<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Optimism Quickly Fading</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cafehayek.com/2008/09/optimism-quickl.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cafehayek.com/2008/09/optimism-quickl.html</link>
	<description>where orders emerge</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2008/09/optimism-quickl.html/comment-page-1#comment-30604</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:57:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3032#comment-30604</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks, Jason.  The follow-on question, of course, is whether the perception of systemic risk with respect to new intermediaries/products was correct, and if so, what is the appropriate prophylactic government response, if any?  If Federal guarantees lead to worse problems, then what is the right policy?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, Jason.  The follow-on question, of course, is whether the perception of systemic risk with respect to new intermediaries/products was correct, and if so, what is the appropriate prophylactic government response, if any?  If Federal guarantees lead to worse problems, then what is the right policy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2008/09/optimism-quickl.html/comment-page-1#comment-30603</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 11:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3032#comment-30603</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Richard, I believe it&#039;s 3.  It was the implicit Federal backing of just about everything, and hey, that was a pretty good assumption.  Why worry about risk when you know if you mess up badly enough, someone else is going to pick up the costs?  Be careful though, you&#039;ve got to screw up really badly if you want the bail out.  If you&#039;re somewhat competent with risk, you&#039;ll have to eat the losses yourself.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard, I believe it&#39;s 3.  It was the implicit Federal backing of just about everything, and hey, that was a pretty good assumption.  Why worry about risk when you know if you mess up badly enough, someone else is going to pick up the costs?  Be careful though, you&#39;ve got to screw up really badly if you want the bail out.  If you&#39;re somewhat competent with risk, you&#39;ll have to eat the losses yourself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2008/09/optimism-quickl.html/comment-page-1#comment-30602</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:28:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3032#comment-30602</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;We&#039;re suffering from a syllogism gone bad.  Bear with me.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;1.  The main lesson Government learned from the Great Depression is that bank runs lead to credit contraction, deflation, and ultimately a depressed economy -- persisting for perhaps an entire decade!&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;2.  To avoid bank runs, insure deposits.  Deposit insurance is like mutually assured destruction where possessing nukes means never having to use them.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;3.  New financial intermediaries and products?  Investment banks too big to fail without unacceptable systemic risk?  Expand Federal insurance to cover counterparties to derivative contracts such as credit default swaps, and Fannie&#039;s and Freddie&#039;s mortgage portfolio.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;4.  Cut regulation of entities funding themselves from Federally insured sources -- all regulation is bad.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;5.  My God!  Look at those Wall Street bonuses!  Look at those leverage ratios!  Belatedly discover that storied investment banks have been playing dice with other people&#039;s money and winning for half a decade or more, as long as real estate appreciated.  And why shouldn&#039;t others permit it -- it&#039;s all Federally insured (at least implicitly under the too-big-to-fail principal).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;6.  Oops.  Real estate prices are declining.  Financial firms are bankrupt.  Federal guarantees must actually be fulfilled.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Open question:  where did policy go wrong in the syllogism?  It led to catastrophe, but it is based on long-accepted &quot;truths&quot;.  My suspicion is that either the nature of systemic risk has been misunderstood, or that options other than Federal deposit/counterparty insurance have not been identified or examined.  But there are other possibilities.  Thoughts welcome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We&#39;re suffering from a syllogism gone bad.  Bear with me.</p>
<p>1.  The main lesson Government learned from the Great Depression is that bank runs lead to credit contraction, deflation, and ultimately a depressed economy &#8212; persisting for perhaps an entire decade!</p>
<p>2.  To avoid bank runs, insure deposits.  Deposit insurance is like mutually assured destruction where possessing nukes means never having to use them.</p>
<p>3.  New financial intermediaries and products?  Investment banks too big to fail without unacceptable systemic risk?  Expand Federal insurance to cover counterparties to derivative contracts such as credit default swaps, and Fannie&#39;s and Freddie&#39;s mortgage portfolio.</p>
<p>4.  Cut regulation of entities funding themselves from Federally insured sources &#8212; all regulation is bad.</p>
<p>5.  My God!  Look at those Wall Street bonuses!  Look at those leverage ratios!  Belatedly discover that storied investment banks have been playing dice with other people&#39;s money and winning for half a decade or more, as long as real estate appreciated.  And why shouldn&#39;t others permit it &#8212; it&#39;s all Federally insured (at least implicitly under the too-big-to-fail principal).</p>
<p>6.  Oops.  Real estate prices are declining.  Financial firms are bankrupt.  Federal guarantees must actually be fulfilled.</p>
<p>Open question:  where did policy go wrong in the syllogism?  It led to catastrophe, but it is based on long-accepted &quot;truths&quot;.  My suspicion is that either the nature of systemic risk has been misunderstood, or that options other than Federal deposit/counterparty insurance have not been identified or examined.  But there are other possibilities.  Thoughts welcome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin Brock</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2008/09/optimism-quickl.html/comment-page-1#comment-30601</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin Brock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:17:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3032#comment-30601</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;
A stable unit of account, i.e. stable prices, in all economic conditions would remove the need for risky corporate actions as well as naive regulatory solutions.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;How do you propose to do that?  Fixing the price of gold isn&#039;t the answer.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>
A stable unit of account, i.e. stable prices, in all economic conditions would remove the need for risky corporate actions as well as naive regulatory solutions.
</p></blockquote>
<p>How do you propose to do that?  Fixing the price of gold isn&#39;t the answer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Peterson</title>
		<link>http://cafehayek.com/2008/09/optimism-quickl.html/comment-page-1#comment-30600</link>
		<dc:creator>David Peterson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2008 10:14:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://localhost/wordpress/?p=3032#comment-30600</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;To be an optimist you can&#039;t get caught up in the day to day cyclical movement of things. You have to believe in the long term positive trend. While banning short-selling is without a doubt bad, how long can this ban last?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To be an optimist you can&#39;t get caught up in the day to day cyclical movement of things. You have to believe in the long term positive trend. While banning short-selling is without a doubt bad, how long can this ban last?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

