<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Regulation and Financial Complexity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/regulation-and-financial-complexity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/regulation-and-financial-complexity/</link>
	<description>taking the most charitable view of those who disagree</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Dec 2020 16:18:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.32</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew'</title>
		<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/regulation-and-financial-complexity/#comment-463259</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew']]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2016 13:26:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?p=6383#comment-463259</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By the way, if we all owed someone else our entire revenue, in other words, everyone has 100% counterparty risk, wouldn&#039;t (most) economists say there is no problem? As long as everyone can keep paying, what is the problem? The problem is when someone can&#039;t pay. But how is the actual risk predictable? It is is based on predicting a catalyst and timing, which is basically not predictable over and above the market&#039;s prediction. Isn&#039;t it a fool&#039;s errand based on pretty basic economic theory? The better approach would be allowing markets to develop whereby the &quot;heroes&quot; can buy or sell at a profit to the &quot;villains&#039;&quot; losses. Which brings us to when are politicians ever going to be heroes in the sense that the heroes have to be contrarians?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By the way, if we all owed someone else our entire revenue, in other words, everyone has 100% counterparty risk, wouldn&#8217;t (most) economists say there is no problem? As long as everyone can keep paying, what is the problem? The problem is when someone can&#8217;t pay. But how is the actual risk predictable? It is is based on predicting a catalyst and timing, which is basically not predictable over and above the market&#8217;s prediction. Isn&#8217;t it a fool&#8217;s errand based on pretty basic economic theory? The better approach would be allowing markets to develop whereby the &#8220;heroes&#8221; can buy or sell at a profit to the &#8220;villains'&#8221; losses. Which brings us to when are politicians ever going to be heroes in the sense that the heroes have to be contrarians?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew'</title>
		<link>http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/regulation-and-financial-complexity/#comment-463250</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew']]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2016 17:32:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/?p=6383#comment-463250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&quot;the inability of regulators to assess and quantify the counterparty credit risk&quot;

I assume there is some evidence they actually tried and that there was some policy mechanism attached to some lever.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;the inability of regulators to assess and quantify the counterparty credit risk&#8221;</p>
<p>I assume there is some evidence they actually tried and that there was some policy mechanism attached to some lever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
