> I would wager it's the latter. This will be the golden age of white collar crime, cons, and machinations. This is how this always ends.

So another S&L?

> At the end of 1988, 2,969 thrifts remained active. This was over three hundred less than in 1985 and over a thousand less than in 1980. These failures were highly geographically concentrated: a third of the failures from 1985 forward occurred in just three states: California, Texas, and Florida;[74] Texas accounted for 40 percent of thrift failures in the worst year of the crisis, 1988.[53]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis#Intens...

Legislation was tightened after the S & L crisis and at least according to Investopedia was the itself was due in part to lax oversight:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sl-crisis.asp

*What Could Regulators Have Done Better to Solve the Savings and Loan Crisis?*

"Regulators failed to stop savings and loans from using federally insured deposits to make risky loans. Reagan also cut the budget of the regulatory staff at the FHLBB, removing its ability to investigate high-risk loans. Certain states also passed laws that allowed savings and loans to invest in speculative real estate."

Remains to be see if the current administration's views on oversight and regulation allow a repeat.

That lax regulation allowed:

>An Office of the Comptroller of the Currency study in 1988 indicated fraud in 11 percent of failures between 1979–87; a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation study in 25 percent of failures in 1989; a Resolution Trust Corporation study in 1992 found fraud in 33 percent of its cases; and a 1994 General Accounting Office study reported 26 percent of banks that failed in 1990–91 had issues with fraud.

10%-25% fraud in the industry. Yay, can't wait until I have to judge whether my bank is outright fraudulent again.

I smell money!

As long as they can keep the lights on.

I see what you did there.

Touché.

The timing is certainly convincing. The SEC pivoting to focus on "innovation" (which I take to be crypto) and "capital formation", CFPB being shut-down, etc. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the wheels fall off, Enron style.

Capitalism interprets regulation as damage and routes around it, as someone might have said.

USA has shown they will support corrupt companies with tax dollars. This will be another 2008 crash where the government welfare for companies will continue. Real capitalism would let those entities fail so others can pick them apart and attempt to do better.

How long will it manifest, 4, 8, 10, 20 years? The deregulated mortgage started in the 1980s and it took almost 25 years to break everything.

Most likely it will hit foreign the hardest and set off a global recession for those countries that bought in.

Will there be any that are smarter and either buy in early and sell early or go to another country for a stable investment? Those would be the ones to most easily weather the storm.

Guessing USA retirement investments will take a big hit. So more homeless.

Also foresee politics pushing companies to invest in the Texas stock market for tax subsidies and to gain government contracts and benefits. Could be bigger than 2008.

> Real capitalism would let those entities fail so others can pick them apart and attempt to do better.

This is what real capitalism does. It has a built-in incentive to support a state that enables firms to socialize the losses and privatize the profits.

That isn't capitalism-the-concept. That's a perverse incentive leading to an undesired outcome in the real world.

Whether or not that outcome is an inevitable consequence of the ideology is an entirely different discussion.

Is NYSE the perfect level of regulation and anything less is disaster?

I don't think that's a fair reading of the comment you're replying to.

Seems like a purposefully-constructed straw-man to me, really.

If you agree that sounds ridiculous then we will need some concrete reasons why this will be true, merely because there is an exchange with less regulation:

> This will be the golden age of white collar crime, cons, and machinations.

I...do agree that it sounds ridiculous, and my point was that that was not what the original commenter was saying.

Your interpretation of their comment is far-fetched, and not a useful entry into a conversation about their point.

Can you explain about what you think the comment means?

I think it is a good point to enter the conversation because it should shift to which regulations are being removed and their consequence. Rather than the notion of less regulation being inherently catastrophic.

Another answer would be yes, NYSE is already full of scams, why would we go further?

The position I am pointing it is a little weird without more information is yes NYSE is good but I can’t support the Texas version.

The comment you originally responded to never implied that NYSE was good (at least by my reading). Just that crime would noticably increase if regulations were decreased in this instance. In other words, a worsening of the status quo.

Perhaps you didn't intend it but your original reply reads as though your "question" is actually an assertion about his position and that you disagree with it. AKA a strawman.

> never implied that NYSE was good

If they don't like NYSE then there isn't much conversation to be had here. Texas is just another exchange, which they already take issue with.

If they like NYSE, but not this, I'm interested to learn why. That's why I asked.

Opinions are usually more nuanced than "it's good/not good", and reducing someone's opinion to that is straw-manning.