Comment: I don't think you got my points

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I got your points (see in situ)

I don't think you got my points

First of all, if you want to reply to a comment, click on reply, don't click on "new comment" because your reply will be out of sequence. For those just tuning in, the "I got your points" comment was intended as a reply to "You seem to be confusing your opinion with fact".

As you know, a number of top officers from Wall Street banks testified before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. If the gov't had "forced" them to buy and securitize subprime loans, they would've provided proof of this. And if they were able to prove that the gov't had forced them to create fraudulent securities, they wouldn't be facing billions of dollars of lawsuits from public and private organizations. Futhermore, the same banks you claim were forced by the gov't to engage in fraud, have gladly paid hundreds of millions in fines to settle the suits against them.

Your point that derivatives have different functions doesn't relate to what I've said in my post or what Lynn Stout said in her article. My point is, all derivative contracts/wagers can be used for hedging or speculation. The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) eliminated that legal distinction and as a result, taxpayers are backstopping the high risk gambling activities of Too Big To Fail banks. That's why the CFMA needs to be repealed and the rule against difference contracts reinstated. FYI, the CBO says it will cost taxpayers 8.6 Trillion to prop up failing banks, and that doesn't include the short term liability represented by another financial crisis, which is equal to 40% of GDP (5.6 Trillion). Here are the links to Senator Brown citing the CBO report and Simon Johnson on the cost of another financial crisis. (Rand Paul: One person can make a difference) (Fast and Furious hearing)