone, calling for it to be used only on terrorists, not regular people. Republicans called for no checking on bankers and others involved in speculation, except for those who are criminals.

After each crisis, a fair amount of effort is put into creating confidence so business can return to normal, with a lot of the activity being viewed as useless activity done for show, and some activity causing more harm than good.

But in both cases, conservatives don't generally want any information revealed to the public because doing so would help the enemy.

And conservatives seem to insist the terrorist threat is from Iraq and Iran, not from allies Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and their clerics in Britain and Europe. And the problems were CRA (which explicitly prohibited unaffordable mortgages) and Freddie and Fannie, not their friends at the all but Goldman now defunct investment banks that pushed for and got the green light to fly in US economy into the twin towers of Wall Street.

The Obama administration has been working to increase regulation of financial activity and to implement full body scans everywhere; conservatives are opposed to both from what I can tell.

Mulp, you're way too partisan. Your opponent could claim, in the same style, that Democrats refuse to recognize any threat from Islamic ideology and that they worship at the altar of political correctness, sacrifying blood of its victims etc. Repubs, Dems, blah blah. Politics of power is more complicated than that.

The reality is that anyone who is not ignorant about the Middle East knows pretty well that Saudi-funded export of wahhabism is a serious problem, and not just in Britain, but also Egypt, Kashmir, Aceh etc.

The trouble is that many people have their mouths stuffed shut by petrodollars. Show me a single major American university whose Islamic studies department is realistic about Islam. There is none, because huge "scientific" grants from various Gulf-based funds (like prince ibn Talal's fund) come with strings attached. The situation is similar to the Nuclear Disarmament Campaing in 1980s Britain, supported and funded by the USSR; of course no one from the NCD could speak about the fact that the Soviet arsenal to British arsenal is 20:1 in terms of warheads and probably more in yield.

@Andrew, that's the FDIC, not the Fed.

If a terrorist would blow up a plane, the Fed would receive sweeping new powers to regulate.

To call mulp partisan doesn't even remotely do justice. He's clearly living in a fantasy world.

Comments for this post are closed