[parsifal]

I agree. I am trying to get a grasp on all this financial stuff because I have the feeling that if this isn’t the end, it the last stop before the end. Been reading Market Ticker, an Naked Capitalism with its numerous links. So,I am confused as heck. One minute it looks like Glass Steagall repeal was bad, and then it looks good on the next article.

Anyway, I figure maybe the problem is structural. The corporate model has a reason why it developed and at first, no one contemplated the constant in and out of shareholders. I think there was a more long term view.

Lehman might be a good example. I have read it never would have gotten leveraged at 30 to 1 if not a corporation. That if a partnership, management would not have gambled their money. Here, mgt. gambled. There seemed to be no control. I am curious how diffuse ownership was...

parsy

[RegulatorCountry]

Domestically speaking, money rolling in on autopilot every month via automatic deduction for 401k plans began to detach actions from consequences, as far as senior corporate management and shareholders, in the financial sector. When things were good and everybody was making money, including small investors in 401k plans, diffused through mutual fund plans, nobody cared to take notice of the increasingly bizarre schemes being cooked up, sometimes on the edge of legality.

Jurisdiction became blurred with the increasingly international nature, of corporations, finance and investing. That much money, apparently coming in no matter what, with murky legalities and even murkier accountability, led to the place we're at now, aided in no small part by government irresponsibility.

[Maine Mariner]

You have raised questions that will keep financial economists and economic historians business for the next 30-50 years. Well, at least one group of professionals will have job security.