I'm not going to sign up at your link, but the "Oxford languages" definition of peremptory that comes up with a Google search fits your earlier objectionable behavior:
"(especially of a person's manner or actions) insisting on immediate attention or obedience, especially in a brusquely imperious way."
I'm not going to sign up at your link, but the "Oxford languages" definition of peremptory that comes up with a Google search fits your earlier objectionable behavior:
"(especially of a person's manner or actions) insisting on immediate attention or obedience, especially in a brusquely imperious way."
Is challenging you to support your assertions (or tulsi Gabbard's assertions that you apparently support) "objectionable behavior"?
For what it's worth, I'm very comfortable calling out Tulsi Gabbard's shallow populism and flirtations with Russia. I worry about anyone who takes her seriously.
John - can you actually back up Gabbard's suggestion that Glass-Steagall would be useful in the 21st century, taking into account the differences between 1933 and 2022 in the banking and stock trading industries? Here's another helpful article.
Steve, your position is based on the dubious assumption that the markets simply are what they are, and we have to just deal with it.
My reply: The markets and existing financial structure are a brain-dead abomination. Periodic crises are built into the system, requiring ever-larger bailouts, threatening an implosion of the value of the dollar. Moral hazard is built into the system, going back to the Clinton-era bailouts of 1996.
Beyond Glass-Steagall, the cancerous derivatives markets need to be dried out:
Freeze everything, put it all through an orderly bankruptcy; most of it will be wiped out.
Moving forward, returning to a gold reserve standard is an obvious option, but we need to drive a stake through the heart of the current floating-exchange-rates system.
Returning to Glass-Steagall is an insufficient-but-necessary first step.
No, that's not at all what my position is based on.
Glass-Stegall doesn't address macroeconomic asset allocation, it only nibbles at the connection between equity markets (investment banking) and retail banks (commercial banking).
Bankruptcy is for insolvent companies, and there's no mechanism to get solvent derivatives into bankruptcy, unless you are suggesting government seizures. Unless you want the government to have to pay just compensation as damages for taking property without due process, bankruptcy fails as a remedy for eliminating derivatives markets.
The gold standard? Seriously? Why not NFTs? Why not palladium or nickel or titanium? No offense, but that truly is Frank Baum's Yellow Brick Road.
If Glass-Steagall is a first step, what's the next step?
I'm not going to sign up at your link, but the "Oxford languages" definition of peremptory that comes up with a Google search fits your earlier objectionable behavior:
"(especially of a person's manner or actions) insisting on immediate attention or obedience, especially in a brusquely imperious way."
Is challenging you to support your assertions (or tulsi Gabbard's assertions that you apparently support) "objectionable behavior"?
For what it's worth, I'm very comfortable calling out Tulsi Gabbard's shallow populism and flirtations with Russia. I worry about anyone who takes her seriously.
John - can you actually back up Gabbard's suggestion that Glass-Steagall would be useful in the 21st century, taking into account the differences between 1933 and 2022 in the banking and stock trading industries? Here's another helpful article.
https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/glass-steagall-act
Steve, your position is based on the dubious assumption that the markets simply are what they are, and we have to just deal with it.
My reply: The markets and existing financial structure are a brain-dead abomination. Periodic crises are built into the system, requiring ever-larger bailouts, threatening an implosion of the value of the dollar. Moral hazard is built into the system, going back to the Clinton-era bailouts of 1996.
Beyond Glass-Steagall, the cancerous derivatives markets need to be dried out:
Freeze everything, put it all through an orderly bankruptcy; most of it will be wiped out.
Moving forward, returning to a gold reserve standard is an obvious option, but we need to drive a stake through the heart of the current floating-exchange-rates system.
Returning to Glass-Steagall is an insufficient-but-necessary first step.
No, that's not at all what my position is based on.
Glass-Stegall doesn't address macroeconomic asset allocation, it only nibbles at the connection between equity markets (investment banking) and retail banks (commercial banking).
Bankruptcy is for insolvent companies, and there's no mechanism to get solvent derivatives into bankruptcy, unless you are suggesting government seizures. Unless you want the government to have to pay just compensation as damages for taking property without due process, bankruptcy fails as a remedy for eliminating derivatives markets.
The gold standard? Seriously? Why not NFTs? Why not palladium or nickel or titanium? No offense, but that truly is Frank Baum's Yellow Brick Road.
If Glass-Steagall is a first step, what's the next step?