[JB70]

There is very little regulation in this market. That is insane.

"Wilmott estimates the derivatives market at $1.2 quadrillion, to put that in perspective it is about 20 times the size of the world economy."


If it collapse so will everything else in a very short time.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/404633 ... -like-bomb

[ckaihatsu]

The latest phase in what the WSJ described as a “rout” began last Thursday. Prices had risen sharply the previous day on the back of assurances by Federal Reserve chairman Jerome Powell that the central bank was not considering an increase of 0.75 percent points in the bank’s interest rate.

But then the reality of continued Fed rate rises—Powell indicated rises each of 0.5 percentage points were on the table for at least the next two meetings of the Fed—sank in and markets fell sharply.

The rise in bank interest rates has sparked a selloff in Treasury bonds with the yield on the 10-year Treasury now around 3 percent, compared to less than 1 percent only a few months ago. [Bond prices and their yield or interest rate move in opposite directions.]

The shift in Treasury yields is having an effect in the corporate bond market. The Financial Times reported on Monday that the Bank of America estimated that the average price of investment-grade US corporate bonds has fallen to just above 93 cents on the dollar.

This was below the level reached during the market crash of March 2020 and at a level not seen since May 2009 when markets were still reeling from the effects of the global financial crisis of 2008. Now there are clear indications the conditions which produced these crises are building up once again.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/0 ... g-m11.html

[JB70]

They are gambling with your money.
Since they are to big to fail taxpayers must bail them out if they lose money.

Socialism for the mega wealthy.

[Truth To Power]

They are gambling with your money.

No, private commercial banks are privileged to issue the money the super-duper uber-rich gamble with.

Since they are to big to fail taxpayers must bail them out if they lose money.

Socialism for the mega wealthy.

It's not so much socialism as a welfare subsidy giveaway to those who already have the most.

[JB70]

No, private commercial banks are privileged to issue the money the super-duper uber-rich gamble with.

It's not so much socialism as a welfare subsidy giveaway to those who already have the most.

Yes but taxpayers will pay have to pay for the losses.

[Truth To Power]

Yes but taxpayers will pay have to pay for the losses.

National governments can also issue money, and they have been doing so like gangbusters for two years.

[Steve_American]

I numbered them so I can reply to each.
1] They are gambling with your money.

2] Since they are to big to fail taxpayers must bail them out if they lose money.

3] Socialism for the mega wealthy.

1] 1st, The "They" has no antecedent, the word it is standing for. 2nd, If you meant the banksters who caused the GFC/2008 or the mega rich, in neither case are they gambling with my money. And not with most Americans' money.

2] I suppose that bailing out the banks in 2008 &9 was necessary. What was not necessary was for Obama to not throw any of the guilty people in prison; and worse to not bail out the innocent victims of the fraud. This seriously damaged the US economy by destroying financial wealth if not actual real wealth.

3] Yes, it was socialism for the rich, but we live in an Oligarchy. If you don't like it overturn several USSC decisions that gave rights to corps that the Founders specifically denied them.
. . . It was all based on thinking that the 14th Amendment didn't mean "human persons"when it said "no person shall". They think they also meant corporate persons. FYI-- corporations were made persons by 1600 just so they could sue and be sued for payments of debts. Not to let them make campaign contributions. When I was a kid in the 50s this was specifically against the law in every state and at the Federal level, too.
. . . According to Thom Hartman this was decided in the 1880s IIRC the date. The USSC ruled that the drafters of the 14th Amend. meant "human persons" only. However, a corrupt court clerk who was also a railroad tycoon, made a cover page that said that the court had said the opposite. And, later courts used that cover page as the decision and then affirmed the precedent when it was shown the error. The court should have overturned the precedent because it was aggressively wrongly decided and had no long standing in US or English common law. And, yet again the activist justices on the court have given corps all the rights of humans except the right to vote and to hold public office. Also to marry. They even can have a religion and be exempt from following the law because of their religion. Do corps have souls? No.! So, how can they have a religion?
.

[Steve_American]

Yes but taxpayers will pay have to pay for the losses.

This idea that the taxpayers will pay is part of the scam that is Mainstream Economic theory.

For example, Reagan increased the national debt by more proportionally than any other President. After 1990 inflation stopped being a problem, and it had been a problem for over 7 years before Reagan was sworn in. It seems like the taxpayers have not had their taxes raised to pay for Reagan's deficits, not yet over 34 years later.

Like PoD wrote, the Gov. pays for things like that with deficit spending because it issues the dollar. The taxpayers are not involved.
.