On Nov 1, 11:46*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government programs that
keep the poor in their condition or, in fact, enlarge their numbers.

*"A generous welfare program would put an immediate end to poverty
(defined otherwise than as relative deprivation), but by causing the
break up of many families, by reducing motivation to work and to save
and in general to take some account of the future, and by discouraging
migration from areas of poor opportunity to areas of good opportunity it
might in the long run do more harm than good on the whole."

* *Edward Banfield *The Unheavenly City* 1970

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Wealth can only be created by (proper) work. Any attempt to create
it out of thin air results in disaster.

harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:46 am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,

"HeyBub" wrote:

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government
programs that keep the poor in their condition or, in fact, enlarge
their numbers.

"A generous welfare program would put an immediate end to poverty
(defined otherwise than as relative deprivation), but by causing the
break up of many families, by reducing motivation to work and to save
and in general to take some account of the future, and by
discouraging migration from areas of poor opportunity to areas of
good opportunity it might in the long run do more harm than good on
the whole."

Edward Banfield *The Unheavenly City* 1970

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Wealth can only be created by (proper) work. Any attempt to create
it out of thin air results in disaster.

Nonsense. If I think of a more efficient way to do something, even as
mundane as a different route for the letter carrier or a different layout
for a commercial parking lot, I have created wealth. If I own $10,000 worth
of stock in corporation "X" and corporation "X" announces a new product such
that my stock is now worth $20,000, wealth has been created and I did
absolutely nothing - except have the foresight to buy stock in "X".

If I'm just sitting around doodling and deduce a formula for turning corn
into aluminum, in short order I'm probably the wealthiest man on the planet!
No more mining bauxite in South Africa and shipping it to Costa Rica for
pre-processing thence to smelters in the U.S., and I did no - or not much -
work at all! And lest you think it's silly to contemplate turning corn into
aluminum, the same thing was said not long ago about turning corn into
gasoline...

On Nov 1, 9:35*am, harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:46*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:









In article ,

*"HeyBub" wrote:

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government programs that
keep the poor in their condition or, in fact, enlarge their numbers.

*"A generous welfare program would put an immediate end to poverty
(defined otherwise than as relative deprivation), but by causing the
break up of many families, by reducing motivation to work and to save
and in general to take some account of the future, and by discouraging
migration from areas of poor opportunity to areas of good opportunity it
might in the long run do more harm than good on the whole."

* *Edward Banfield *The Unheavenly City* 1970

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Wealth can only be created by *(proper) work. *Any attempt to create
it out of thin air results in disaster.

They did pretty well on Wall Street. Out of thin air.

HB

On Nov 1, 10:11*pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
*"HeyBub" wrote:

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government programs that
keep the poor in their condition or, in fact, enlarge their numbers..

*"A generous welfare program would put an immediate end to poverty
(defined otherwise than as relative deprivation), but by causing the
break up of many families, by reducing motivation to work and to save
and in general to take some account of the future, and by discouraging
migration from areas of poor opportunity to areas of good opportunity it
might in the long run do more harm than good on the whole."

* *Edward Banfield *The Unheavenly City* 1970

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Wealth can only be created by *(proper) work. *Any attempt to create
it out of thin air results in disaster.

They did pretty well on Wall Street. *Out of thin air.


And created disaster.
They created money not wealth. They stole your wealth. using money as
a tool.

harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:11 pm, Higgs Boson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government
programs that keep the poor in their condition or, in fact,
enlarge their numbers.

"A generous welfare program would put an immediate end to poverty
(defined otherwise than as relative deprivation), but by causing
the break up of many families, by reducing motivation to work and
to save and in general to take some account of the future, and by
discouraging migration from areas of poor opportunity to areas of
good opportunity it might in the long run do more harm than good
on the whole."

Edward Banfield *The Unheavenly City* 1970

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Wealth can only be created by (proper) work. Any attempt to create
it out of thin air results in disaster.

They did pretty well on Wall Street. Out of thin air.


And created disaster.
They created money not wealth. They stole your wealth. using money as
a tool.

Whatever. They still created wealth without getting their hands dirty. This
notion completely deflates your contention that wealth is created only by
"(proper) work."

On 11/2/2011 5:47 AM, harry wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:11 pm, Higgs wrote:
wrote:

I further hold that, in the main, it is misguided government programs that
keep the poor in their condition or, in fact, enlarge their numbers.

"A generous welfare program would put an immediate end to poverty
(defined otherwise than as relative deprivation), but by causing the
break up of many families, by reducing motivation to work and to save
and in general to take some account of the future, and by discouraging
migration from areas of poor opportunity to areas of good opportunity it
might in the long run do more harm than good on the whole."

Edward Banfield *The Unheavenly City* 1970

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

Wealth can only be created by (proper) work. Any attempt to create
it out of thin air results in disaster.

They did pretty well on Wall Street. Out of thin air.


And created disaster.
They created money not wealth. They stole your wealth. using money as
a tool.

Nobody stole..."they" just took what was gladly spent to drop the
"middle class" and governments into pits of debt. Spend, spend,
spend...run up many thousands in insane credit-card debt, then just
spend the equity in your home to pay it off. "I don't want taxes or big
government, but I sure as hell want clean air and water, relief from any
and all disasters, good roads and bridges, and a local official I can
call when things don't go my way." We have gotten precisely what we
asked for.

On Nov 2, 12:39*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

In almost any country, when the haves end up with so much more than
the have nots that the latter have no stake in society to speak of,
rioting and social unrest occurs and wealth is destroyed. *In many
cases like Russia and France the aristocrats not only lose their
wealth, they lose their lives.

The poor do not riot or agitate for change. It is ALWAYS those that have
much and want more that are the moving agents behind revolution.

As per the AHR newsgroup charter, I nominate that one sentence Idiotic
Comment of the Month award. Do I hear a second?

We've seen poor people riot before in the US and the rest of the
world and we'll see it again, I am sure.

Old wive's tale. It's never happened. In the history of the world. The poor
are fixated on today and their next pitiful meal. They have no conception
nor are they driven by a unicorn-plentiful, gossamery, future.

Okay, this complicates things.
There are two comments in one post from the same person up for the
award this month - and it's only the 2nd! A historic day indeed.
The AHR charter does not have provisions for retiring the Idiotic
Comment of the Month Award, but I think it's clear there is a present
need.

Bob, HeyRube, is getting bothered and simply spewing. It's his
forte...or maybe too many 40s. In any event, he's spewing and there's
no point in arguing his nonsense. He only learned the latter half of
that "blind them with bull****" saying. Once in a great while he
makes a valid point, but attempting to counter his continuous
calculated delusions and disinformation campaign is futile.

R

RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:39 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

In almost any country, when the haves end up with so much more than
the have nots that the latter have no stake in society to speak of,
rioting and social unrest occurs and wealth is destroyed. In many
cases like Russia and France the aristocrats not only lose their
wealth, they lose their lives.

The poor do not riot or agitate for change. It is ALWAYS those that
have much and want more that are the moving agents behind revolution.

As per the AHR newsgroup charter, I nominate that one sentence Idiotic
Comment of the Month award. Do I hear a second?

We've seen poor people riot before in the US and the rest of the
world and we'll see it again, I am sure.

Old wive's tale. It's never happened. In the history of the world.
The poor are fixated on today and their next pitiful meal. They have
no conception nor are they driven by a unicorn-plentiful, gossamery,
future.

Okay, this complicates things.
There are two comments in one post from the same person up for the
award this month - and it's only the 2nd! A historic day indeed.
The AHR charter does not have provisions for retiring the Idiotic
Comment of the Month Award, but I think it's clear there is a present
need.

Bob, HeyRube, is getting bothered and simply spewing. It's his
forte...or maybe too many 40s. In any event, he's spewing and there's
no point in arguing his nonsense. He only learned the latter half of
that "blind them with bull****" saying. Once in a great while he
makes a valid point, but attempting to counter his continuous
calculated delusions and disinformation campaign is futile.

"For no revolution, no matter how wide it may have opened the gates to the
masses of the poor, was ever started by them, just as no revolution, no
matter how widespread discontent and even conspiracy may have been in a
given country, was ever the result of sedition."
"On Revolution" by Hannah Arendt

"Although started by the privileged, control of the [French] Revolution
rapidly passed to the middle classes and then, for a time, to the
sans-culottes in Paris who were poor and extreme."
"Encyclopedia Britannica Concise Edition - French Revolution"

"Revolutions are invariable started by those who have much and want more..."
"The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer

And dozens of of other scholarly treatises. I'd be interested in either
seeing your counter examples or an apology for asserting my statements were
foolish.

Heck, even the Tea Party Revolution was instigated by the upper
middle-class!

On Nov 2, 6:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Revolutions are invariable started by those who have much and want more...."
"The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer

That is not a quote by Hoffer. You mashed/made up the quote to say
what you wanted to say. Wot a surprise. Hoffer actually said,
"Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when
we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack
many things than when we seem to lack but one thing."

Gee, that really does put a different spin on things, doesn't it?
This may help you understand Hoffer.
http://xrdarabia.org/2010/04/11/tran...g-eric-hoffer/

Hoffer was a master of the sound bite, though - I just wish you had
exercised more care in making up one of his quotes. His real quotes
were pips, such as:
“A soul that is reluctant to share does not as a rule have much of its
own. Miserliness is here a symptom of meagerness.”
or
“We used to think that revolutions are the cause of change. Actually
it is the other way around change prepares the ground for revolution.”
or this
"Even in the freest society power is charged with the impulse to turn
men into precise, predictable automata. When watching men of power in
action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or
not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the
independent individual - the independent voter, consumer, worker,
owner, thinker - and that every device they employ aims at turning man
into a manipulatable 'animated instrument,' which is Aristotle's
definition of a slave."

And dozens of of other scholarly treatises. I'd be interested in either
seeing *your counter examples or an apology for asserting my statements were
foolish.

Counter examples? When you can't even get your own examples
straight? Please.

I cannot help pointing out the foolishness in your statements. It's
one of my weaknesses.

R

On Nov 2, 10:37*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:39 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

In almost any country, when the haves end up with so much more than
the have nots that the latter have no stake in society to speak of,
rioting and social unrest occurs and wealth is destroyed. In many
cases like Russia and France the aristocrats not only lose their
wealth, they lose their lives.

The poor do not riot or agitate for change. It is ALWAYS those that
have much and want more that are the moving agents behind revolution.

As per the AHR newsgroup charter, I nominate that one sentence Idiotic
Comment of the Month award. *Do I hear a second?

We've seen poor people riot before in the US and the rest of the
world and we'll see it again, I am sure.

Old wive's tale. It's never happened. In the history of the world.
The poor are fixated on today and their next pitiful meal. They have
no conception nor are they driven by a unicorn-plentiful, gossamery,
future.

Okay, this complicates things.
There are two comments in one post from the same person up for the
award this month - and it's only the 2nd! *A historic day indeed.
The AHR charter does not have provisions for retiring the Idiotic
Comment of the Month Award, but I think it's clear there is a present
need.

Bob, HeyRube, is getting bothered and simply spewing. *It's his
forte...or maybe too many 40s. *In any event, he's spewing and there's
no point in arguing his nonsense. *He only learned the latter half of
that "blind them with bull****" saying. *Once in a great while he
makes a valid point, but attempting to counter his continuous
calculated delusions and disinformation campaign is futile.

"For no revolution, no matter how wide it may have opened the gates to the
masses of the poor, was ever started by them, just as no revolution, no
matter how widespread discontent and even conspiracy may have been in a
given country, was ever the result of sedition."
"On Revolution" by Hannah Arendt

"Although started by the privileged, control of the [French] Revolution
rapidly passed to the middle classes and then, for a time, to the
sans-culottes in Paris who were poor and extreme."
"Encyclopedia Britannica Concise Edition - French Revolution"

"Revolutions are invariable started by those who have much and want more...."
"The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer

And dozens of of other scholarly treatises. I'd be interested in either
seeing *your counter examples or an apology for asserting my statements were
foolish.

Heck, even the Tea Party Revolution was instigated by the upper
middle-class!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The tea party is not a revolution. They are rich people just wanting
to be even richer. Greed not desperation. One of the seven deadly
sins.
Bub is going to hell because he believes in it.

Russian revolution and Napoleonic revolution where the aristocracy/
plutocracy were executed.
Oh and Viet Nam. And who were your gov. helping there?

On Nov 3, 3:32*am, "Robert Green" wrote:

Jeez. *We're back to "all things good are free market" and "all things bad
are government." *If local governments hadn't awarded and monitored cable
franchises we would be paying whatever they said we should, which, according
to my cable bills, they're doing anyway. *What a surprise that in my market,
where there finally is CATV competition (after 30+ years), the Comcast and
FIOS prices are within dollars of each other? *That's because only two
entities competing is scarcely real competition. *Just add a few more
players, as in the big banks in America, and when one or two make a bonehead
move (like debit fees) there are plenty of competitors around to welcome the
customers the bonehead banks shed.



and I did absolutely nothing - except have the foresight to buy
stock in "X".

You didn't do "nothing" FWIW. *You took a risk in buying "X" stock
because it could have been Enron or some other stock that just
vanished. *Even in that case, wealth isn't "lost" - it has been
transferred to someone else, namely the crooks running the crooked
company. * Just ask the

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good post.

The French revolution was started by early communists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

Why do you suppose your own aristocracy is afraid of communists and
nas got you brainwashed?

RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:37 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Revolutions are invariable started by those who have much and want
more..." "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer

That is not a quote by Hoffer. You mashed/made up the quote to say
what you wanted to say. Wot a surprise. Hoffer actually said,
"Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when
we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack
many things than when we seem to lack but one thing."

Gee, that really does put a different spin on things, doesn't it?
This may help you understand Hoffer.
http://xrdarabia.org/2010/04/11/tran...g-eric-hoffer/

Hoffer was a master of the sound bite, though - I just wish you had
exercised more care in making up one of his quotes. His real quotes
were pips, such as:
“A soul that is reluctant to share does not as a rule have much of its
own. Miserliness is here a symptom of meagerness.”
or
“We used to think that revolutions are the cause of change. Actually
it is the other way around change prepares the ground for revolution.”
or this
"Even in the freest society power is charged with the impulse to turn
men into precise, predictable automata. When watching men of power in
action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or
not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the
independent individual - the independent voter, consumer, worker,
owner, thinker - and that every device they employ aims at turning man
into a manipulatable 'animated instrument,' which is Aristotle's
definition of a slave."

And dozens of of other scholarly treatises. I'd be interested in
either seeing your counter examples or an apology for asserting my
statements were foolish.

Counter examples? When you can't even get your own examples
straight? Please.

I cannot help pointing out the foolishness in your statements. It's
one of my weaknesses.


You're sorta right. My memory is admittedly porous and when I submitted the
original quote I couldn't find my copy of his book (again, the porous
memory). (I'll renew my quest and offer up the next paragraph.) The tenor of
the exact quote you found does, however, support my point that revolutions
are started and maintained by those who have something already substantial
and want more.

As for not getting my own examples straight, I notice you snipped the two
exact quotes of the post with which you find so much wrong. So far, I'm
batting 66% while you're still at zero. Again, if you can offer a popular
uprising started and consisting of the poor and downtrodden, I'd be happy to
hear of it (the slave rebellion by Spartacus doesn't count).

To reprise: The poor are not the impetus nor the sustaining force (usually)
behind revolutions. I say "usually" because they may be recruited by the
elites to help in the work. Here, I'm thinking of the Indian quest for
independence (Ghandi, et al). While the poor certainly contributed to the
multitudes, they weren't fed by two fishes and five loaves of bread. The
powerful actually bankrolled the non-violent agitation.

"Robert Green" wrote:
The bank, if it were prudent, might lend you 20% of the value of your stock.

Nonsense. Any broker (investment bank) will lend you 50% of the value in a
heartbeat. Yes, they will hold the stock as collateral, but the interest rates
are really good. --Doug

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:22:16 -0500, Douglas Johnson
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote:
The bank, if it were prudent, might lend you 20% of the value of your stock.

Nonsense. Any broker (investment bank) will lend you 50% of the value in a
heartbeat. Yes, they will hold the stock as collateral, but the interest rates
are really good. --Doug

....as long as you can keep the 50% margin.

On Nov 3, 8:34*am, "
wrote:

Following your bogus ideas, no one could ever know what they were
worth without selling every last thing and turning it into cash.

That is pretty much the case. You're conflating book value with
market value with what someone would actually pay for the thing.

If Bill Gates sees that he's worth $50 billion or whatever, and
decides to cash out and tries to dump all of his MS stock, MS stock
would plummet. He wouldn't be worth his book value of $50 billion

If someone sees that a particular toy was valued at $X on the Antiques
Roadshow, it doesn't mean that they'll get that much when they try to
sell it. A dealer would pay half or less, and maybe a private
individual who wanted it right _now_ would pay more. So which one of
those is the 'real' value?

The cash you have in your pocket goes up and down in value every day,
as does your house, your car (okay, that just goes down unless it's
rare and in demand), gold, oil, food - everything goes up and down.
So even if someone sold everything and took the cash, the resultant
sum would only be their relative wealth on a particular day at a
particular time and in a particular location.

Accounting is a means to standardize bookkeeping, and a means to keep
track of the book value of wealth. It's still a book value. Arguing
that the book value is the only real value is simplifying things to
the point of error. That is what the banks did with CDOs. They tried
to separate components of a number and sell those components
individually to make more money - to create wealth. Unfortunately
there were a lot of zeroes in those numbers and components.

R

On Nov 3, 3:59*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 6:37 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:

"Revolutions are invariable started by those who have much and want
more..." "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer

That is not a quote by Hoffer. *You mashed/made up the quote to say
what you wanted to say. *Wot a surprise. *Hoffer actually said,
"Our frustration is greater when we have much and want more than when
we have nothing and want some. We are less dissatisfied when we lack
many things than when we seem to lack but one thing."

Gee, that really does put a different spin on things, doesn't it?
This may help you understand Hoffer.
http://xrdarabia.org/2010/04/11/tran...g-eric-hoffer/

Hoffer was a master of the sound bite, though - I just wish you had
exercised more care in making up one of his quotes. *His real quotes
were pips, such as:
A soul that is reluctant to share does not as a rule have much of its
own. Miserliness is here a symptom of meagerness.
or
We used to think that revolutions are the cause of change. Actually
it is the other way around change prepares the ground for revolution.
or this
"Even in the freest society power is charged with the impulse to turn
men into precise, predictable automata. When watching men of power in
action it must be always kept in mind that, whether they know it or
not, their main purpose is the elimination or neutralization of the
independent individual - the independent voter, consumer, worker,
owner, thinker - and that every device they employ aims at turning man
into a manipulatable 'animated instrument,' which is Aristotle's
definition of a slave."

And dozens of of other scholarly treatises. I'd be interested in
either seeing your counter examples or an apology for asserting my
statements were foolish.

Counter examples? *When you can't even get your own examples
straight? *Please.

I cannot help pointing out the foolishness in your statements. *It's
one of my weaknesses.

You're sorta right. My memory is admittedly porous and when I submitted the
original quote I couldn't find my copy of his book (again, the porous
memory). (I'll renew my quest and offer up the next paragraph.) The tenor of
the exact quote you found does, however, support my point that revolutions
are started and maintained by those who have something already substantial
and want more.

As for not getting my own examples straight, I notice you snipped the two
exact quotes of the post with which you find so much wrong. So far, I'm
batting 66% while you're still at zero. Again, if you can offer a popular
uprising started and consisting of the poor and downtrodden, I'd be happy to
hear of it (the slave rebellion by Spartacus doesn't count).

To reprise: The poor are not the impetus nor the sustaining force (usually)
behind revolutions. I say "usually" because they may be recruited by the
elites to help in the work. Here, I'm thinking of the Indian quest for
independence (Ghandi, et al). While the poor certainly contributed to the
multitudes, they weren't fed by two fishes and five loaves of bread. The
powerful actually bankrolled the non-violent agitation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The names of these powerful people?

On Nov 3, 1:28*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:34*am, "
wrote:



Following your bogus ideas, no one could ever know what they were
worth without selling every last thing and turning it into cash.

That is pretty much the case. *You're conflating book value with
market value with what someone would actually pay for the thing.

If Bill Gates sees that he's worth $50 billion or whatever, and
decides to cash out and tries to dump all of his MS stock, MS stock
would plummet. *He wouldn't be worth his book value of $50 billion

That's the pathological case. The everyday case is Joe Citizen
owns 1000 shares of MSFT and it's trading at 25. It's clear
that at that moment, it's contrinbution to his net worth is very
close to $25,000 and there is no need to liquidate it to prove it.

It was the following exchange from the resident socialist who thinks
he's competent to comment on economics that I was addressing:

" If I own $10,000 worth of stock in corporation "X" and corporation
"X"
announces a new product such that my stock is now worth $20,000,
wealth has been created "

Robert:
"Jeez. Where did you go to school? Your stock would be worth twice
as much
only if people sold their shares in other companies to buy shares in
the new
one. Wealth hasn't been created. It's just been transferred from
one
company to another. That's what OWS is all about. "


That's my vote for the stupidist post here in a long time. He's
obviously just as
ignorant about economics and the stock market as the hippie
protesters. Yet
he pontificates on how to fix the economy, wall street, God knows
what.



If someone sees that a particular toy was valued at $X on the Antiques
Roadshow, it doesn't mean that they'll get that much when they try to
sell it. *A dealer would pay half or less, and maybe a private
individual who wanted it right _now_ would pay more. *So which one of
those is the 'real' value?

The cash you have in your pocket goes up and down in value every day,
as does your house, your car (okay, that just goes down unless it's
rare and in demand), gold, oil, food - everything goes up and down.
So even if someone sold everything and took the cash, the resultant
sum would only be their relative wealth on a particular day at a
particular time and in a particular location.

Sure net worth goes up and down. And the value of certain unique
assets like antiques can be hard to determine with certainty.
But that doesn't mean that
in most cases net worth can't be easily calculated to some
reasonable degree of accuracy.


Accounting is a means to standardize bookkeeping, and a means to keep
track of the book value of wealth. *It's still a book value. *Arguing
that the book value is the only real value is simplifying things to
the point of error.

Book value and market value are two different things. Market value
is what counts for net worth. The price of the gold, stock etc
today,
not what was paid for it 5 years ago.

On Nov 3, 3:23*pm, "
wrote:

Book value and market value are two different things. Market value
is what counts for net worth. * The price of the gold, stock etc
today, not what was paid for it 5 years ago.

Again, that's a theoretical valuation, and, yes, it is pretty much
standardized in accounting. But there's a big but in there. People
do have a tendency to exaggerate, Trump for one example, and it's also
neglecting the liquidity factor. Limitations and gross markdowns due
to an urgent need for cash flow can reduce anyone's net worth by a
huge factor. Rich people and most businesses go bankrupt because of
those limitations.

I'm not really arguing against you, I'm just saying that someone's
'net worth' is a standardized delusion, much like most of what happens
in the stock market. A more realistic valuation would use a
statistical model and would factor in liquidity and risk. As that's
obviously too complicated for most purposes, people end up using a
theoretical number at some fixed point in time, which allows us to go
"oooh!" when we see the Forbe's 400 list.

R

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 8:34 am, "
wrote:

Following your bogus ideas, no one could ever know what they were
worth without selling every last thing and turning it into cash.

That is pretty much the case. You're conflating book value with
market value with what someone would actually pay for the thing.

If Bill Gates sees that he's worth $50 billion or whatever, and
decides to cash out and tries to dump all of his MS stock, MS stock
would plummet. He wouldn't be worth his book value of $50 billion

If someone sees that a particular toy was valued at $X on the Antiques
Roadshow, it doesn't mean that they'll get that much when they try to
sell it. A dealer would pay half or less, and maybe a private
individual who wanted it right _now_ would pay more. So which one of
those is the 'real' value?

The cash you have in your pocket goes up and down in value every day,
as does your house, your car (okay, that just goes down unless it's
rare and in demand), gold, oil, food - everything goes up and down.
So even if someone sold everything and took the cash, the resultant
sum would only be their relative wealth on a particular day at a
particular time and in a particular location.

Accounting is a means to standardize bookkeeping, and a means to keep
track of the book value of wealth. It's still a book value. Arguing
that the book value is the only real value is simplifying things to
the point of error. That is what the banks did with CDOs. They tried
to separate components of a number and sell those components
individually to make more money - to create wealth. Unfortunately
there were a lot of zeroes in those numbers and components.

==============================================

Thanks for explaining that a lot more patiently than I would have. There
are so many ways to calculate value. In the case of something like a "toad"
howitzer g there's an acquisition value (what did it cost us to buy it
originally?) that's probably way different than its original projected
value. There's the cost to replace it if the manufacturing line still
exists. There are trade-in values, treaty values and foreign resale values.
There's the cost to replace it if you have to rebuild or allocate production
facilities. There's the value that it has compared to similar equipment
that might be a substitute. There's scrap value and negative value, as in
the cost to dismantle and disarm it so it doesn't fall into the hands of the
HeyBub Revolutionary Guard.

Book value is, as you say, yet another value we can consider, but it's one
that could change overnight and for a lot of people, it did. Or as that
joke went about the guy buying up all that stock: "Sell it to whom?"

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:39 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

In almost any country, when the haves end up with so much more than
the have nots that the latter have no stake in society to speak of,
rioting and social unrest occurs and wealth is destroyed. In many
cases like Russia and France the aristocrats not only lose their
wealth, they lose their lives.

The poor do not riot or agitate for change. It is ALWAYS those that
have much and want more that are the moving agents behind revolution.

As per the AHR newsgroup charter, I nominate that one sentence Idiotic
Comment of the Month award. Do I hear a second?

We've seen poor people riot before in the US and the rest of the
world and we'll see it again, I am sure.

Old wive's tale. It's never happened. In the history of the world.
The poor are fixated on today and their next pitiful meal. They have
no conception nor are they driven by a unicorn-plentiful, gossamery,
future.

Okay, this complicates things.
There are two comments in one post from the same person up for the
award this month - and it's only the 2nd! A historic day indeed.
The AHR charter does not have provisions for retiring the Idiotic
Comment of the Month Award, but I think it's clear there is a present
need.

Bob, HeyRube, is getting bothered and simply spewing. It's his
forte...or maybe too many 40s. In any event, he's spewing and there's
no point in arguing his nonsense. He only learned the latter half of
that "blind them with bull****" saying. Once in a great while he
makes a valid point, but attempting to counter his continuous
calculated delusions and disinformation campaign is futile.

It has its amusing moments, though. Whatever his shortcomings, HeyBub
doesn't provoke anywhere near as readily as some of his brothers in harm.
Sometimes it gets a little tiring, as in having to explain that like
interest rate decrease, tax cuts can only raise total revenue to a certain
point. When you cross that like, no tax cut can stimulate demand that isn't
there or coerce a manufacturer to step up production when his warehouses are
already filled.

Tax cuts can stimulate the economy under certain circumstance, but not all
of them. As Kurt and I have often sparred, was it really tax cuts that
heated up the economy or the creation of an entirely new sector of the
economy, personal computing, that caused the explosive growth that started
in the 80's? My bet's on the explosive growth of a new economic sector
that created demand for American computing HW, SW and consulting across the
world.

"For no revolution, no matter how wide it may have opened the gates to the
masses of the poor, was ever started by them, just as no revolution, no
matter how widespread discontent and even conspiracy may have been in a
given country, was ever the result of sedition."
"On Revolution" by Hannah Arendt

She's known for some pretty unusual views:

"According to Arendt, then, Eichmann had done evil not because he had a
sadistic will to do so, nor because he had been deeply infected by the
bacillus of anti-Semitism, but because he failed to think through what he
was doing (his thoughtlessness)."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/arendt.html

However, that's someone else's viewpoint. I never gave much thought to a
thoughtless Eichmann but I can't bring myself to agree his main problem was
a lack of introspection.

It's common sense to believe that smarter and perhaps richer people plan and
lead revolutions but I think it's often the poor people that are the engine,
along with some injustice, that lead to breakdowns. The reason for that is
the value of stakeholding. People who have land, buildings, animals,
stores, vehicles, etc. aren't going to put things to the torch as quickly
(or at all) as those who own none of those things. It's one of the reasons
home ownership is a goal of good government and why Presidents on both sides
have supported housing initiatives. Even animals usually know better than
to foul their own nests.

"Although started by the privileged, control of the [French] Revolution
rapidly passed to the middle classes and then, for a time, to the
sans-culottes in Paris who were poor and extreme."
"Encyclopedia Britannica Concise Edition - French Revolution"

"Revolutions are invariable started by those who have much and want
more..."
"The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer

Hoffer wrote that in 1951 when revolutions were defined more rigidly and
classically than they are today. Older theories like his were dealt a
serious blows by new revolutionary events that could not be easily explained
or reconciled by them. The Iranian and Nicaraguan Revolutions of 1979, the
1986 People Power Revolution in the Philippines and now "Arab Spring"
resulted in coalitions of several different societal classes toppling
powerful regimes amidst popular demonstrations and mass strikes with some of
the above marked by a decided lack of violence and others ending up in
extreme sectarian violence like Libya and Syria.

And dozens of of other scholarly treatises. I'd be interested in either
seeing your counter examples or an apology for asserting my statements
were
foolish.

Heck, even the Tea Party Revolution was instigated by the upper
middle-class!

That was a "revolution?" I would suggest that we're now once again firmly
in the Twilight Zone, hearing that weird music to consider the political
movement of the Tea Party a revolutionary force. The reality is that the
OWS is far more revolutionary, in the traditional sense, because it's
willing to indulge in violent demonstrations that seriously provoke the
status quo.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:


Tax cuts can stimulate the economy under certain circumstance, but not all
of them. As Kurt and I have often sparred, was it really tax cuts that
heated up the economy or the creation of an entirely new sector of the
economy, personal computing, that caused the explosive growth that started
in the 80's? My bet's on the explosive growth of a new economic sector
that created demand for American computing HW, SW and consulting across the
world.
I have never suggested that tax cuts were more than a part (an
important part) of what impacted on the economy. A lot of it was related
to computing (although I put more of the econ impact on the
unprecedented productivity increases instead of the creation of a new
sector), as well as Greenspan and incredibly easy money (which came back
to bite us in the long run). I have long called the expansion during the
Clinton years the Gates/Greenspan expansion for that very reason.
I also point to the nasty little truth about tax cuts.. they ALWAYS
result in more revenue. Clinton passed the changes in Cap Gains taxes in
'97, by the time they were fully phased in, we were in the middle of the
surplus.




--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Nov 4, 7:08*am, "Robert Green" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:39 pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Robert Green wrote:

In almost any country, when the haves end up with so much more than
the have nots that the latter have no stake in society to speak of,
rioting and social unrest occurs and wealth is destroyed. In many
cases like Russia and France the aristocrats not only lose their
wealth, they lose their lives.

The poor do not riot or agitate for change. It is ALWAYS those that
have much and want more that are the moving agents behind revolution..

As per the AHR newsgroup charter, I nominate that one sentence Idiotic
Comment of the Month award. *Do I hear a second?

We've seen poor people riot before in the US and the rest of the
world and we'll see it again, I am sure.

Old wive's tale. It's never happened. In the history of the world.
The poor are fixated on today and their next pitiful meal. They have
no conception nor are they driven by a unicorn-plentiful, gossamery,
future.

Okay, this complicates things.
There are two comments in one post from the same person up for the
award this month - and it's only the 2nd! *A historic day indeed.
The AHR charter does not have provisions for retiring the Idiotic
Comment of the Month Award, but I think it's clear there is a present
need.

Bob, HeyRube, is getting bothered and simply spewing. *It's his
forte...or maybe too many 40s. *In any event, he's spewing and there's
no point in arguing his nonsense. *He only learned the latter half of
that "blind them with bull****" saying. *Once in a great while he
makes a valid point, but attempting to counter his continuous
calculated delusions and disinformation campaign is futile.

It has its amusing moments, though. Whatever his shortcomings, HeyBub
doesn't provoke anywhere near as readily as some of his brothers in harm.
Sometimes it gets a little tiring, as in having to explain that like
interest rate decrease, tax cuts can only raise total revenue to a certain
point. *When you cross that like, no tax cut can stimulate demand that isn't
there or coerce a manufacturer to step up production when his warehouses are
already filled.

Tax cuts can stimulate the economy under certain circumstance, but not all
of them. *As Kurt and I have often sparred, was it really tax cuts that
heated up the economy or the creation of an entirely new sector of the
economy, personal computing, that caused the explosive growth that started
in the 80's? * My bet's on the explosive growth of a new economic sector
that created demand for American computing HW, SW and consulting across the
world.

If you were really interested as opposed to daydreaming and
speculating,
you'd simply look at the facts. Within two years of the Reagan tax
cuts
jobs were being created at the rate of 300,000 per month. In those
first
couple of years, there was even a month with 1mil+ jobs created. GDP
growth was strong. The IBM PC had only been introduced a year
earlier
and the PC business was a negligible part of the overall economy.
It was not even a major source of revenue for companies like Intel at
the
time.





"According to Arendt, then, Eichmann had done evil not because he had a
sadistic will to do so, nor because he had been deeply infected by the
bacillus of anti-Semitism, but because he failed to think through what he
was doing (his thoughtlessness)."

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/arendt.html

However, that's someone else's viewpoint. *I never gave much thought to a
thoughtless Eichmann but I can't bring myself to agree his main problem was
a lack of introspection.

Nice. A lack of introspection. So, you're a holocaust apologist
too.

On Nov 4, 8:13*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
*"Robert Green" wrote:



Tax cuts can stimulate the economy under certain circumstance, but not all
of them. *As Kurt and I have often sparred, was it really tax cuts that
heated up the economy or the creation of an entirely new sector of the
economy, personal computing, that caused the explosive growth that started
in the 80's? * My bet's on the explosive growth of a new economic sector
that created demand for American computing HW, SW and consulting across the
world.

* *I have never suggested that tax cuts were more than a part (an
important part) of what impacted on the economy. A lot of it was related
to computing (although I put more of the econ impact on the
unprecedented productivity increases instead of the creation of a new
sector), as well as Greenspan and incredibly easy money (which came back
to bite us in the long run).

In the period he's talking about, when the Reagan tax cuts went into
effect, Paul Volcker was the FED chairman. And money was not
incredibly easy, it was exactly the opposite. Volcker halted the mad
money growth that had lead to high inflation prior to Reagan taking
office.

No doubt that over the longer term advances in computing played
an important role too. But the effects of Reaganomics was clear
from 1983 on and the PC clearly had nothing to do with it in those
early years. Maybe by the end of Reagan's administration you
could argue that it was having a significant effect and it
certainly had an effect in the 90s.




I have long called the expansion during the
Clinton years the Gates/Greenspan expansion for that very reason.
* * I also point to the nasty little truth about tax cuts.. they ALWAYS
result in more revenue. Clinton passed the changes in Cap Gains taxes in
'97, by the time they were fully phased in, we were in the middle of the
surplus.



--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

"RicodJour" wrote in message
...
On Nov 3, 3:23 pm, "
wrote:

Book value and market value are two different things. Market value
is what counts for net worth. The price of the gold, stock etc
today, not what was paid for it 5 years ago.

Again, that's a theoretical valuation, and, yes, it is pretty much
standardized in accounting. But there's a big but in there. People
do have a tendency to exaggerate, Trump for one example, and it's also
neglecting the liquidity factor. Limitations and gross markdowns due
to an urgent need for cash flow can reduce anyone's net worth by a
huge factor. Rich people and most businesses go bankrupt because of
those limitations.

I'm not really arguing against you, I'm just saying that someone's
'net worth' is a standardized delusion, much like most of what happens
in the stock market. A more realistic valuation would use a
statistical model and would factor in liquidity and risk. As that's
obviously too complicated for most purposes, people end up using a
theoretical number at some fixed point in time, which allows us to go
"oooh!" when we see the Forbe's 400 list.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
And then there are guys like Bernie Madoff who bring new meaning to the
question:

"What's my investment worth?"

"Book value or real value?"


--
Bobby G.

" wrote:

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 12:22:16 -0500, Douglas Johnson
wrote:

"Robert Green" wrote:
The bank, if it were prudent, might lend you 20% of the value of your stock.

Nonsense. Any broker (investment bank) will lend you 50% of the value in a
heartbeat. Yes, they will hold the stock as collateral, but the interest rates
are really good. --Doug

...as long as you can keep the 50% margin.

The initial margin limit is 50%. The maintenance margin is 25% per the Fed's
Regulation T. If the value of the stock falls below 25% of the account value. it
will trigger a margin call where you need to put up more money or the brokerage
will kindly sell enough of your stock to get back to 25%.

Many (most?) brokers will have higher limits like 30% to 40%.

-- Doug

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
"Robert Green" wrote:
The bank, if it were prudent, might lend you 20% of the value of your
stock.

Nonsense. Any broker (investment bank) will lend you 50% of the value in
a
heartbeat. Yes, they will hold the stock as collateral, but the interest
rates
are really good. --Doug

Notice my conditional: "if it were prudent." Also my precise subject:
bankers, not brokers. Investment brokers like Lehman could just disappear
overnight because they weren't prudent. Over-leveraging caused the great
Depression of 1929 and it helped caused this recent unpleasantness. It
allows people to gamble with money they don't really have and may never have
if the market turns sour enough, fast enough.

Much of modern finance is seriously (and perhaps overly) interlocked.
That's become painfully apparent with Italy and Greece threatening the
stability of the European Union and perhaps even the world economy. Margin
buying, while great from a broker/banker's point of view (more commissions
and fees) holds substantial risk for both the borrower and the economy at
large. How long will it take our economy to de-leverage and recover from
all the chain reaction events that occurred starting Sept 2008? Besides,
unlike holding the deed to a house, where their might be more land than
house value present, there's a potential for the collateral to become
worthless. Holding Enron stock as collateral, as I am sure many banks did,
turned out to be the same as holding no collateral at all.

I suppose I should have written "governments should make sure that FDIC
banks don't lend more than 20% of the value of a stock offered as collateral
for a loan to buy more stock." It's become clear that when banks and other
lenders are willing to give away money to hoards of people who were
sub-prime and unlikely to repay the loan, they create a risk for the economy
at large. It's also clear that if they're willing to take give you one
dollar for every two of stocks you own, they aren't so good at imagining
bear markets that persist. And persist.

Now that it's clear that enough bad loans to enough dumb people for whatever
the reasons ruins it for *everyone* then one of the obvious fixes is far
better control of money lending with more government oversight. As you
recall, there used to be usury laws which the banks mostly neatly disposed
of through federal regulations concering credit cards. There can and should
be a return to usury laws and other consumer protection regulations that can
help prevent economic disasters.

The taxpayers have been asked to "carry" the bankers too many times to a)
believe they are prudent in any sense of the word and b) that the bankers
can ever regulate themselves. They are, however, too critical to the
national interest to let go with a "don't crash the economy AGAIN kiddies"
kiss on the head.

By coming to us for money, we've earned the right to have a say in just how
risky their investments can become. You should hear the banks scream about
being forced to carry even a fractional amount of cash on hand to cover
their depositor's accounts.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...Standards.aspx

Barry L. Zubrow, chief risk officer at JP Morgan Chase, argued at a recent
congressional hearing that federal regulators have done such a bang up job
of oversight since the 2008-09 financial crisis that nothing more needs to
be done. Putting a capital surcharge on so-called systemically important
financial institutions, or SIFIs, "risks doing more harm than good, and
putting U.S. firms at a distinct and unnecessary competitive disadvantage
globally," Zubrow said.

This is the same puke we were exposed to BEFORE the crash. "Wah, we're
already regulated enough, Wah, we won't be competitive with rest of the
world." To that I say: "When you don't have disastrous crashes 10 years in
a row we'll consider less regulation." As for as "won't be competitive" I
say "but we'll still be the best, and people pay more for the best - not for
some also-ran."

I, for one, am happy we're not imploding quite like the EU. Yet. The US's
reputation as the financial rock of the capitalist world is being marred by
the Madoff/Enron/Worldcomm scandals and the Sept 2008 rescues and failures.
We've already gotten ourselves downgraded from AAA status because of the
deficit panic and political theater. Changes need to be made and the people
in place are never going to make those changes from within. Taxpayers need
to demand that banks that benefit from FDIC insurance have to play by FDIC
rules. They need to be re-regulated to insure greater limits the taxpayer's
exposure to bankers betting on exotic derivatives they don't even
understand.

Why shouldn't Big Banking balk when they *know* they'll always get a
government bailout?

So yes, if bankers were prudent, you'd not be able to borrow very much money
using stock as collateral. But we're talking about two somewhat different
things as being interchangeable. I'll have to ask my banker what they would
lend my on my portfolio. I'm betting it's less than a broker but I've never
been in a position of having to borrow against stocks, so I'm admittedly not
up on the rates. I do know Ameritrade and Etrade are so desperate they both
have $1000 sign up offers in effect (for big accounts). Brokers aren't
covered by the FDIC, though. And that's where the rub always has been.

With the FDIC and the taxpayers footing the risk, why shouldn't they lend
out as much as they can? That's the smart business decision. It's up to
the Feds to make it an unsmart one and return to the protections in place
before bank lobbyists got them gutted so they could gamble big-time with
OPM. Banks weren't happy being just mega-banks, they wanted a taste of
brokerage money - while passing the risk on to the taxpayers. Sweet deal
for them, for a while. Not so good for US citizens.

Fed Gov. Daniel K. Tarullo, the central bank's expert on financial
regulation, who will also be in Basle this weekend, said the surcharge is
both necessary and justified. "In a period of financial stress," Tarullo
said in a recent speech, "the disorderly failure of one or more SIFIs
carries the potential for a devastating impact on the financial system."
That prospect led the Bush Administration to propose the Troubled Asset
Relief Program and a reluctant Congress approved it, which was evidence for
the proposition that, no matter what their general economic policy
principles, government officials faced with a cascading financial crisis
that threatens to bring down the national economy will usually support
measures to rescue large banks."

If you're "too big to fail" you should get two choices: a) chop yourself
up - or b) we'll do it for you.

--
Bobby G.

On Nov 12, 3:52*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message

...

"Robert Green" wrote:
The bank, if it were prudent, might lend you 20% of the value of your
stock.

Nonsense. *Any broker (investment bank) will lend you 50% of the value in
a
heartbeat. *Yes, they will hold the stock as collateral, but the interest
rates
are really good. *--Doug

Notice my conditional: "if it were prudent." *Also my precise subject:
bankers, not brokers. *Investment *brokers like Lehman could just disappear
overnight because they weren't prudent. *Over-leveraging caused the great
Depression of 1929 and it helped caused this recent unpleasantness. *It
allows people to gamble with money they don't really have and may never have
if the market turns sour enough, fast enough.

Much of modern finance is seriously (and perhaps overly) interlocked.
That's become painfully apparent with Italy and Greece threatening the
stability of the European Union and perhaps even the world economy. *Margin
buying, while great from a broker/banker's point of view (more commissions
and fees) holds substantial risk for both the borrower and the economy at
large.

It amazes me how someone who obviously isn't involved or knowledgable
about the stock market professes to have all the easy answers. But
that's how it is with libs, isn't it? Just one more law, one more
restriction
on us all, which they just KNOW is the answer and everything will be
OK.

Just for the record, margin in the stock market has been at 50% for
most of our lifetimes. It had nothing to do with the sub-prime real
estate
debacle. Yet, here we go again, with you fixing what ain't broken.



*How long will it take our economy to de-leverage and recover from
all the chain reaction events that occurred starting Sept 2008? *Besides,
unlike holding the deed to a house, where their might be more land than
house value present, there's a potential for the collateral to become
worthless. *Holding Enron stock as collateral, as I am sure many banks did,
turned out to be the same as holding no collateral at all.

No, it most certainly did not equate to holding no collateral at all.
And once again, your ignorance is evident. Stocks virtually never
go to zero overnight. In your example, Enron, the stock took a long
road down on it's way to zero. And along the way, when the
customer's equity reached 25%, it's a FED requirement that the
customer either put up more money or liquidate part or all of the
position. If the customer doesn't do so, the broker will. And
brokers
typically have more stringent requirements than the FED minimums.
They will typically require the customer to maintain 30 to 40% equity.
And in the case of a volatile stock like Enron most would require at
least the 40%/.




I suppose I should have written "governments should make sure that FDIC
banks don't lend more than 20% of the value of a stock offered as collateral
for a loan to buy more stock." *It's become clear that when banks and other
lenders are willing to give away money to hoards of people who were
sub-prime and unlikely to repay the loan, they create a risk for the economy
at large. *It's also clear that if they're willing to take give you one
dollar for every two of stocks you own, they aren't so good at imagining
bear markets that persist. And persist.

Now you're gonna lecture us on bear markets? Show us a bear market
since
1929, when there were no margin requirements, that resulted in brokers
unable
to cover margin loans.

If it ain't broke, why can't libs leave it alone?



Now that it's clear that enough bad loans to enough dumb people for whatever
the reasons ruins it for *everyone* then one of the obvious fixes is far
better control of money lending with more government oversight.

More govt oversight? From the Congress with an approval of 9%?
How many regulators and regulations do we already have? Did
that prevent the subprime fiasco? In fact, govt ENCOURAGED and
FORCED banks to make many of those subprime loans.

You're Monday morning quarterbacking again. Had the housing market
not declined, but instead continued to go up, you'd be here bitching
about
how those greedy lenders did not make enough subprime loans.
Why they'd be racists for denying the shot at the American dream to
all those minorities. Yet, when they do what the govt requires of
them
and then the market turns against the buyer, why here you are
bitching away.


*As you
recall, there used to be usury laws which the banks mostly neatly disposed
of through federal regulations concering credit cards. *There can and should
be a return to usury laws and other consumer protection regulations that can
help prevent economic disasters.

Here's a novel idea. If you don't like the rate on that credit card,
don't
take it out.



The taxpayers have been asked to "carry" the bankers too many times to a)
believe they are prudent in any sense of the word and b) that the bankers
can ever regulate themselves. *They are, however, too critical to the
national interest to let go with a "don't crash the economy AGAIN kiddies"
kiss on the head.

By coming to us for money, we've earned the right to have a say in just how
risky their investments can become.

The banks have paid back all the TARP money with 10% interest.
Who's gonna pay back the Obama stimulus of $800bil? The
taxpayers. Who would pay back the new stimulus he's seeking
of $500bil because the last one didn't work?



You should hear the banks scream about
being forced to carry even a fractional amount of cash on hand to cover
their depositor's accounts.

All I hear is you screaming here every day about one thing
after another.




http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...nks-Balk-at-Hi...

Barry L. Zubrow, chief risk officer at JP Morgan Chase, argued at a recent
congressional hearing that federal regulators have done such a bang up job
of oversight since the 2008-09 financial crisis that nothing more needs to
be done. Putting a capital surcharge on so-called systemically important
financial institutions, or SIFIs, "risks doing more harm than good, and
putting U.S. firms at a distinct and unnecessary competitive disadvantage
globally," Zubrow said.

This is the same puke we were exposed to BEFORE the crash. *"Wah, we're
already regulated enough, Wah, we won't be competitive with rest of the
world." *To that I say: "When you don't have disastrous crashes 10 years in
a row we'll consider less regulation." *As for as "won't be competitive" I
say "but we'll still be the best, and people pay more for the best - not for
some also-ran."

You just don't get it. The banks are already heavily regulated.
We've had
cycles where the banks got in trouble with or without regulation. Why
is
it that you always look to the private sector? What about the govt
and
govt regulators that were forcing banks to make subprime loans?
What about guys like Barney Frank, with oversight responsibility,
that proclaimed Freddie and Fannie
to be basicly OK weeks before they collapsed?




I, for one, am happy we're not imploding quite like the EU. *Yet. *The US's
reputation as the financial rock of the capitalist world is being marred by
the Madoff/Enron/Worldcomm scandals and the Sept 2008 rescues and failures.
We've already gotten ourselves downgraded from AAA status because of the
deficit panic and political theater. *Changes need to be made and the people
in place are never going to make those changes from within. *Taxpayers need
to demand that banks that benefit from FDIC insurance have to play by FDIC
rules. *They need to be re-regulated to insure greater limits the taxpayer's
exposure to bankers betting on exotic derivatives they don't even
understand.

Why shouldn't Big Banking balk when they *know* they'll always get a
government bailout?

So yes, if bankers were prudent, you'd not be able to borrow very much money
using stock as collateral.

How about I come into your life and tell you what to do, how much
you can borrow, what you can or can't pay for a house, etc? If you
were here right now, you'd be telling me how much salt I can have
on my dinner, because that needs to be controlled too.



*But we're talking about two somewhat different
things as being interchangeable. *I'll have to ask my banker what they would
lend my on my portfolio. *I'm betting it's less than a broker but I've never
been in a position of having to borrow against stocks, so I'm admittedly not
up on the rates.

Then why don't you just shut up?



*I do know Ameritrade and Etrade are so desperate they both
have $1000 sign up offers in effect (for big accounts). *Brokers aren't
covered by the FDIC, though. And that's where the rub always has been.
With the FDIC and the taxpayers footing the risk, why shouldn't they lend
out as much as they can?

The FDIC is NOT footing the risk on any significant amount of
margin loans. The vast majority of all margin lending is done
through brokerage accounts. Nor have margin loans been a problem
since 1929.
Your capacity to want to regulate, change, and control what you
don't understand has no bounds, does it? It would be like me
bitching about the rules for sumo wrestling and pontificating on
all the new rules to add.


That's the smart business decision.

It's quite evident that you know less than zilch about business.


..

On Nov 12, 4:56*pm, "
wrote:

It's quite evident that you know less than zilch about business.

Please explain something to me. Financial analysts, stockbrockers,
blah woof, studies have shown they're all essentially flipping a
coin. So how is it that I've yet to see you agree with a single point
that Robert G. has made? Not a one. The odds against him being
'wrong' on every single point are astronomically small. It appears -
from the cheap seats - that you're channeling Groucho Marx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM

Just saying.

R

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 14:47:27 -0800 (PST), RicodJour wrote:

On Nov 12, 4:56*pm, "
wrote:

It's quite evident that you know less than zilch about business.

Please explain something to me. Financial analysts, stockbrockers,
blah woof, studies have shown they're all essentially flipping a
coin. So how is it that I've yet to see you agree with a single point
that Robert G. has made? Not a one. The odds against him being
'wrong' on every single point are astronomically small. It appears -
from the cheap seats - that you're channeling Groucho Marx.

I do believe that's the first time I've seen someone use argumentum dilettante
used seriously, in a while.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM

Just saying.

....nothing that makes sense.

RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 12, 4:56 pm, "
wrote:

It's quite evident that you know less than zilch about business.

Please explain something to me. Financial analysts, stockbrockers,
blah woof, studies have shown they're all essentially flipping a
coin. So how is it that I've yet to see you agree with a single point
that Robert G. has made? Not a one. The odds against him being
'wrong' on every single point are astronomically small. It appears -
from the cheap seats - that you're channeling Groucho Marx.


It's quite easy to be wrong on every single policy when that policy is
determined by what feels good rather than hard facts.

For example, liberals asked themselves "What defines 'middle class'?" The
answer highest on the list was home ownership. That was an easy fix: let's
make sure everyone owns a home, and, presto, we elevate the lower class into
the middle class.

Hence the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (under Carter). But that didn't
work, or at least didn't work fast enough. So lending standards were reduced
even more. True, the CRA wasn't the sole cause of the housing collapse, but
without the CRA there would have been no problem. The CRA was necessary for
the collapse, but it alone was not sufficient. (It took interest rates to go
to near zero by the Fed as an additional requirement.)

No, an objective look at society tells us that virtually every single major
problem we have can be traced to a liberal's "solution" to an up-stream,
smaller problem. By this, I mean: education, homelessness, poverty, and most
of the rest.

On Nov 12, 5:47*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Nov 12, 4:56*pm, "
wrote:



It's quite evident that you know less than zilch about business.

Please explain something to me. *Financial analysts, stockbrockers,
blah woof, studies have shown they're all essentially flipping a
coin. *So how is it that I've yet to see you agree with a single point
that Robert G. has made? *Not a one. *The odds against him being
'wrong' on every single point are astronomically small. *It appears -
from the cheap seats - that you're channeling Groucho Marx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3etuIw-aM

Just saying.

R

The difference is that what you are referring to above is stock
picking. Stocks move in both directions. Some do better than
others. So, a person picking stocks statistically has a probability
of picking at least one that will go the right way. The studies you
are referring to have compared stock selecting to throwing
darts and just picking stocks randomly. So, in the whole universe
of stocks, sure there is a statistical distribution of winners and
losers.

On the other hand, Robert's beliefs are founded in one general
idea, call it extreme socialism or communism, from which
spring all manner of faulty ideas. It's also quite apparent that
he doesn't have any grounding in economics. So, quite
naturally, virtually everything he spews forth is erroneous.

Now, let's make the right stock market analogy, OK? That
would be a guy who believes only one specific kooky sector is where
the opportunity is and he puts all his eggs in that one basket.
For an example of where that gets you, look at John Corzine.
He put MF heavily into european soverign debt in countries
that were going under. Result? They ALL came up losers and
the company is bankrupt.

" wrote:

On Nov 12, 3:52Â*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message

news:7
Now you're gonna lecture us on bear markets? Show us a bear market
since
1929, when there were no margin requirements, that resulted in brokers
unable
to cover margin loans.

To split a hair, the margin requirement in 1929 was 10%. Way too small, but
not nothing. -- Doug

"Robert Green" wrote:

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
.. .
"Robert Green" wrote:
The bank, if it were prudent, might lend you 20% of the value of your
stock.

Nonsense. Any broker (investment bank) will lend you 50% of the value in
a
heartbeat. Yes, they will hold the stock as collateral, but the interest
rates
are really good. --Doug

Notice my conditional: "if it were prudent." Also my precise subject:
bankers, not brokers. Investment brokers like Lehman could just disappear
overnight because they weren't prudent. Over-leveraging caused the great
Depression of 1929 and it helped caused this recent unpleasantness. It
allows people to gamble with money they don't really have and may never have
if the market turns sour enough, fast enough.

So you are saying Lehman went down because of margin lending? Or are you just
using a specific instance of imprudence to try to prove a general point? Have
any brokers gone down because of margin lending?

As to your precise subject, most (all?) brokers are banks these days. They
converted in 2008 to get FDIC guarantees.
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2008/09/...ing-companies/

Yes, over-leveraging caused both the Great Depression and the Great Recession.
Read "This Time is Different" by Reinhardt and Rogoff.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...609215112.html

It is a depressing read, especially for anyone that thinks we are going to have
a quick recovery or that there is any government miracle that can dig us out.

-- Doug