GG Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Also, it's not just finance, but a whole host of big industries that pay for protection from the whores in DC. Is there anyone here who wants to defend this corrupt system? Are you talking about the corrupt system where the top 1% organized the revolt against a king who restrained their commerce? Or is that the corrupt system that took in dirt framers from impoverished nations to build roads, canals & railroads that enriched the top 1%, which in itself created a new breed of 1%? And how did this corrupt system fare over 200+ years compared to the enlightened European standard that you hold so dear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Also, it's not just finance, but a whole host of big industries that pay for protection from the whores in DC. Is there anyone here who wants to defend this corrupt system? Not to long ago I wouldn't have. But after the last few years of reading all the whiny-ass posts on this board, I'm absolutely thrilled to be part of the machine that oppresses the masses. More power to the 1%! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 what a !@#$ing joke you people are Jealousy is not very becoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Jealousy is not very becoming. Are you kidding? Envy is the entire foundation of Marxism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Are you kidding? Envy is the entire foundation of Marxism. Which, of course, makes it less becoming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Tell me something. The first run on banks way back when, were they effectively badly managed or was it just panic? If you look at the last 3 years, which sectors of the HF industry have made the most money and why? Bank runs are a sympton of a crisis, not a cause. Those who bet on Volatility. Not to long ago I wouldn't have. But after the last few years of reading all the whiny-ass posts on this board, I'm absolutely thrilled to be part of the machine that oppresses the masses. More power to the 1%! I admit I laughed out loud at that. Are you talking about the corrupt system where the top 1% organized the revolt against a king who restrained their commerce? Or is that the corrupt system that took in dirt framers from impoverished nations to build roads, canals & railroads that enriched the top 1%, which in itself created a new breed of 1%? And how did this corrupt system fare over 200+ years compared to the enlightened European standard that you hold so dear? Let us all bow down now...and give thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 21, 2011 Share Posted December 21, 2011 Bank runs are a sympton of a crisis, not a cause. Those who bet on Volatility. Nope. Distressed debt. Bank runs are a sympton of a crisis, not a cause. Or perhaps rumours? The Canadian banking system in 2008 had its crisis on its own. Rumours were they were long ABCP which was composed 99% of subprime. Turns out they were wrong but intervention was the only way to prevent a crisis of a well regulated banking sector that's prone to panic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 Nope. Distressed debt. Or perhaps rumours? The Canadian banking system in 2008 had its crisis on its own. Rumours were they were long ABCP which was composed 99% of subprime. Turns out they were wrong but intervention was the only way to prevent a crisis of a well regulated banking sector that's prone to panic. Proves the point--the financial crisis provided the grist for the rumor mills. But you are correct, even a well-regulated banking sector is prone to crises, just not the same magnitude of one that's poorly regulated. Sovereign, private or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 "According to a study by people who believe traditional economics is harmful, traditional economics is harmful." God, you're retarded. It could be harmful based on its wrong-headed policy implications; and it sure as hell is not realistic. The traditional model excludes debt financing by the private sector, which explains why no one who works within its framework predicted the crisis. The majority of economists who predicted it were either post keynesians (influenced by Minsky) or Austrians. Macroeconomics is in the midst of a paradigm shift, away from the so-called "traditional model." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 I guess I should ignore the corrupt system given that I'm doing fine? The crisis exposed the system for what it is--Trillions of dollars of direct and back door bailouts by the central bank that serves the big banks. "YOu !@#$ up, we got your back." Privatized gains and socialized losses. Even "regular people" can see through facade now. People are pissed and they are not going to take it any longer. Ron Paul's support is coming from more than the Tea Party now. Feeling the threat, corporate media is starting the attacks. I've seen two attack pieces in the last couple days on Bloomberg. Also, it's not just finance, but a whole host of big industries that pay for protection from the whores in DC. Is there anyone here who wants to defend this corrupt system? Wait, so the gigantic government all of you liberals seem to so desperately want is uncontrollable and doesn't serve the interest of the people at large? Wow, who'd have seen that coming? Anyone who's ever opened a history book. That's who. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveinElma Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 You seem to be doing fine or are economics professors sheltered from the tyranny? He's an economics professor? Everything makes sense now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) Are you kidding? Envy is the entire foundation of Marxism. I was called a 1%er by someone in my cycling club, with all seriousness, becuase I own a pro-level bike and he does not. Funny...I dont remember gaming the system or screwing anyone over to buy the bike, a Specialized S-Works Tarmac. I saved a bit, sold my old frame and bought the new one. But to this clown, I own something expensive and kind of exotic that he does not. So Im in the 1%, regardless of how I obtained this thing. This entire movement is about NOTHING but envy. And the best part is...the President is the pied piper of the "cause." Edited December 22, 2011 by RkFast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 22, 2011 Share Posted December 22, 2011 (edited) It could be harmful based on its wrong-headed policy implications; and it sure as hell is not realistic. The traditional model excludes debt financing by the private sector, which explains why no one who works within its framework predicted the crisis. The majority of economists who predicted it were either post keynesians (influenced by Minsky) or Austrians. Macroeconomics is in the midst of a paradigm shift, away from the so-called "traditional model." I know you wouldn't want to take my word for it, so here's an essay by the chief economist of Citigroup: The pertinent parts: The Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England I was privileged to be a founder external member of during the years 1997-2000 contained, like its successor vintages of external and executive members, quite a strong representation of academic economists and other professional economists with serious technical training and backgrounds. This turned out to be a severe handicap when the central bank had to switch gears and change from being an inflation-targeting central bank under conditions of orderly financial markets to a financial stability-oriented central bank under conditions of widespread market illiquidity and funding illiquidity. Indeed, the typical graduate macroeconomics and monetary economics training received at Anglo-American universities during the past 30 years or so, may have set back by decades serious investigations of aggregate economic behaviour and economic policy-relevant understanding. It was a privately and socially costly waste of time and other resources. And.. Charles Goodhart, who was fortunate enough not to encounter complete markets macroeconomics and monetary economics during his impressionable, formative years, but only after he had acquired some intellectual immunity, once said of the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium approach which for a while was the staple of central banks internal modelling: It excludes everything I am interested in. He was right. It excludes everything relevant to the pursuit of financial stability. The Bank of England in 2007 faced the onset of the credit crunch with too much Robert Lucas, Michael Woodford and Robert Merton in its intellectual cupboard. A drastic but chaotic re-education took place and is continuing. I believe that the Bank has by now shed the conventional wisdom of the typical macroeconomics training of the past few decades. In its place is an intellectual potpourri of factoids, partial theories, empirical regularities without firm theoretical foundations, hunches, intuitions and half-developed insights. It is not much, but knowing that you know nothing is the beginning of wisdom. Willem Buiter So, in fact, anyone who had to put macroeconomics into practice over the past several years realizes the harm caused by the dominant "traditional" economic theory. Edited December 22, 2011 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts