• Tar_Alcaran
    link
    fedilink
    English
    365 days ago

    “we can just remove the brakes from this car, it hasn’t crashed yet and we barely even use them!”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    8
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    While I understand being skeptical, this article is terrible and provides next to no information about the issue.

    So the EU wants to “resurrect”, “breathe new life into”, “revive” securitization? How? What changes are proposed? Which regulations are supposed to be dropped?

    And while the practice may have aggravated the 2008 financial crisis, it was caused by the US subprime market, as the article itself mentions.

    Brussels now wants to loosen the rules governing the practice, meaning banks would need to put aside less capital against the loans they trade, as well as easing due diligence and reporting rules around the practice. But the Commission insists enough safeguards will remain to protect against a repeat of 2008.

    Again, what rules are supposed to be eased, what safeguard would remain?

    There is no information here for us to judge how risky this actually is. We just have to trust Politico’s word.
    And quite frankly, I do not find Politico - part of the Axel Springer group - trustworthy enough.

  • Miles O'Brien
    link
    fedilink
    English
    64 days ago

    I have a permanent solution to banking crises:

    Ban capitalism globally.

    It’s foolproof. It will stop any more banks from having any sort of crisis.

    • Phoenixz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14 days ago

      Well yeah, we’ll all suffer under communism where you’ll get shot for disagreeing, but who cares about those details, right?

      At least we can say that we checkmated capitalism

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        54 days ago

        The other comment is definitely far too simplicistic in its proposition, but I’ll point out that Communism doesn’t have to be authoritarian. That’s just the result of violent revolution, necessarily carried out by people so convinced that their ideology is right that they’ll use violence to assert it. Revolution requires unity, so dissidents present a real risk to a nascent movement.

        Combine those two and you have a recipe for authoritarian suppression of all who disagree with the dominant ideology, or the dominant leader figure supposedly best representing it. What they might initially see as a necessary step to a better world then becomes a feedback loop: Anyone who argues that they’re past the point where this policy is still necessary and justified is a dissident by definition.

        Conversely, authoritarian policy also doesn’t require communism. It’s perfectly possible to have a non-communist ideology in power that suppresses all opposition. The problem isn’t communism, it’s violence: once started, it’s hard to reign in again and keep on the right track.

        • Phoenixz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 hours ago

          Yeah but…

          Anytime I have discussions about communism it’s always sort of the same thing…

          Yeah, well, no country gas ever done communism right, that’s why it has all failed, but REAL communism is awesome, you just have to do it such and so and it will be great!

          Well yeah, sure, but then can’t we say the same about capitalism?

          Well yeah, capitalism has caused suffering but thats ibly because no country has done it right. Real capitalism is awesome, you just have to do it such and so and it’ll be great!

          For my part, I think capitalism is the way, but different from what we do now. To clarify, I think we both want the same destination, just different routes.

          I want capitalism with a number of hard restrictions and restraint. At its core, capitalism is about freedom to trade. Unbound, this will lead to where we are now with monopolies and abuse coming out of the whazoo. Yet, capitalism’s power is that it can generate economic prosperity better than any other system.

          So how about this?

          We go for capitalism but:

          • companies cannot grow bigger than (pulling numbers out of butt) say 1000 employees. You reach that, you can’t hire anymore.

          • Companies cannot have a worth over a billion dollars. Any worth over that goes straight to taxes until that limit is reached

          • Any person cannot have a net worth of over 10 million dollars. Anything over that goes 100% to taxes

          • A billion dollar company therefore must have at least 100 shareholders

          With these rules ( and a few more) you’ll get rid of the too big to fail companies, you get rid of all the monopolies and powerful companies and powerful people. You get not one trillion dollar company, you get a million million dollar companies instead that compete with eachother

          Meanwhile Governments get enormous tax revenues which they can then spend on a ginormous socialist network. Free healthcare (including mental, Dental, eyes, everything), free education for all, free minimal food, free housing, free public transport, hell we could even do universal income.

          This is the other thing that ma y people kinda overlook: you need your system to generate enough “wealth” for everyone to be able to live and enjoy living. You need enough food, you need enough entertainment. The USSR, for example, wasn’t known for any of these things

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          14 days ago

          That’s just the result of violent revolution, necessarily carried out by people so convinced that their ideology is right that they’ll use violence to assert it. Revolution requires unity, so dissidents present a real risk to a nascent movement.

          I’ve heard it phrased as the Bolsheviks never really leaving behind their «underground party» phase.

  • HubertManne
    link
    fedilink
    English
    125 days ago

    No worries. The us is like a rock. so stable and sensible it will help in any future fincancial crises im sure. /s