Yeah, that's a different incident.

How many people's lives were ruined by THIS incident. You know, the one the thread is about.

Drunk drivers make it home safely all the time. Why should it be illegal?

I thought your how many lives were ruined question was pertaining to my post about Enron, since you quoted my post about Ken Lay in your question. Clearly this was a different incident, but my point was the system incentivizes bad behavior when you privatize the profit made and socialize the risk on losses. This hasn't been the case in the recent mess, but it is not hard to visualize it being the case had the jp loss been much greater

Companies are certainly entitled to take whatever level of risk they'd like as long as they don't have their hand out for the public to take the hit for their losses.

OK, so tell us how this particular type of trade could have ruined someone's life.

See 2008.

http://www.google.com/finance?q=jpm&hl=en

wat

Good article.

The systemic risk isnt created from FDIC or bailouts. Its created by forcibly placing an entire economy (the whole system) on the same cycle of monetary inflation and credit expansion.

Back to yes.

Guys don't worry, Obama's got this: JPMorgan Is One Of The Best Managed Banks

Isolate casino banking operations like the Investment Office from the rest of banking operations so losses cant spread.

There, I just solved world banking. Its not hard.

I do lol when some people's answer to "to big to fail" is to just let them fail. Like, the clue is in the name guys.

Not really, unless you're evaluating it on the basis of how effective it might be as propaganda rather than how truthy it is.

Krugster is (intentionally, unless you believe he's an idiot) conflating the sort of internal trading in this particular incident which poses no credible threat of "systemic risk" with the sort of baloney that "required" bailouts a few years ago.

ANd nobody has shown that this wasn't the case in this particular incident.

FBI is now investigating.

Oh sure, to be fair to JP Morgan Chase they seem to be really well run and can entirely handle the ~3 billion in losses they are expected to rack up. The big difference between this and the 2007/8 crash is that those POS banks back then couldnt cover the risk of their positions.

This needs to be a warning bell that deregulation is a completely stupid approach to take if you accept that you cant let "too big to fail" banks fail. And if you dont accept that then you need to realise half a dozen people are regularly going to **** up the entire world economy from time to time at a level that makes ikes look like a genius with his "easiest recession ever" post relating to 2007/8 which is going to be a really long but shallow recession (especially if the warning bells of Chinese economic slowdown and the ill effects of Greece pulling out of the Eurozone come true).