Glass-Steagall doesn't affect Goldman or Morgan Stanley, or the former Merrill, Lehman, and Bear. These banks did not merge with deposit taking institutions. They are strictly market operators. Nothing to do with Glass-Steagall. I want to know why Paulson and Bush's, and Geitner's decision to put them on the Fed back door is still in place now that the crisis has passed and they have been making record profits ever since.
Romney's '47%' Gaffe Exposes The Hidden Economic Depression Underlying America
Recently Mitt Romney effectively "stepped in it" by stating that the President Obama could count on the support of 47% of Americans, who rely on government, don't pay tax and "believe they are victims". While the statement was very misguided, and a critical blow to the Romney campaign, it tells a deeper story of the real state of the economy and the demise of American prosperity.
Both of you guys talk it up about making everything fair, you know a "level playing field" where nobody is left behind and everybody wins or at the very least have a high chance of winning.
As you may well know about 90% of all traders fail. What would you do level the playing field for trading? What laws, regulations or redistribution would you implement to level the playing field so all traders succeed and not just the ones who work hard or have talent. Be specific.
nosce te ipsum
Trade what the market is doing; NOT what you think its going to do.
The following 2 users say Thank You to Silver Dragon for this post:
First of all I would say that if I have to explain to a person why in a free market economy the concept of 'fair game' is a quintessential principle then I'm going to need a lot more than a few specifics as they pertain to myself. For a specific example as it applies to my budding corporation I would point to the fact that the biggest 'competitor' in the market is Goldman and Morgan Stanley, both of which have a special right to use taxpayers money for their trading risk capital. If they win, they win big, and they can put the squeeze on lesser capitalzied players. If they lose, the taxpayers pay. We are in the very same business. There is zero difference. If there was a level playing field I would be calling the fed this evening and have them wiring me 200K to my clearing firm for tomorrows trading day.
I think the discussion here about "fair games" is a bit misguided - a fair game means that everyone plays by the same rules and is treated the same. It doesn't mean that the outcomes should be the same ... although I do think that there is a strain of liberalism in the US that believes this should be the case.
As for Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley "playing with the taxpayer's money," I recall that JP Morgan earlier this year ponied up over $6 billion for a single bad trading strategy, and I don't recall anyone saying anything about having the taxpayers pay for that. Similarly, Knight Trading lost almost half a billion dollars in less than an hour, and I don't recall taxpayers paying a dime for that.
As for your own budding business, Syxforex, I am in the same business as you if that is trading. Every day, my trades go up against JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Citadel, Citigroup, Renaissance Technologies, and on and on. Whether I make or lose money is not because those guys have some hotline to the Treasury Department. It's because I decide when to buy or sell, when to enter markets and when to exit.
The following 2 users say Thank You to furytrader for this post: