Replies

There are $300 trillion in swaps covered by the bailout, according to Zerohedge. This magnitude of derivatives can't possibly be anything other than extreme speculation, as there isn't that much money in the world. In particular, it isn't merely covering normal bank activities. But even if it is, why should bankers get taxpayer backstops for doing whatever they do? Loggers, painters, electricians, ditch diggers and a thousand other occupations don't get taxpayer backstops for what they normally do. What is special about bankers?

(A: Bankers own both sides of government and use it to fleece the general public for their own enrichment, something loggers and electricians, etc., have not been able to do. This has traditionally been cured with lamp posts, which have gone unused for a little too long at this point.)

This magnitude of derivatives can't possibly be anything other than extreme speculation.

I am just saying that, banks using derivatives and swaps as addressed in the text, is definitely NOT "speculation". If there is $300 trillion in notional derivatives/ swaps in the market, no doubt there likely is a very large amount that IS structured in a speculative way. I am not taking up for that, and certainly not for a bailout of any of it. But allowing derivatives and swaps to be used for true hedging and risk reduction strategies is a very good thing.

Swaps and derivatives are not innately evil when put to the correct use. The problem was that they were used for speculation and gambling. Honestly do away with "too big to fail" and re-institute market discipline to the large banks and the landscape will change quickly. Permitting gambling on the taxpayer dime is just flat evil. But we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The result would be either an elimination of banking services or an increased cost to the consumer. There are plenty of other absurd regulations that are doing that already.