I'll use the same analogy.. 10 people on my block called the police reporting a man walking down the street acting strangly & carrying a butcher knife. The police never show up & the man murders my neighbors. Are the police at fault? It turns out the police dispatcher is married to the murderers daughter. Are the police at fault yet?
I don't have much faith in cops or regulators, so I don't expect much from either. In your example, the cops very possibly may not show up until after the murders, whether or not the dispatcher is related to the perp. Bottom line is you have to protect "yourself" since the voting public is too disinterested and ignorant to elect wise and honest people to make and enforce our laws. Stosh
How do you idiots know what would have happened without the short ban? How do you idiots know what would have happened without TARP? Answer: You're idiots.
Alternative answer: A more free market self-correcting scenario would have played out. Creative destruction, survival of the fittest, without instilling a more socialistic culture in which almost everyone wants a bailout from Uncle Sugar. Of course, it would be painful and we might have lost Bear Stearns, Lehman Bros., Merrill Lynch, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Indymac, etc. etc. I suppose some of us believe in freedom instead of central planning. Stosh
In a sense it's nice to hear that he opposed the short-selling ban. However, in the end he caved. Actions speak louder than words and Cox's actions showed stupidity - and now, we know, a lack of backbone too. However, his comments make Paulson and Bernanke look even worse than they did already.
Given that what followed after the shorting ban was one of the worst meltdowns in US stock market history, and the near collapse of the banking system, I think it's hard to argue that the short ban did anything other than worsen the problem. If you put a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, then they die, you say that shooting them was the cause of death. If you ban shorting, and then stocks collapse, you say that the shorting ban was the cause of the collapse. Pretty simple. For additional evidence, prior shorting bans in other markets also were followed by price declines. And academic studies on shorting bans have shown they increase downside price volatility.
You folks are engaging in Monday Morning Q'backing. You have only a fraction of the information the govt has. As dumb as they are, they know more than you do. Once you have a complete meltdown, and massive , uncontrolled defaults, you are basically f#$ked. Why not take your next vacation in Zimbabwe.
Paulson was as scared as a deer in the headlights in September. Then, he told Pelosi and Reid. They were same. You could see the fear. The selling was coming from Dubai and London in waves, and they couldn't stop it. The pus filled sac known as the SEC let everything go to hell. And that's why we're where we are. If they hadn't banned the short selling, the big banks were gonners. And it wasnt' the Ct. boys doing it at the end. Seven is right. And if I told you where the Government is going for their information, you wouldn't believe me anyway. Most of these boards are filled with wannabees, or guys protecting their asses. The truth is, we're in serious shit. In fact I would argue that in todayâs investment environment â where leveraged hedge funds control far more of invested assets than ever before, where foreign capital can attempt to sabotage our markets by committing financial terrorism (YES â think Putin!! think Ahmadinejad!!!) and where the internet is used as an abettor in nefarious schemes designed to destroy stocks â the uptick rule is more useful than ever before. http://www.cnbc.com/id/26884624 Oh, nefarious schemes: http://www.deepcapture.com/spyro-contogouris-and-the-gentle-art-of-hedge-fund-persuasion/ Believe what you want. You have the facts.