This is way more important than the MSM seems to think seeing as you're the only one I've seen reporting on this. My concern is the inevitable crash that's coming after this boom😕
Is it just me, or did you never once say what footnote 563 says or in any way explain it's meaning/direct effect. Early on I thought you were saving it to drop the explanation with dramatic emphasis like a John Oliver, but nope... This read like the market-regulation version of that Itchy-And-Scratchy cartoon where Poochy was introduced. "When do we get to the fireworks factoryyyyyy!"
It's...complicated. The 2022 report I link to explains it all in excessive detail. In short, Footnote 563 defined regulated derivatives as those Wall Street had guaranteed, which was all of them. So Wall Street realized they could just...not guarantee them. And they could execute these trades overseas (on paper only, it was still being doing on Wall Street, just under the names of shell companies incorporated in other countries). Voila, the trades were no longer regulated.
I mean, that's the level of explanation I was looking for; thanks.
Just that without this explanation, the whole article might as well be talking about Blorgles. "This expert explains the problem with Blorgles; and in fact, Dems in 2015 almost fixed Blorgles, but they didn't try hard enough because they figured Hillary would do it, and whoops, hahaha"
I find that in writing about financial chicanery, at some point in every story you reach a point where you're talking about Blorgles. Unless you're willing to get axiomatic at some point, the amount of explanation and technical detail needed to elucidate every piece of it for a lay audience will lose more readers than Blorgle explanation will. Greenberger's original paper on this was more than 100 pages. I know because I read it. And IT had Blorgles!
Simply stunning. WTF??
This is way more important than the MSM seems to think seeing as you're the only one I've seen reporting on this. My concern is the inevitable crash that's coming after this boom😕
I searched. NO ONE else is talking about this.
So I say again: Wow.
Thx, Jon.
Thank you.
Is it just me, or did you never once say what footnote 563 says or in any way explain it's meaning/direct effect. Early on I thought you were saving it to drop the explanation with dramatic emphasis like a John Oliver, but nope... This read like the market-regulation version of that Itchy-And-Scratchy cartoon where Poochy was introduced. "When do we get to the fireworks factoryyyyyy!"
It's...complicated. The 2022 report I link to explains it all in excessive detail. In short, Footnote 563 defined regulated derivatives as those Wall Street had guaranteed, which was all of them. So Wall Street realized they could just...not guarantee them. And they could execute these trades overseas (on paper only, it was still being doing on Wall Street, just under the names of shell companies incorporated in other countries). Voila, the trades were no longer regulated.
I mean, that's the level of explanation I was looking for; thanks.
Just that without this explanation, the whole article might as well be talking about Blorgles. "This expert explains the problem with Blorgles; and in fact, Dems in 2015 almost fixed Blorgles, but they didn't try hard enough because they figured Hillary would do it, and whoops, hahaha"
I find that in writing about financial chicanery, at some point in every story you reach a point where you're talking about Blorgles. Unless you're willing to get axiomatic at some point, the amount of explanation and technical detail needed to elucidate every piece of it for a lay audience will lose more readers than Blorgle explanation will. Greenberger's original paper on this was more than 100 pages. I know because I read it. And IT had Blorgles!
Thanks to you both for asking for and providing the explanation that I, a simple caveman software engineer, can understand.
And also, too, come on, Joe.
Would that I had the mental/intellectual capacity to be a simple caveman software engineer...