The original intent in Dodd-Frank, IIRCC, was to require 'standard' derivatives to trade on exchanges for purposes of transparency. The vast bulk of risky derivatives are Over The Counter, OTC, and are custom tailored for specific customers by large banks. Given that all of the specifics were left to be worked out by administrative committees vulnerable to lobbying pressure it would not be surprising to find the taxpayer being put under the OTC derivatives tower as the new foundation by manipulation of the rules. That is easier politically than reining in the issuers of derivatives.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

The human decision made regarding Morality© of an Act primarily depends on whether the Actor is a member of the In Group ("Us") or an Out Group ("Them.")  

Ever since I learnt about confirmation bias I've started seeing it everywhere

"We"?

I did consider posting a comment on the utility of a visual model that could show balance sheet transactions between various entities in time sequence. Steve Keen has some rudimentary versions of such a model drawing a bit on Godley and based on his system of linear differential equations. Such presentation is much more readily apprehendable to most people, especially those who do not have a background in banking.

As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

It may very well be the First National Bank of ATinNM - located all the way on the right - should be allowed to take risks Mongo 600lb Gorilla Bank all the way on the left shouldn't.

Yes. This. For a variety of reasons.

1. Banks have lending and risk management policies, and this means that if they make a mistake in one place in their portfolio, they are likely to replicate it elsewhere in their portfolio. The bigger their portfolio is, the greater the consequence of such an oversight (or "oversight").

2. Taking stupid risks which happens to pay off is a quick way to get big as a bank, so big banks should be monitored more closely. Taking stupid risks which happen to not pay off is a quick way to go bust as a bank, but you don't see the bust banks in the power law.

Incidentally, #2 also argues for subjecting rapidly growing banks to tighter regulation than stable bank. While #1 argues for closely supervising banks who are rapidly changing the composition of their portfolio. Because banks have credit policies for a reason, and a rapidly changing portfolio may indicate that the bank in question is entering unfamiliar territory.

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

I was wondering about trying Mary-Jane, but now I know it turns you green I think I'll pass.

Thanks!

here its show up at docs, have tests, system pays, (Occasionally it's you'll have to wait a few weeks if it isnt vital, and you can go to a private provider and theyll do it this afternoon)

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

My GP writes a prescription for the analysis results she wants to see (including PSA), I take it to the lab, the work is done. Everything is covered by national health insurance and the top-up mutual.

But you need both - national insurance doesn't cover the total cost. In some cases (dentistry, glasses) it covers precious little. So the French system depends (increasingly) on everyone having a complementary insurance in the private sector - in fact mostly mutual, but can also be offered by non-mutual insurance companies. For those who can't afford this, there is a state complementary system called the CMU, access to which is based on an income test.

For Sweden:

asdf:

So in the various European systems, how is this handled? Does the system remind you of your recommended procedures and tests?

Yes, but my impression is that there are fewer automatic recommends for adults here then in the US. And much fewer tests, because the doctors don't get payed per test.

asdf:

Do you have to argue with them about payment, or is it actually "show up at doc, get serviced, system pays."

Show up, etc. You pay a nominal fee and if those add up to substantial amounts in the same year, you get them waived.

There is one way you can get into a jam though. With the EU you can get a treatment in another country that your national authority thinks is frivilous. Seen a few cases in the media over the years. If you have planned medical treatment in another EU country, check before you go.

I would say that the problem is not single-payer, it is that your friend has to carry the bill between the doctor and the single-payer, when that should be between the doctor and the single-payer. But you are also right in that it is a legacy from a system operating in a multi-payer environment.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

Thanks for comments on single payer health. It is interesting how people here complain about our system but then won't vote to make it better...

Doesn't it seem idiotic in the first place to get your chips for military usage from someone you think of as a potential foe? Can the USA no longer make ANYTHING itself?

'tis strange I should be old and neither wise nor valiant. From "The Maid's Tragedy" by Beaumont & Fletcher