A Quote by Arundhati Bhattacharya

Some amount of support from government and regulator is required when you are looking at resolving systemic issues. — © Arundhati Bhattacharya
Some amount of support from government and regulator is required when you are looking at resolving systemic issues.
A single agency responsible for systemic risk would be accountable in a way that no regulator was in the run-up to the 2008 crisis. With access to all necessary information to monitor the markets, this regulator would have a better chance of identifying and limiting the impact of future speculative bubbles.
[The] amount of search is not a measure of the amount of intelligence being exhibited. What makes a problem a problem is not that a large amount of search is required for its solution, but that a large amount would be required if a requisite level of intelligence were not applied.
My preference is for the Federal Reserve to be the systemic risk regulator, because the responsibility for identifying and limiting potential problems is a natural complement to its role in monetary policy.
Our commitment to Afghanistan is a long-term one. We put a huge amount of resources into trying to make sure there is peace in that country, a huge amount of development assistance, a huge amount of political support for the government.
It's true we have our disagreements on border issues, we have disagreements on trade and related issues, but you don't go invading a country whenever you have a dispute on trade issues, ... We have more civilized mechanisms on resolving such problems.
Although I am still in favour of a National Government in these difficult times, and shall probably be found in the great majority of cases in the Government Lobby, there are some issues that have arisen, or are likely to arise, upon which I am unable to give the Government the support which it has, perhaps, the right to expect from those receiving the Government Whip. It occurs to me, therefore, that it would perhaps be more satisfactory if I was no longer regarded as being among the supporters of the present Administration.
I did take some value out of looking at the extreme simplicity of implementation that the tight resource limits required. I do feel that modern games are often abstracted a lot more than is really necessary, and it leads to robustness issues.
People like to say, “Well, you’re a celebrity. You should really pick a cause.” I felt that’s like telling a doctor, “Well, you should focus on one area of the body.” Current issues, global issues, political issues, women’s issues—whatever one you want to talk about. It’s systemic, you know?
The Fundamental Regulator Paradox ... The task of a regulator is to eliminate variation, but this variation is the ultimate source of information about the quality of its work. Therefore, the better the job a regulator does the less information it gets about how to improve.
Of course we are looking to win support across every section of society. We win support by speaking to voters on the issues they most care about.
We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians.
You can be ideological; you can be passionate about your issues - I'm all for that. And there are some issues I refuse to give in on. But for the state to function, for government to function, there has to be some level of deal-making.
There are many challenges in the global education ecosystem: from top-down systemic issues in how educational services are organized and delivered, to bottom-up issues of curriculum effectiveness, accountability, and human resource allocation.
There are some issues that are not in control of the government. Two of those issues are human rights and personal freedoms are in the domain of Iran's conservative judicial system.
When you have the countries like Germany, China, and Russia decline, and be replaced by others, that's when systemic wars start. That's when it gets dangerous, because they haven't yet reached a balance. So Germany united in 1871 and all hell broke loose. Japan rose in the early 20th century, and then you had chaos. So we're looking at a systemic shift. Be ready for war.
The government deficit is the difference between the amount of money the government spends and the amount it has the nerve to collect.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!