I'm sure Jim posted this because 'skin in the game' is a Republican buzzword for the 47% of freeloaders in America who feel entitled to have things, but this reminds me more of business owners whose corporations take the fall when **** goes bad while escaping with zero personal responsibility themselves. Thanks for the interesting perspective Jim, you socialist!

Dodd Frank requires skin in the game.

I'm a "skin in the game" guy

You are actually wrong thurr homey.

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/reform/initiatives.html

Neither Dodd or Frank are right wingers afaik

Lol what? Of course that's what its about.

And I'm opposed to all bailouts, but cool story I guess.

"It came from Facebook"

http://morrowcountysentinel.com/2013...r-force-bases/

I wonder if the fearmongers are fearful themselves or just propagandizing for the hell of it.

Of course he's right, what can we do though? Every time some sort of regulation or legal action is considered, the free-marketers start screaming bloody murder. How do you create skin-in-the-game requirements without legal framework?

A clue: reform company law from the very beginning, some of those statutes and codes are so ancient and outdated they make our tax codes look relevant.

I got as far as Download This Paper and then I went lolno.

Wait, you really do think that article is about welfare recipients?

Serious literacy deficits itt

Imarealpaper.exe

The super obvious place to start is no bailouts.

Jim do you think most economic experts were wrong when they said no bailout would plunge us into global depression? Or do you think it would still be better than the perceived future damage from bailouts?

Yes, there is significant evidence now that Paulson, et al were greatly exaggerating the effects of an AIG collapse. There would have been tremendous losses on Wall St., but it would have been contained there. They simply went to Congress and told them a story to save all their own asses.

We'd all probably be much better off by now without any bailouts, but there is some short term pain you have to accept in the beginning. When idiots are allowed to fail, responsible firms come in and swoop up the remains for super cheap, and go forward responsibly. The moral hazard that exists when these idiots can freeroll the nation because they know they'll get bailed out is a disaster.

That is completely opposite of my understanding. The handling of the bailouts seems to be one of the few things the Bush administration handled well.

You quite literally have no idea what you are talking about.

Both parties understood that letting the whole system fail would have been a disaster. You have to be a special kind of loon to think you'd be better off if your bank had failed.

Feel free to provide that evidence.

Well, trivially, both parties signed off on the bailouts.

I am talking to Jim. He said there is SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE!

Significant evidence for Jim means he heard it on a YouTube.

It'll take me a while to put it all together. I'm not sure if I feel like it.

I've had a pretty miserable experience with Trolly, zikzak, and kerowo in the AC thread.

You can't get those guys to read anything longer than a tweet. I've explained things 10+ times, linked numerous primary sources, etc. and they can't grasp even the most preliminary and basic concepts. They don't care about anything but killing time upping their post count with drivel.

I might post about it later tonight, in the meantime I suggest listening to that interview. Really any of Taleb's interviews are great and I share most of his views on things.

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_fe.../nassim_taleb/

New Keith Olbermann sports show is so ****ing

Confirmed.

I feel like I'm gonna get tired of his Olbermanisms in a few weeks, but right now, pretty much this.