On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Sandwichman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Big Al? >
Hey how did you know? Did you cheat and look at the link?? Seriously though here's Easy Al at his infuriating best: (is there a special level in the Inferno for this level of intellectual dishonesty?) ------------------------------------------snip Bank loan officers, in my experience, know far more about the risks and workings of their counterparties than do bank regulators. Regulators, to be effective, have to be forward-looking to anticipate the next financial malfunction. This has not proved feasible. Regulators confronting real-time uncertainty have rarely, if ever, been able to achieve the level of future clarity required to act pre-emptively. Most regulatory activity focuses on activities that precipitated previous crises. Aside from far greater efforts to ferret out fraud (a long-time concern of mine), would a material tightening of regulation improve financial performance? I doubt it. The problem is not the lack of regulation but unrealistic expectations about what regulators are able to prevent. -raghu. > On 4/7/08, raghu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know about blameless but this guy really is shameless.. > > > > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/81c05200-03f2-11dd-b28b-000077b07658.html > > -------------------------------------snip > > Martin Wolf argues in the FT that central banks "can surely lean > > against the wind" even if they cannot eliminate bubbles. I know of no > > instance in which such a policy has been successful. For reasons I > > have outlined elsewhere (American Economic Association, January 2004), > > I doubt that it is possible. If it turns out to be feasible, I would > > become a strong supporter of "leaning against the wind". _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
