Originally posted by stevet
If markets were efficient and totaly transparent, there would be no volatility and no opportunity to make money from trading, and without opportunity to make money, there would be no speculation, and without speculation markets become efficient etc - a self reinforcing circle
I completely disagree, if companies were "totally transparent" then there would be way too much information for a person or a group of people to digest.
Total transparency would mean that investors would not only know where all the money is and where it's going, but would also know all the sales deals, all the potential sales deals, all the law suits, all the potential law suits, employee turnover etc. etc. .
Providing this level of information obviously becomes very difficult in a short amount of time (and even more difficult to place a value on the company giving out such information). Even if that was possible on some level then there would be people speculating on weather a company was going to win a big sale or lose a prize employee. There would still be plenty of volatility to go around.
The real issue here (as rigel alluded to earlier) is credit from the outside world. Prior to this fallout, the world abroad would prefer to invest in our markets because it appeared to be a safe haven (less risky).
For example: When Lithuania was trying to become a country in the early 90's, they had to offer 40% return on their bonds in order to get investment, why? because it's a much riskier bet than the U.S.. People don't want to put their money there because they don't think they'll get it back.
When people perceive that our markets are risky, they make industries pay for it through higher interest rates. Likewise higher interest rates (as we all should know) seriously hinder growth.
There is the potential for a devastating effect down the road, if we don't right this ship quickly.