So apparently I had already reflected on this piece (#988267).
That was three weeks ago, and when I sat down today and actually read the physical magazine my attention was drawn to some other things... so, Stackers, who careeees if there's a dupe?!
Best comment from that one: "often articles like this are social signaling from the top of the pyramid" -- @BITC0IN
Anyway, today I focused on THIS:
Look, if even the top brass at the gov regulator/money mafia boss admits that all regulation does is pushing activities associated with the thing you're "regulating" away from your immediate field of vision... maybe stop doing that?
Financial regulation is self-defeating in this way. You're achieving literally nothing but wasting everyone's time and lulling yourself into a false sense of security. You're playing wack-a-mole against a rodent heavily incentivized to pop his head up somewhere, anywhere.
Because of that, this sentence by the brain-drained authors at The Economist becomes literally incomprehensible:
But deregulation would probably accelerate rather than halt the transformation. Eroding supervision and capital requirements for banks will merely allow them to lend even more to asset managers and hedge funds than they do now, supercharging the growth of the new, less-regulated giants of finance.
The regulation pushed it there in the first place. Removing the reg would be bad bc it'd be more? Go back to the financial institutions that used to do them?
Gimme a break.
Publishing things like this is pretty ridiculous. It's literally neeeever the things that people can obviously enough see — esp not if it's obvious enough to be featured in The Economist.
What's nice, though, is that it's still nice to read about, and in the microscopicly unlikely outcome that they mention X before X blows up, they'll look like geniuses.
Anyway, the finish is excellent