site search by freefind advanced

Current Commentary

Candidates' debate
Substance over style
Financial reform must-haves
How 'little guys' are being robbed
Unemployment falls as 652,000 give up
Ban financial derivatives
Debunking the federal pension myth
Cost of inflation-free bank bailout
Answers to questions: HERE

September 2010:
..How to win in Dem territory
..Rich get richer; poor, poorer
..Ditch Dutch dirt piece
..City Paper endorses Dowlut
..Trickle down & Paul Ryan

August 2010:
..Cut payroll taxes
..No bailouts: transfer, adjust
..Let home prices fall
..Japan's 1900s deflation

July 2010:
..AZ Immigration law
..70 years of tax & spend
..Robbing tomorrow
..Cut the payroll tax!

May & June 2010:
..Inflation-free bailout?
..Ross Perot's lesson
..Looming tragedy
..Costly IRS mandate

April 2010:
March 2010:
February 2010:
January 2010:
December 2009:
November 2009:
October 2009:.
September 2009:
August 2009:
July 2009:
June 2009:
April 2009:
March 2009:
February 2009:
January 2009:
December 2008:



Financial derivatives must be banned

There is a huge difference between agricultural/commodities derivatives, which serve a legitimate purpose, and financial derivatives, which should be outright banned as they were from 1907-1999.

Almost every argument about derivatives mentions the benefits of the agricultural/commodities/currency type: A farmer bringing grain to market who wants to guarantee a delivery price. A manufacturer buying components across multiple currencies who wants to lock in an exchange rate. Airlines that want to be able to sell tickets in advance based on a specific price of jet fuel. All of these serve legitimate purposes. All also have one thing in common: one party to the "bet" has a bona fide vested interest in the asset being bet on.

A financial derivative, on the other hand, is a financial instrument whose value is determined by the value of another financial instrument, often times with neither party having any actual ownership in the underlying, determining financial instrument. The natural question that comes to mind is "why not directly buy ownership in the underlying/determining instrument?" The purported reason is such buys increase price discovery and allow investors to fine tune their risk exposure, thereby improving the efficiency of capital markets, thus improving how capital is allocated throughout the real economy.

The truth is that financial derivatives were a primary, proximate cause of the meltdown we just witnessed. Financial derivatives as we know them are an invention of the last 10 years having been effectively banned from 1907 to 1999. Is anything being done to undo the recent laws that created this? No, and we are kidding ourselves to think that they can be regulated.

Two guys bet against each other over the outcome of football game: illegal.

Two investment bankers bet against each other over the outcome of a pool of loans: perfectly legal.

We built the transcontinental railroad, the interstate highway system, the national telecom network, the electrical grid, cured multiple diseases, and sent a man to the moon all without the widespread use of financial derivatives. Within less than 10 years of their widespread use, the entire system nearly imploded, and all we got to show for it were some new homes that we'll be disputing the ownership of for some time.