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facts are as thus far reported, what happened at JPMorgan is proof that the Volcker rule is unworkable and should be repealed. 

In case you missed it: in a recent piece, mortgage finance and housing expert Edward Pinto writes that the 30-years mortgage could well be the cause of a new housing bubble.

Discolsures contained in SEC complaints further validate the necessity to look behind Fannie and Freddie's characterization of subprime loans.  

Many public workers are overpaid relative to their private sector counterparts, especially in large, unionized states such as Wisconsin, Ohio and California. This may sound like a controversial claim, but it shouldn't. A consensus is building about the need for reform.

Here we go again.  A series of uncoordinated government policies are once more setting up the U.S. banking system for major losses and possibly another financial crisis.  

When the bubble deflated in 2007, an unprecedented number of weak mortgages went into default - those that were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie, and those that had been securitized by Wall Street. This drove down housing prices and threw Fannie and Freddie into insolvency. 

The 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, the most common way U.S. buyers finance a home purchase, isn’t the ideal instrument its supporters claim it to be.

If we hope to have a viable banking industry in the future, the Volcker Rule - among many other provisions of the Dodd-Frank should be revisited now.