> What about punishing the people who snuck it by the regulators?
You're missing my point - "they" didn't sneak anything by regulators. Regulators (and policy makers) wanted "the market" to do certain things. Those things blew up.
For example, "real" LIBOR values would have spooked the market during 2007 and probably caused the collapse of various banks. What should a regulator tasked with stability do in that circumstance?
Add in the fact that many regulators (and policy makers) are, in fact, tools of the folks they're supposedly regulating, and regulation can't do what you want it to do, especially if you're unwilling to punish regulators and policy makers.
> We should've let your ideology destroy the modern economy.
Now you're just babbling.
Either you want stability, which will require things like the LIBOR "fraud". or you're going to have to let banks fail. You can't have no failures and no fraud. (You can have both fraud and failures.)
As to "too big to fail", surely the same applies to govts as well. After all, regulation is, by definition, systemic risk. If everyone plays by the same rules, you've got a problem when those rules don't work....
> all this crap from you guys for decades about how deregulation was the way to go
The problems didn't come from deregulation. (Besides, there actually wasn't significant deregulation, apart from the repeal of Glass-steagal, which actually helped a great deal during the crisis.)
The problems came from govts "encouraging" (and subsidizing) bad economics to accomplish social goals. They got out of hand in part because GSEs lied.
You're missing my point - "they" didn't sneak anything by regulators. Regulators (and policy makers) wanted "the market" to do certain things. Those things blew up.
For example, "real" LIBOR values would have spooked the market during 2007 and probably caused the collapse of various banks. What should a regulator tasked with stability do in that circumstance?
Add in the fact that many regulators (and policy makers) are, in fact, tools of the folks they're supposedly regulating, and regulation can't do what you want it to do, especially if you're unwilling to punish regulators and policy makers.
> We should've let your ideology destroy the modern economy.
Now you're just babbling.
Either you want stability, which will require things like the LIBOR "fraud". or you're going to have to let banks fail. You can't have no failures and no fraud. (You can have both fraud and failures.)
As to "too big to fail", surely the same applies to govts as well. After all, regulation is, by definition, systemic risk. If everyone plays by the same rules, you've got a problem when those rules don't work....
> all this crap from you guys for decades about how deregulation was the way to go
The problems didn't come from deregulation. (Besides, there actually wasn't significant deregulation, apart from the repeal of Glass-steagal, which actually helped a great deal during the crisis.)
The problems came from govts "encouraging" (and subsidizing) bad economics to accomplish social goals. They got out of hand in part because GSEs lied.