|
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with
stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Securitys annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06] By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold (mortgages) and high leverage. So they are insolvent, in more simple terms. Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their equity. While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these insolvent banks to make them not insolvent. -- Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers you will need to find a different means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Oct 9, 2:41*pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
19789.invalid wrote: At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06] By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold (mortgages) and high leverage. So they are insolvent, in more simple terms. Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their equity. * While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these insolvent banks to make them not insolvent. -- * *Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention * * * to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating * * * *from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by * * * * *more readers you will need to find a different means of * * * * * * * * * * * *posting on Usenet. * * * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/ I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. Therefore, it follows that notwithstanding our rudely advanced, passionate positions on the issue, our decision on who we vote for in the upcoming election will impact this mess about as profoundly as whether we decide to drive a Chevy or a Ford. Ron Paul had it right. Unfortunately, nobody took him seriously. Idealistically, Vernon |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote:
On Oct 9, 2:41?pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM. 19789.invalid wrote: At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Security?s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06] By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold (mortgages) and high leverage. So they are insolvent, in more simple terms. Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their equity. ? While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these insolvent banks to make them not insolvent. I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. Very true. Very many parties and groups to blame. If Social Security money was invested into stocks, mortgages, etc, the likely outcome of that would actually be that the bubble would last longer (so we'd be all celebrating right now, instead of the opposite), and would go higher, but the end result would be even worse. Therefore, it follows that notwithstanding our rudely advanced, passionate positions on the issue, our decision on who we vote for in the upcoming election will impact this mess about as profoundly as whether we decide to drive a Chevy or a Ford. I would respectfully disagree, and think that at least to some degree, the outcome of election will make a difference. Keep in mind, however (check intrade.com if you want) that the market is already expecting Obama to win. Ron Paul had it right. Unfortunately, nobody took him seriously. I, for one, would love to know what Ron Paul said, I respect him greatly from a long time ago. -- Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers you will need to find a different means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"Vernon" wrote in message ... On Oct 9, 2:41 pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM. 19789.invalid wrote: At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Security’s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06] By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold (mortgages) and high leverage. So they are insolvent, in more simple terms. Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their equity. While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these insolvent banks to make them not insolvent. -- Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers you will need to find a different means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/ I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. Therefore, it follows that notwithstanding our rudely advanced, passionate positions on the issue, our decision on who we vote for in the upcoming election will impact this mess about as profoundly as whether we decide to drive a Chevy or a Ford. Ron Paul had it right. Unfortunately, nobody took him seriously. Ron Paul had it exactly backwards. There is no more rabid anti-regulation looney-tune than him. That's what makes him a libertarian. The entire domino series started with unregulated trade in securities, held at unconscionable leverage ratios and with unaudited ratings. The fact that they were based on mortgages is almost incidental; given the scheme, anything that looked secure would have worked. No regulatory scheme is bulletproof, but this was like sticking your belly out and inviting the thieves and pirates to cut off a few pounds of flesh. Now Paul and the other anti-regulatory nutbags will find some sophistic arguments to suggest that it wouldn't have happened on their watch. Thank God it wasn't their watch, or the entire economy would be out to lunch by now -- permanently. -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Oct 9, 3:08*pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM.
19789.invalid wrote: On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote: On Oct 9, 2:41?pm, Ignoramus19789 ignoramus19...@NOSPAM. 19789.invalid wrote: At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. In 2006, McCain voted for the Social Security Reserve Fund. The proposal would shift Social Security?s annual surpluses into a reserve account that would be converted into risky private accounts. [SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06; SCR 83, Vote #68, 3/16/06] By the way, the real issue with banks is that they have negative equity due to fall in values of the securities that they hold (mortgages) and high leverage. So they are insolvent, in more simple terms. Lending to them would not address this as it would not increase their equity. ? While the authorities are not saying word "insolvent" for obvious reasons, they realized it and are considering giving money to these insolvent banks to make them not insolvent. I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. *More than enough to go around. Very true. Very many parties and groups to blame. If Social Security money was invested into stocks, mortgages, etc, the likely outcome of that would actually be that the bubble would last longer (so we'd be all celebrating right now, instead of the opposite), and would go higher, but the end result would be even worse. Therefore, it follows that notwithstanding our rudely advanced, passionate positions on the issue, our decision on who we vote for in the upcoming election will impact this mess about as profoundly as whether we decide to drive a Chevy or a Ford. I would respectfully disagree, and think that at least to some degree, the outcome of election will make a difference. Keep in mind, however (check intrade.com if you want) that the market is already expecting Obama to win. Ron Paul had it right. *Unfortunately, nobody took him seriously. I, for one, would love to know what Ron Paul said, I respect him greatly from a long time ago. -- * *Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention * * * to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating * * * *from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by * * * * *more readers you will need to find a different means of * * * * * * * * * * * *posting on Usenet. * * * * * * * * * *http://improve-usenet.org/- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten... although that might be a stretch. V |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message ... At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. snip Of course, you do understand that the proposal only allotted 15% of one's SS MAY be used for private accounts. You try and make it sound like all SS was going into the stock market. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote:
Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten... although that might be a stretch. I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say? -- Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers you will need to find a different means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On 2008-10-09, Buerste wrote:
"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message ... At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. snip Of course, you do understand that the proposal only allotted 15% of one's SS MAY be used for private accounts. You try and make it sound like all SS was going into the stock market. That 15% would be 9% now... -- Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers you will need to find a different means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/ |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
Vernon wrote:
I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings. Wes |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"Ignoramus19789" wrote in message ... On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote: Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten... although that might be a stretch. I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say? Five days ago, addressing the John Birch Society, Paul said, responding to "pundits who challenged his opposition to the bailout with statements such as, 'Surely you can't believe that we should do nothing.' Dr. Paul's response was that the federal government should return to sound money and lower taxes, and take more care in regulating the regulators. He pointed out that we got into this mess because of too much government spending, too much debt, too much inflation, and too much regulation. Now we are being told that the solution is more of the same!" Iggy, I'm sure you know the relationship between "sound money" (Paul means gold-backed money) and the money supply, right? They have practically nothing to do with each other. Certainly we have too much debt (duh...). As for regulation, you see what he's saying he that the problem was caused partly by too much of it. This guy either has no understanding of economics, credit and money, or he's playing off the fact that most people listening to him don't. Tell us, Dr. Paul, how would "sound money" have prevented the current crisis? Do you think he really understands how all that money came into being in the first place? (Hint for Ron Paul supporters: it wasn't from printing it. Most of it was never printed at all; it's ciphers on a computer screen. How it got there is the key question -- and the answer has nothing to do with anything Paul said, except for the regulation part.) -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:19:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "Ignoramus19789" wrote in message m... On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote: Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten... although that might be a stretch. I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say? Five days ago, addressing the John Birch Society, Paul said, responding to "pundits who challenged his opposition to the bailout with statements such as, 'Surely you can't believe that we should do nothing.' Dr. Paul's response was that the federal government should return to sound money and lower taxes, and take more care in regulating the regulators. He pointed out that we got into this mess because of too much government spending, too much debt, too much inflation, and too much regulation. Now we are being told that the solution is more of the same!" Iggy, I'm sure you know the relationship between "sound money" (Paul means gold-backed money) and the money supply, right? They have practically nothing to do with each other. Certainly we have too much debt (duh...). As for regulation, you see what he's saying he that the problem was caused partly by too much of it. This guy either has no understanding of economics, credit and money, or he's playing off the fact that most people listening to him don't. Tell us, Dr. Paul, how would "sound money" have prevented the current problem? Do you think he really understands how all that money came into being in the first place? (Hint for Ron Paul supporters: it wasn't from printing it. Most of it was never printed at all; it's ciphers on a computer screen. How it got there is the key question -- and the answer has nothing to do with anything Paul said, except for the regulation part.) ================== For one thing because of fractional banking and the way the securities generated by one bank were counted as assets by another bank, "money" was "amplified" many times if not created. In spite of the repeated chants of fear-fear-fear, the actual stock "problem" appears to be that the suckers "AKA" stock holders have had enough of the outlandish executive compensation and refusal to distribute dividends when the money was earned, and the dissipation of any profits on highly questionable activities such as stock buy backs at market highs and "investment" in outlandish and farfetched schemes. Every attempt to correct this has been thwarted by the coopted and preempted directors, and the suckers are voting with their feet. The people have also looked at the claimed corporate "assets" and have concluded these are mainly smoke and mirrors, and are getting out while the getting is good [or at least while they can get some of their money back]. The credit market is a separate issue, but the banks and financial institutions have no problem evaluating the actual credit worthiness of their borrowers and are now rationally acting on this knowledge, i.e. they are saying "NOT ONLY NO BUT HELL NO" to the applications for loans from the other banks and high rollers. The question is why our government continues to pour taxpayer money down this "black hole," including the 25 billion dollar loan guarantee for the US automotive industry. If the banks are in such dire need of money why aren't they paying inflation + 5% on CDs/time deposits [c. 10%] and possibly a little less on checking? This is still almost no return when tax effect is considered. And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:13:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: snip Now Paul and the other anti-regulatory nutbags will find some sophistic arguments to suggest that it wouldn't have happened on their watch. Thank God it wasn't their watch, or the entire economy would be out to lunch by now -- permanently. snip There are regulations and there are regulations. The key is to be able to tell the difference between those that are vital and those are simply a PITA. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, Wes wrote:
Vernon wrote: I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings. Wes ================== I have watched some of the Waxman hearings. These display the usual total lack of hard facts. For example Greenberg of AIG blaming the new management, and the new management for blaming Greenberg for the AIG bust-out. The fatal blow was given to AIG by the credit defaults swaps [CDSs] written by one small division. These contracts have a date when these were written, and it is known when Mr. Greenberg was relieved as President/CEO of AIG. Were the bulk of the toxic CDSs written on his watch or not? This is not a question of opinion or debate. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following: Vernon wrote: I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings. And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings instead of bailouts. -- "Given the low level of competence among politicians, every American should become a Libertarian." -- Charley Reese, Alameda Times-Star (California), June 17, 2003 |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:19:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Bull ****. We all vote. JC |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message ... On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes scrawled the following: Vernon wrote: I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings. And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings instead of bailouts. They, like you and yours, have been ignorant promoters of markets being self correcting. JC |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:13:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip Now Paul and the other anti-regulatory nutbags will find some sophistic arguments to suggest that it wouldn't have happened on their watch. Thank God it wasn't their watch, or the entire economy would be out to lunch by now -- permanently. snip There are regulations and there are regulations. The key is to be able to tell the difference between those that are vital and those are simply a PITA. Which is why regulation, as it exists, wasn't effective. What was enforced was a philosophy, not the law, and the thinking was defective. BTW, it also ignored something derided by Republicans as the common good. JC |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"Buerste" wrote in message ... "Ignoramus19789" wrote in message ... At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. snip Of course, you do understand that the proposal only allotted 15% of one's SS MAY be used for private accounts. You try and make it sound like all SS was going into the stock market. I don't think the rest of the world wants to look like either Ohio Brosh or Ohio Mr. Gardner. Scouting out scrap metal to build you products from doesn't speak highly of Ohio Brush's quality. It is a good reflection of your character, however. Here is what you and yours have lead your State into. This is fall. This is Ohio State Buckeye football time. But, you know, there's a lot of people still saying, "Thank God for Michigan, because, without Michigan, we'd be number 50 instead of just number 49 in a lot of economic measures." Our unemployment is at a 16-year high. Our Medicaid rolls are the highest in history. Our food stamp rolls are the highest in history. The WIC enrollment is at highest in history. Food lines are growing. People who used to volunteer and serve in those food lines are now in the line getting food themselves. It's pretty bad here, so people are talking about the economy as issues one, two, and three, at least. Well done Porky. JC |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:19:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Ignoramus19789" wrote in message om... On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote: Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten... although that might be a stretch. I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say? Five days ago, addressing the John Birch Society, Paul said, responding to "pundits who challenged his opposition to the bailout with statements such as, 'Surely you can't believe that we should do nothing.' Dr. Paul's response was that the federal government should return to sound money and lower taxes, and take more care in regulating the regulators. He pointed out that we got into this mess because of too much government spending, too much debt, too much inflation, and too much regulation. Now we are being told that the solution is more of the same!" Iggy, I'm sure you know the relationship between "sound money" (Paul means gold-backed money) and the money supply, right? They have practically nothing to do with each other. Certainly we have too much debt (duh...). As for regulation, you see what he's saying he that the problem was caused partly by too much of it. This guy either has no understanding of economics, credit and money, or he's playing off the fact that most people listening to him don't. Tell us, Dr. Paul, how would "sound money" have prevented the current problem? Do you think he really understands how all that money came into being in the first place? (Hint for Ron Paul supporters: it wasn't from printing it. Most of it was never printed at all; it's ciphers on a computer screen. How it got there is the key question -- and the answer has nothing to do with anything Paul said, except for the regulation part.) ================== For one thing because of fractional banking and the way the securities generated by one bank were counted as assets by another bank, "money" was "amplified" many times if not created. I'm surprised at you, George. Fractional reserve banking has been with us since at least 1100 A.D. If the complaints about fractional reserve banking had any substance, under a fiat money regime, inflation would have been roughly equal to growth of the money supply. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, it would have been 15% per year or more. In fact, it averaged less than 3%. Here are the graphs if you want to check it out (M2 is considered to be the big factor in inflation): http://www.gocurrency.com/articles/s...-inflation.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C..._supply 2.svg That old argument is, if you'll forgive the term, bankrupt. g The problem is not fractional reserve banking. The problem is OUT OF CONTROL expansion of credit and debt obligations. In other words, funny money with no regulations, no reserve requirements, no auditing of underlying securities -- the whole deregulation economics schtick. To put it bluntly, it's brain-dead ideological nonsense. It assumes everyone is honest, prudent, and smart. Pffhhht. In spite of the repeated chants of fear-fear-fear, the actual stock "problem" appears to be that the suckers "AKA" stock holders have had enough of the outlandish executive compensation and refusal to distribute dividends when the money was earned, and the dissipation of any profits on highly questionable activities such as stock buy backs at market highs and "investment" in outlandish and farfetched schemes. Every attempt to correct this has been thwarted by the coopted and preempted directors, and the suckers are voting with their feet. I don't think so. There is no evidence that I know of that stock holders aren't perfectly happy to pay outrageous sums to the CEOs as long as their total returns (dividends plus stock evaluation) are humming nicely along. In fact, they let executive compensation pile up to the ionosphere when things were good.They didn't WANT dividends in a lot of cases; they wanted growth, big-time. It's only when they aren't making as much money as they think they should be that they start looking at places to point fingers and to raise hell. Otherwise, everything is hunky-dory. That's a big part of the problem. Nobody gives a damn as long as they're making money. The people have also looked at the claimed corporate "assets" and have concluded these are mainly smoke and mirrors, and are getting out while the getting is good [or at least while they can get some of their money back]. They're getting out because they think OTHER PEOPLE have noticed that it's smoke and mirrors -- or they think other people will THINK it's all smoke and mirrors. On their own account, they don't care if it's really curds and whey. The market's irrationality is overstated. It's perfectly rational. It behaves as if EVERYONE ELSE is irrational. Of course, such behavior guarentees that everyone else WILL act irrationally -- only it's really rational, because they've correctly guessed that everyone will act irrationally. d8-) The credit market is a separate issue, but the banks and financial institutions have no problem evaluating the actual credit worthiness of their borrowers and are now rationally acting on this knowledge, i.e. they are saying "NOT ONLY NO BUT HELL NO" to the applications for loans from the other banks and high rollers. From what I've read, the fear is not that their borrowers are not credit-worthy, but rather fear that someone else (who might be the source of income for their borrowers) will not be credit-worthy. Or the people who are those sources' sources will not be credit-worthy. And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. The question is why our government continues to pour taxpayer money down this "black hole," including the 25 billion dollar loan guarantee for the US automotive industry. I almost fear to ask this, but what alternative did you have in mind? If the banks are in such dire need of money why aren't they paying inflation + 5% on CDs/time deposits [c. 10%] and possibly a little less on checking? This is still almost no return when tax effect is considered. You'll have to ask them. Whatever it is, I haven't heard the answer. And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Uh...yes, we are. We bought the bull****. We could have noticed it and raised hell, but we were all too busy. -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 16:13:32 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip Now Paul and the other anti-regulatory nutbags will find some sophistic arguments to suggest that it wouldn't have happened on their watch. Thank God it wasn't their watch, or the entire economy would be out to lunch by now -- permanently. snip There are regulations and there are regulations. The key is to be able to tell the difference between those that are vital and those are simply a PITA. This "key" always shows up after a crisis. Until then, you can count on the _Free to Choose_ wackos to call all of it bad. To them, a regulation is only good when the horse is already out of the barn. -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
Ignoramus19789 wrote:
On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote: Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten... although that might be a stretch. I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say? He apparently has a pretty good web site, which my wife was reading for quite a while. Jon |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
John R. Carroll wrote:
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:19:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Bull ****. We all vote. JC and the european collapese? did we cause that too? -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes scrawled the following: Vernon wrote: I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings. And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings instead of bailouts. Maybe not here on this news group, but a few of my friends have written along those lines. My girlfriend is devising down right mideveal stuff for them. And she's a real sweety. I thought! -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:26:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: snip Fractional banking: Everything has its use and everything has its abuse. We have just seen it abused to the point it just may bring down the entire global economy. The question is why our government continues to pour taxpayer money down this "black hole," including the 25 billion dollar loan guarantee for the US automotive industry. I almost fear to ask this, but what alternative did you have in mind? When something is not working it is time to try something else. Like Grandma said "don't send good money after bad." Lack of liquidity is a symptom not the problem. The problem is the solvency/honest of the major players, banks and other institutions. Pouring money in the top with a fire hose is not resulting in any trickle down [of money] but a huge waste of taxpayer money and additional wealth for those responsible. If government intervention is needed it is time to inject the money as capital by the purchase of preferred stock or warrants in the smaller regional and local banks that are making and would make more loans if they had more capital. The first tier banks, brokerages, and corporations are "gonners" no how much tax payer money is pumped in [and wasted]. It may well be there will wholesale bank and business failures no matter what is done. If the banks are in such dire need of money why aren't they paying inflation + 5% on CDs/time deposits [c. 10%] and possibly a little less on checking? This is still almost no return when tax effect is considered. You'll have to ask them. Whatever it is, I haven't heard the answer. Because the top tier banks can get more money than they need at the FRB discount window. The problem is they won't lend any of it. And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Uh...yes, we are. We bought the bull****. We could have noticed it and raised hell, but we were all too busy. We did raise hell, and we voted against the pols that got us here. They still got elected. Questions were raised by the stockholders repeatedly about excessive executive compensation, speculation, dodgy assets, etc. and the Board of Directors in every corporation blocked any action or limits. This is one reason for the decline in stock prices. The people are voting NO with their feet. One of the better lines on the financial sites was the ransom note just delivered to the FRB and Treasury. It read "We have kidnaped your 401K. If you want to see it alive again send us 700 billion in small unmarked bills." |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:20:55 -0700, "John R. Carroll"
wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes scrawled the following: Vernon wrote: I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings. And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings instead of bailouts. They, like you and yours, have been ignorant promoters of markets being self correcting. JC ================= Actually in one sense the markets still are self-correcting, and we are seeing the process. The whole idea is to avoid natural disciplines such as disasters, plagues, wars, famines, etc. by the application of a little foresight and a little self discipline. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message m... John R. Carroll wrote: "F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:19:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Bull ****. We all vote. JC and the european collapese? did we cause that too? -- Richard They vote, too. -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message ... "Buerste" wrote in message ... "Ignoramus19789" wrote in message ... At least your Social Security money was not used to "play with stocks", as Bush and McCain wanted. snip Of course, you do understand that the proposal only allotted 15% of one's SS MAY be used for private accounts. You try and make it sound like all SS was going into the stock market. I don't think the rest of the world wants to look like either Ohio Brosh or Ohio Mr. Gardner. Scouting out scrap metal to build you products from doesn't speak highly of Ohio Brush's quality. It is a good reflection of your character, however. Here is what you and yours have lead your State into. This is fall. This is Ohio State Buckeye football time. But, you know, there's a lot of people still saying, "Thank God for Michigan, because, without Michigan, we'd be number 50 instead of just number 49 in a lot of economic measures." Our unemployment is at a 16-year high. Our Medicaid rolls are the highest in history. Our food stamp rolls are the highest in history. The WIC enrollment is at highest in history. Food lines are growing. People who used to volunteer and serve in those food lines are now in the line getting food themselves. It's pretty bad here, so people are talking about the economy as issues one, two, and three, at least. Well done Porky. JC Reap = sow. I'm hiring, and have already added 5 new jobs this year and plan at least 2 more. Too bad you have to wait in a food line, try to get some meat...meat's good! Can we help? Maybe take up a collection for you so you can buy your meds. My people and I are always glad to help the less fortunate. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:26:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip Fractional banking: Everything has its use and everything has its abuse. We have just seen it abused to the point it just may bring down the entire global economy. IMO, this should not be a surprise. The surprising thing, to me, is that people like Greenspan counted on (he says this in his speeches now) the basic integrity and prudence of the Masters of the Universe. I wonder if Greenspan ever had the tape deck stolen out of his car, or if he learned anything from the Keating affair, or Enron, Monsanto, Parmalat, or the Bank of New York's money laundering for the Russians...Where was his head? With little regulation or auditing, and billions on the table, what in the hell did he expect to happen? The question is why our government continues to pour taxpayer money down this "black hole," including the 25 billion dollar loan guarantee for the US automotive industry. I almost fear to ask this, but what alternative did you have in mind? When something is not working it is time to try something else. Like Grandma said "don't send good money after bad." Lack of liquidity is a symptom not the problem. The problem is the solvency/honest of the major players, banks and other institutions. Pouring money in the top with a fire hose is not resulting in any trickle down [of money] but a huge waste of taxpayer money and additional wealth for those responsible. If government intervention is needed it is time to inject the money as capital by the purchase of preferred stock or warrants in the smaller regional and local banks that are making and would make more loans if they had more capital. The first tier banks, brokerages, and corporations are "gonners" no how much tax payer money is pumped in [and wasted]. So, you really want the US government to take equity stakes in banks and other large institutions? I don't. I see trouble with that course of action that we may never get out of, and we'll wind up with a nationalized finance industry. It may well be there will wholesale bank and business failures no matter what is done. If the banks are in such dire need of money why aren't they paying inflation + 5% on CDs/time deposits [c. 10%] and possibly a little less on checking? This is still almost no return when tax effect is considered. You'll have to ask them. Whatever it is, I haven't heard the answer. Because the top tier banks can get more money than they need at the FRB discount window. The problem is they won't lend any of it. I'd have to see the details to buy that. And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Uh...yes, we are. We bought the bull****. We could have noticed it and raised hell, but we were all too busy. We did raise hell, and we voted against the pols that got us here. They still got elected. Questions were raised by the stockholders repeatedly about excessive executive compensation, speculation, dodgy assets, etc. and the Board of Directors in every corporation blocked any action or limits. Not enough of them. I don't remember hearing much about such questions and complaints except by minorities of stockholders. This is one reason for the decline in stock prices. The people are voting NO with their feet. I doubt that very much, George. I think what has their feet moving is that they're afraid they're going to lose big chunks of their capital. I really don't believe that moral outrage is driving the market. And, as outrageous as it is, those salaries are usually small potatoes compared to the wins and losses that result from just a few percentage points of upward or downward swing in stock prices. Stockholders are watching the value of their investments, not trying to purify the morals of CEOs. One of the better lines on the financial sites was the ransom note just delivered to the FRB and Treasury. It read "We have kidnaped your 401K. If you want to see it alive again send us 700 billion in small unmarked bills." Ha-ha! Good one. -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:20:55 -0700, "John R. Carroll" wrote: "Larry Jaques" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:03:03 -0400, the infamous Wes scrawled the following: Vernon wrote: I firmly believe there are uncountable shiploads of culpability for this for every member of the federal gummint. More than enough to go around. And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings. And I'm curious why the American public isn't entertaining lynchings instead of bailouts. They, like you and yours, have been ignorant promoters of markets being self correcting. JC ================= Actually in one sense the markets still are self-correcting, and we are seeing the process. The whole idea is to avoid natural disciplines such as disasters, plagues, wars, famines, etc. by the application of a little foresight and a little self discipline. In 2003 (IIRC) one of our congress critters had either CBO or GAO look at the derivatives market with an eye towards what they really were and also to asess the risk posed to the markets. The research took an entire year and when all was said and done the report published indicated that the consequences of allowing unfettered trading of these financial instrumants and the leverage involved could lead to a catastrophic failure of not just our banking system but of the worlds monetary structure. Legistlation was written to provide both transparency and oversight, but not passed. Ronald Reagan once said "Trust, but Verify". Putting 150 trillion dollars on the table and then not checking in once in a while to see what's going on is the act of fools and as we all know, fools and their money are soon parted. JC |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
Ed Huntress wrote:
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message m... John R. Carroll wrote: "F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:19:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Bull ****. We all vote. JC and the european collapese? did we cause that too? -- Richard They vote, too. -- Ed Huntress AWright, Ed. Ferinstance... Johnson said, "I refuse to send American Boys..." Got himself elected, Then ? I promise not to cum in your mouth! -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message m... Ed Huntress wrote: "cavelamb himself" wrote in message m... John R. Carroll wrote: "F. George McDuffee" wrote in message m... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:19:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Bull ****. We all vote. JC and the european collapese? did we cause that too? -- Richard They vote, too. -- Ed Huntress AWright, Ed. Ferinstance... Johnson said, "I refuse to send American Boys..." Got himself elected, Then ? I promise not to cum in your mouth! -- Richard I'm not following what you're getting at, Richard. My point is that this is a government we elect; we're responsible. That doesn't mean we know enough, individually, to anticipate and direct our voting to solve these problems. But we're still responsible. That's democracy. It sometimes can be frustrating. But we're still responsible for it. If we elected people who aren't able to understand the economy, either, that's just too bad. It doesn't relieve us of responsiblity. If you're interested in an article that provides some exceptional insights into who let this situation get out of control, who made the decisions, and how this relates to our responsibility, here's one that just popped up: "The Reckoning: Taking a Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/bu...enspan.html?em -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
Ed Huntress wrote:
I'm not following what you're getting at, Richard. My point is that this is a government we elect; we're responsible. That doesn't mean we know enough, individually, to anticipate and direct our voting to solve these problems. But we're still responsible. That's democracy. It sometimes can be frustrating. But we're still responsible for it. If we elected people who aren't able to understand the economy, either, that's just too bad. It doesn't relieve us of responsiblity. If you're interested in an article that provides some exceptional insights into who let this situation get out of control, who made the decisions, and how this relates to our responsibility, here's one that just popped up: "The Reckoning: Taking a Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/bu...enspan.html?em -- Ed Huntress I concede your point, Ed, Problem is, this government is not responsible to US. Wallmart gives both sides a $10,000 election fun donation. It called 'buying access' - and they get it. How the heck does John Q Public compete with that? AND - just as an aside - we have TWO condidates running for head of the government. I personally don't want either one of them to be elected. I don't think they are going to do anything in MY best interest. Theory and reality are only related - in theory. -- Richard (remove the X to email) |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
F. George McDuffee wrote:
And I'm curious why Henry Waxman isn't holding hearings. Wes ================== I have watched some of the Waxman hearings. Well, hopefully C-span will re-air them over the weekend. Wes |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"cavelamb himself" wrote in message m... Ed Huntress wrote: I'm not following what you're getting at, Richard. My point is that this is a government we elect; we're responsible. That doesn't mean we know enough, individually, to anticipate and direct our voting to solve these problems. But we're still responsible. That's democracy. It sometimes can be frustrating. But we're still responsible for it. If we elected people who aren't able to understand the economy, either, that's just too bad. It doesn't relieve us of responsiblity. If you're interested in an article that provides some exceptional insights into who let this situation get out of control, who made the decisions, and how this relates to our responsibility, here's one that just popped up: "The Reckoning: Taking a Hard New Look at a Greenspan Legacy." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/bu...enspan.html?em -- Ed Huntress I concede your point, Ed, Problem is, this government is not responsible to US. Wallmart gives both sides a $10,000 election fun donation. It called 'buying access' - and they get it. How the heck does John Q Public compete with that? AND - just as an aside - we have TWO condidates running for head of the government. I personally don't want either one of them to be elected. I don't think they are going to do anything in MY best interest. Theory and reality are only related - in theory. You may find this strange, but I've never, ever thought of electing a president in terms of what they're going to do in my best interest. It's always been the country's best interest, and I assume we'll all be better off when that's what they do. Maybe that's why I find both of our current candidates acceptable. I believe they're both pursuing the country's best interest as they see it. McCain doesn't bother me because I don't think he's a doctrinaire, ideological conservative. And Obama most certainly is no doctrinaire liberal. They both have a pragmatic, one-problem-at-a-time approach, to greater or lesser degrees. So I can't identify what you wish you had here, in terms of choices, and what you find objectionable about the candidates we have. If you're suggesting you want some more choices, I suggest you look first at Italy and Israel to see what that implies. My opinion about that has been shaped by a year of studying comparative politics in Europe more than by the sketchy history we have of multiple parties in the US, but my conclusion is that real multi-party politics inherently stinks to high heaven. It's all a matter of coalitions ganging up on other coalitions, broad national interests be damned. As for big business having an excessive amount of political power in this country, yes, during most of our lifetimes. We have four important elites in this country -- business/professional, academic, military, and political. They're all pretty open meritocracies, compared to the elites of most other countries. Fortunately the military elite remains subservient. The academic elite, which ruled during Kennedy's and Johnson's administrations, and part of Carter's, are not held in very high esteem these days. So the political and business/professional elites are in charge. And an elite necessarily will be in charge. There is no successful alternative. We may be near the end of the business/professional's reign of power; they're currently regarded about the same as the way we regarded the academic elite around 1966 - 1978. They're now regarded as failures in terms of governance, as any individual elite will be if their expertise is interpreted too broadly or for too long. The popular impression now is that their interests are not really the country's interests. Now we're expecting the political elite to put it all in perspective and to rise to the top, keeping business and academic elites' ideas in check to serve the interests of the country. That's a big order, since we've allowed the business elite to acquire so much power, and for its tentacles to reach into every corner of society. You can't expect high-level politicians to turn it all around at once. We've been too acquiescent in the process ourselves. I look for the apparent motivations of the candidates and the likelihood that they'll put elite ideas in perspective, and that they'll find a way to implement some shifting of power towards the ideal political, the politics as Aristotle described it, by using power to undermine power. At the same time, I'm looking for real intellegence and popular support for a leader so they'll be able to make some positive things happen. That doesn't feel to me like a self-interest focus, although, in the end, I'm talking about my own ideas of how things should be, so I guess that's self-interest. It isn't narrow economic self-interest. Does that sound alien to you? Or are you thinking of something similar, without going to so much length to describe it? g -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:26:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: "F. George McDuffee" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 17:19:34 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: "Ignoramus19789" wrote in message news:ZvCdnVwiGf7t7XPVnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@giganews. com... On 2008-10-09, Vernon wrote: Iggy. Have no doubt that my remark about rudeness was in no way directed at you. I've always known you to be a role model of civility. I prefer to think of myself as another one in here. I haven't tallied up the score. But there may be as many as ten... although that might be a stretch. I never took any offense. So, What did Ron Paul say? Five days ago, addressing the John Birch Society, Paul said, responding to "pundits who challenged his opposition to the bailout with statements such as, 'Surely you can't believe that we should do nothing.' Dr. Paul's response was that the federal government should return to sound money and lower taxes, and take more care in regulating the regulators. He pointed out that we got into this mess because of too much government spending, too much debt, too much inflation, and too much regulation. Now we are being told that the solution is more of the same!" Iggy, I'm sure you know the relationship between "sound money" (Paul means gold-backed money) and the money supply, right? They have practically nothing to do with each other. Certainly we have too much debt (duh...). As for regulation, you see what he's saying he that the problem was caused partly by too much of it. This guy either has no understanding of economics, credit and money, or he's playing off the fact that most people listening to him don't. Tell us, Dr. Paul, how would "sound money" have prevented the current problem? Do you think he really understands how all that money came into being in the first place? (Hint for Ron Paul supporters: it wasn't from printing it. Most of it was never printed at all; it's ciphers on a computer screen. How it got there is the key question -- and the answer has nothing to do with anything Paul said, except for the regulation part.) ================== For one thing because of fractional banking and the way the securities generated by one bank were counted as assets by another bank, "money" was "amplified" many times if not created. I'm surprised at you, George. Fractional reserve banking has been with us since at least 1100 A.D. If the complaints about fractional reserve banking had any substance, under a fiat money regime, inflation would have been roughly equal to growth of the money supply. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, it would have been 15% per year or more. In fact, it averaged less than 3%. Here are the graphs if you want to check it out (M2 is considered to be the big factor in inflation): http://www.gocurrency.com/articles/s...-inflation.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C..._supply 2.svg That old argument is, if you'll forgive the term, bankrupt. g Personally I just can't believe those inflation numbers and for years of them saying it on TV. Sure seemed be going way up to me. Bubbly sugar water at a convenient store went from 75 cents to $1.75 in no time. Beer has gone way up, cigs., building materials, cars, houses,gas, ect... Way more than 3% a year in my perspective. Sure seemed like cars went from $18,000 to $35,000 fast. I hate to bring up houses, but I bought my first around 1993 for $45,000 and before things started downward it was appraised at $210,000. I sold it in June of this year for $135,000, still that is 3X as much in 15 years. Maybe my math is all wrong. 3 cents on the dollar per year? I don't recall anything rising in price so slow in the last 10 years. What really gets me is that no one will say anything about the truth like the perpetuation of lies will make everything better. Take nine eleven for example. Everyone almost wanted to believe that there was no reason what so ever for an attack on America. Or, don't worry your money is safe, and no one ever even brings up how much paperwork or lack of it and time it will take you to get it in your hands if your bank closes. Don't worry, everything is under control. Perclorate in your water supply? No problem, we raised the toxicity level so that is safe now. Have a chlorine rail car runaway through your neighborhood? No problem, we had it under control. Everything going sky high in prices? No problem, we calculate it at only less than 3%. Am I way off here or what? I admit I don't understand that one graph, what is M-1, M-2, and M-3? The problem is not fractional reserve banking. The problem is OUT OF CONTROL expansion of credit and debt obligations. In other words, funny money with no regulations, no reserve requirements, no auditing of underlying securities -- the whole deregulation economics schtick. To put it bluntly, it's brain-dead ideological nonsense. It assumes everyone is honest, prudent, and smart. Pffhhht. In spite of the repeated chants of fear-fear-fear, the actual stock "problem" appears to be that the suckers "AKA" stock holders have had enough of the outlandish executive compensation and refusal to distribute dividends when the money was earned, and the dissipation of any profits on highly questionable activities such as stock buy backs at market highs and "investment" in outlandish and farfetched schemes. Every attempt to correct this has been thwarted by the coopted and preempted directors, and the suckers are voting with their feet. I don't think so. There is no evidence that I know of that stock holders aren't perfectly happy to pay outrageous sums to the CEOs as long as their total returns (dividends plus stock evaluation) are humming nicely along. In fact, they let executive compensation pile up to the ionosphere when things were good.They didn't WANT dividends in a lot of cases; they wanted growth, big-time. It's only when they aren't making as much money as they think they should be that they start looking at places to point fingers and to raise hell. Otherwise, everything is hunky-dory. That's a big part of the problem. Nobody gives a damn as long as they're making money. The people have also looked at the claimed corporate "assets" and have concluded these are mainly smoke and mirrors, and are getting out while the getting is good [or at least while they can get some of their money back]. They're getting out because they think OTHER PEOPLE have noticed that it's smoke and mirrors -- or they think other people will THINK it's all smoke and mirrors. On their own account, they don't care if it's really curds and whey. The market's irrationality is overstated. It's perfectly rational. It behaves as if EVERYONE ELSE is irrational. Of course, such behavior guarentees that everyone else WILL act irrationally -- only it's really rational, because they've correctly guessed that everyone will act irrationally. d8-) The credit market is a separate issue, but the banks and financial institutions have no problem evaluating the actual credit worthiness of their borrowers and are now rationally acting on this knowledge, i.e. they are saying "NOT ONLY NO BUT HELL NO" to the applications for loans from the other banks and high rollers. From what I've read, the fear is not that their borrowers are not credit-worthy, but rather fear that someone else (who might be the source of income for their borrowers) will not be credit-worthy. Or the people who are those sources' sources will not be credit-worthy. And so on, and so on, ad infinitum. The question is why our government continues to pour taxpayer money down this "black hole," including the 25 billion dollar loan guarantee for the US automotive industry. I almost fear to ask this, but what alternative did you have in mind? If the banks are in such dire need of money why aren't they paying inflation + 5% on CDs/time deposits [c. 10%] and possibly a little less on checking? This is still almost no return when tax effect is considered. You'll have to ask them. Whatever it is, I haven't heard the answer. And no, we aren't all responsible for this mess. Uh...yes, we are. We bought the bull****. We could have noticed it and raised hell, but we were all too busy. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:31:46 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: snip This is one reason for the decline in stock prices. The people are voting NO with their feet. I doubt that very much, George. I think what has their feet moving is that they're afraid they're going to lose big chunks of their capital. I really don't believe that moral outrage is driving the market. And, as outrageous as it is, those salaries are usually small potatoes compared to the wins and losses that result from just a few percentage points of upward or downward swing in stock prices. Stockholders are watching the value of their investments, not trying to purify the morals of CEOs. snip Don't confuse moral outrage with the sudden realization that you have been lied to and have been had big time, although one frequently results in the other. In many, but not all, cases the people are getting out of what they now preceive to be a rigged game, with all the cards stacked against them. As I indicated in other posts, the foundational financial problem appears to have been the gross proliferation of megalomaniacs in charge of increasingly powerful institutions rather than any criminal cabals or plots. However this was possible only because of the general acceptance of societies's myths and legends such as the unquestioning belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpkin, etc. that brings toys to all the "good" little boys and girls, i.e. the reality of the existence of a cornucopia or "horn of plenty," that [only] the megalomaniacs know how to operate. A second "assumption of facts not in evidence," but widely assumed, is that the cornucopia operators will share the bounty generated. It should be obvious that a critical reexamination/reevaluation of the basic beliefs about the way the economy/society works by a large number of citizens, possibly a majority, will be "destabilizing," to say the least. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
Sunworshipper wrote in message ... On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:26:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip I'm surprised at you, George. Fractional reserve banking has been with us since at least 1100 A.D. If the complaints about fractional reserve banking had any substance, under a fiat money regime, inflation would have been roughly equal to growth of the money supply. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, it would have been 15% per year or more. In fact, it averaged less than 3%. Here are the graphs if you want to check it out (M2 is considered to be the big factor in inflation): http://www.gocurrency.com/articles/s...-inflation.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C..._supply 2.svg That old argument is, if you'll forgive the term, bankrupt. g Personally I just can't believe those inflation numbers and for years of them saying it on TV. Sure seemed be going way up to me. Bubbly sugar water at a convenient store went from 75 cents to $1.75 in no time. Beer has gone way up, cigs., building materials, cars, houses,gas, ect... Way more than 3% a year in my perspective. It's a big issue -- entire college courses are devoted to inflation. Wikipedia may have a summary. Otherwise, you have to go to government sites to see how it's measured and what the numbers look like over time. snip Maybe my math is all wrong. 3 cents on the dollar per year? I don't recall anything rising in price so slow in the last 10 years. Not in the last 10 years, because inflation is up the last few years. But the period from 1995 to 2005. What really gets me is that no one will say anything about the truth like the perpetuation of lies will make everything better. Take nine eleven for example. Everyone almost wanted to believe that there was no reason what so ever for an attack on America. Or, don't worry your money is safe, and no one ever even brings up how much paperwork or lack of it and time it will take you to get it in your hands if your bank closes. Don't worry, everything is under control. Perclorate in your water supply? No problem, we raised the toxicity level so that is safe now. Have a chlorine rail car runaway through your neighborhood? No problem, we had it under control. Everything going sky high in prices? No problem, we calculate it at only less than 3%. Am I way off here or what? I admit I don't understand that one graph, what is M-1, M-2, and M-3? Those are the different measures of "money." Again, it's a full college course. However, there are brief definitions he http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States Search on "M1". I'm not suggesting you have to absorb all of that, and this is the bottom line about what I was saying: There are some really misguided ideas around about what money is and what causes inflation, but the basics were laid out over 200 years ago in Adam Smith's _The Wealth of Nations_. The wealth of a country is the output of goods and services that country produces in a unit of time -- usually a year, for purposes of discussion. The right amount of money for that country is an amount that equals the output of goods and services. This "amount" is a product, more or less, of money supply (say M2) and something called money's "velocity." Don't worry about that part. Just think, "money supply should equal output of goods and services." If the supply of money is too high (think 1978), we have inflation. If it's too low (1932) we have deflation. Inflation screws up the economy. Deflation can kill it. So in modern economies the central banks generally shoot for an ideal of 1% - 2% inflation, as a cushion to help guard against deflation. Hardly anyone hits that target for long. Money supply tends to grow a bit on its own, from "irrational exuberance," so inflation usually is a bit higher than the ideal. You want to keep it well under 4%, though, if you possibly can. It doesn't matter if that money is backed by gold, clam shells, or Fruit Loops. Not in a modern economy with a decent monetary policy, anyway. Gold, despite what Ron Paul thinks, can cause a modern economy more problems than it solves. Gold-backed currency tends to be deflationary. The whole thing runs on trust, not gold. If you had a gold-backed system and people lost trust in the paper money and cashed it in, all they'd wind up with is the same amount of gold. You'd still have the same amount of money. And that makes economic growth extremely difficult. My point to George was that Ron Paul's prescriptions wouldn't, in themselves, have an influence on our current situation. Whether the currency is fiat (like ours) or gold-backed, the money supply is determined mostly by the amount of credit that banks give out -- that's fractional-reserve banking. But every country has fractional-reserve banking, and they have, for hundreds of years. Without it, an economy couldn't grow. This is so grossly simplified that any economist would boil me in oil, but it does explain, I hope, my comment to George and my evaluation of Ron Paul's economics. As an economist, Dr. Paul is a heck of a good obstetrician. -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:31:46 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip This is one reason for the decline in stock prices. The people are voting NO with their feet. I doubt that very much, George. I think what has their feet moving is that they're afraid they're going to lose big chunks of their capital. I really don't believe that moral outrage is driving the market. And, as outrageous as it is, those salaries are usually small potatoes compared to the wins and losses that result from just a few percentage points of upward or downward swing in stock prices. Stockholders are watching the value of their investments, not trying to purify the morals of CEOs. snip Don't confuse moral outrage with the sudden realization that you have been lied to and have been had big time, although one frequently results in the other. In many, but not all, cases the people are getting out of what they now preceive to be a rigged game, with all the cards stacked against them. As I indicated in other posts, the foundational financial problem appears to have been the gross proliferation of megalomaniacs in charge of increasingly powerful institutions rather than any criminal cabals or plots. However this was possible only because of the general acceptance of societies's myths and legends such as the unquestioning belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, the Great Pumpkin, etc. that brings toys to all the "good" little boys and girls, i.e. the reality of the existence of a cornucopia or "horn of plenty," that [only] the megalomaniacs know how to operate. A second "assumption of facts not in evidence," but widely assumed, is that the cornucopia operators will share the bounty generated. It should be obvious that a critical reexamination/reevaluation of the basic beliefs about the way the economy/society works by a large number of citizens, possibly a majority, will be "destabilizing," to say the least. It would be, if it happens. I doubt if it will happen. Again, what people care about with their investments is whether they're making money. When they aren't, everything and everyone is a potential scapegoat. Here's what I don't get about your point, and that of Herr Greenspan. You talk about "the gross proliferation of megalomaniacs," as he talks about "greed." Well, duh, who in the hell did we think these people were, anyway? Mother Theresa? The pirates have always been there. Wall Street draws them like flies, for obvious reasons. I know some of the minor ones. They're all self-justifying purveyors of greed. So why turn attention to that now? Are we really surprised that when we turn over the rock, we find that all the goodies are in the hands of the greedy ones? The issue is not that there are greedy people on Wall Street. They've always been there. The issue is that we've let them run wild. We opened the barn door and they tried to clean the place out. Hello? Are we on the same page here? Now Alan Greenspan, and Ron Paul, and John McCain are wringing their hands about the proliferation of greed. Well, who gave them the chance? Who opened the barn door? They only have to look to themselves. On a lighter note, I love this characterization of them by Tom Wolfe. I posted this to John Carroll a while back and he got a kick out of it. If you need some entertainment, you'll appreciate this, "The Pirate Pose. " My favorite scene in this article is about a hedge fund manager who was attending his daughter's hockey match: "He told his daughter's coach how to play her and all her teammates and kept him abreast of his mistakes in strategy. He scolded the Port Chester coach and the players for their incessant cheating and malicious roughness. Finally a Port Chester player, a big girl, an Amazon on ice, skated to the stands, charged up the stairs on her skates, and accosted the Mouth, putting her gloved fist six inches from his face and saying, "If you don't shut the **** up, I'm gonna come back and beat the **** outta you!" He shut up. http://www.portfolio.com/executives/...te-Pose?page=0 -- Ed Huntress |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:33:51 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote: Sunworshipper wrote in message .. . On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:26:25 -0400, "Ed Huntress" wrote: snip I'm surprised at you, George. Fractional reserve banking has been with us since at least 1100 A.D. If the complaints about fractional reserve banking had any substance, under a fiat money regime, inflation would have been roughly equal to growth of the money supply. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, it would have been 15% per year or more. In fact, it averaged less than 3%. Here are the graphs if you want to check it out (M2 is considered to be the big factor in inflation): http://www.gocurrency.com/articles/s...-inflation.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:C..._supply 2.svg That old argument is, if you'll forgive the term, bankrupt. g Personally I just can't believe those inflation numbers and for years of them saying it on TV. Sure seemed be going way up to me. Bubbly sugar water at a convenient store went from 75 cents to $1.75 in no time. Beer has gone way up, cigs., building materials, cars, houses,gas, ect... Way more than 3% a year in my perspective. It's a big issue -- entire college courses are devoted to inflation. Wikipedia may have a summary. Otherwise, you have to go to government sites to see how it's measured and what the numbers look like over time. snip Maybe my math is all wrong. 3 cents on the dollar per year? I don't recall anything rising in price so slow in the last 10 years. Not in the last 10 years, because inflation is up the last few years. But the period from 1995 to 2005. What really gets me is that no one will say anything about the truth like the perpetuation of lies will make everything better. Take nine eleven for example. Everyone almost wanted to believe that there was no reason what so ever for an attack on America. Or, don't worry your money is safe, and no one ever even brings up how much paperwork or lack of it and time it will take you to get it in your hands if your bank closes. Don't worry, everything is under control. Perclorate in your water supply? No problem, we raised the toxicity level so that is safe now. Have a chlorine rail car runaway through your neighborhood? No problem, we had it under control. Everything going sky high in prices? No problem, we calculate it at only less than 3%. Am I way off here or what? I admit I don't understand that one graph, what is M-1, M-2, and M-3? Those are the different measures of "money." Again, it's a full college course. However, there are brief definitions he I bet, I gave about 3 weeks to that course and dropped out , cause I don't think I'd ever see the forest from the trees. Interesting , but like trying to learn programming from a book. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States Thanks, that looks better. Search on "M1". I'm not suggesting you have to absorb all of that, and this is the bottom line about what I was saying: There are some really misguided ideas around about what money is and what causes inflation, but the basics were laid out over 200 years ago in Adam Smith's _The Wealth of Nations_. The wealth of a country is the output of goods and services that country produces in a unit of time -- usually a year, for purposes of discussion. The right amount of money for that country is an amount that equals the output of goods and services. This "amount" is a product, more or less, of money supply (say M2) and something called money's "velocity." Don't worry about that part. Just think, "money supply should equal output of goods and services." If the supply of money is too high (think 1978), we have inflation. If it's too low (1932) we have deflation. Inflation screws up the economy. Deflation can kill it. So in modern economies the central banks generally shoot for an ideal of 1% - 2% inflation, as a cushion to help guard against deflation. Hardly anyone hits that target for long. Money supply tends to grow a bit on its own, from "irrational exuberance," so inflation usually is a bit higher than the ideal. You want to keep it well under 4%, though, if you possibly can. It doesn't matter if that money is backed by gold, clam shells, or Fruit Loops. Not in a modern economy with a decent monetary policy, anyway. Gold, despite what Ron Paul thinks, can cause a modern economy more problems than it solves. Gold-backed currency tends to be deflationary. The whole thing runs on trust, not gold. If you had a gold-backed system and people lost trust in the paper money and cashed it in, all they'd wind up with is the same amount of gold. You'd still have the same amount of money. And that makes economic growth extremely difficult. My point to George was that Ron Paul's prescriptions wouldn't, in themselves, have an influence on our current situation. Whether the currency is fiat (like ours) or gold-backed, the money supply is determined mostly by the amount of credit that banks give out -- that's fractional-reserve banking. But every country has fractional-reserve banking, and they have, for hundreds of years. Without it, an economy couldn't grow. This is so grossly simplified that any economist would boil me in oil, but it does explain, I hope, my comment to George and my evaluation of Ron Paul's economics. As an economist, Dr. Paul is a heck of a good obstetrician. I got a good idea how the tread was going, just couldn't pass up you bringing up the inflation #, is all. Let them think to boil ya, your just trying to explain it and I appreciate it. I've known for a while your into economics and I think it's cool that ya'll discuss it here, even though some think metalworking talk is just metalworking. But still, you won't commit the two are way out of line? 3%, yeah right. Just took a survey and with 6 people, instantly someone showed me a can of soup with the price tag on top at $1.65 for spit peas from ahhh wallmart. |
The bright side of the stockmarket collapse
Sunworshipper wrote in message ... snip I got a good idea how the tread was going, just couldn't pass up you bringing up the inflation #, is all. Let them think to boil ya, your just trying to explain it and I appreciate it. I've known for a while your into economics and I think it's cool that ya'll discuss it here, even though some think metalworking talk is just metalworking. But still, you won't commit the two are way out of line? 3%, yeah right. Just took a survey and with 6 people, instantly someone showed me a can of soup with the price tag on top at $1.65 for spit peas from ahhh wallmart. Again, we've had much higher rates of inflation over the past three years. Maybe we don't remember very well how stable prices were through the '90s, or from '95 through '05, but those numbers hold up according to several different measures of inflation -- "basket-of-goods" measures and "cost of living (COL)" measures. I'd have to go look to see about housing; it probably isn't in the basket-of-goods measures at all, but I think it's in the COL measures. Anyway, the numbers at least serve as a relative comparison between periods of time, and it's easy to see that we had much greater growth in the money supply than we had inflation. That agrees well with the increases in productivity rates through the same period. I'm not trying to measure inflation here so much as to show that the idea Ron Paul is promoting, that a lack of "sound" (i.e., gold-backed) money somehow led to our present fix. That isn't where these bubbles come from. They come from an excess of credit and borrowing. You can have such an excess with gold-backed money just as well as with fiat money. It's mostly caused by things that go on in the banking industry, not the Treasury. -- Ed Huntress |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter