Larry Lindsey, with his profound knowledge of Washington ways, has absolutely nailed the principal guiding motto of all regulatory bureaucracies: "Cross us and we will make you pay."

From the perspective of the corporate profit and loss statement, a trading loss is one expense item in the context of all revenues and expenses. So $2 billion should be compared to the bank's $26.7 billion in pretax profits for 2011, suggesting a reduction of something less than 10 percent in annual profit.

The $2 billion loss at JPMorgan Chase (JPM) has reopened debate on the Volcker rule. The proponents of the rule have seized on the story as proof that the Volcker rule is necessary and should be quickly put into effect by regulation. In reality, however, if the facts are as thus far reported, what happened at JPMorgan is proof that the Volcker rule is unworkable and should be repealed. 

It’s depressing to watch, but it is missing the point that the Volcker rule would not have prevented the loss and is probably unworkable.

American Enterprise Institute economist Peter Wallison explains why the recent JP Morgan losses are proof that the Volcker Rule is unworkable and should be abandoned.

On the heel of the recent JP Morgan fiasco, American Enterprise Economist John Makin makes the case for how Dodd-Frank is an insufficient guarantor of financial stability.

The banking industry suffered credit crises in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. An unavoidable conclusion is that its loan loss reserves were in all cases too small. 

The Dodd-Frank legislation has many problems and omissions, and much is still uncertain about implementation. But the new liquidation authority provides for the possibility of making it so that future crises do not involve the bailouts of creditors that truly embodied the problem of having banks that are too big to fail.

We simply have to face the fact that banking is fundamentally risky. As I decided long ago when working in banks, the reason we needed to wear dark suits and have classic buildings was to look conservative in order to offset the real riskiness of what we were doing.