Lurker Posted September 16, 2008 Share Posted September 16, 2008 So, the accounting boards and SEC can play god and save us from the Rapture by eliminating mark to market rules. Wow, talk about the power at the hands of bean counters. Revenge of the nerds! Never have so many suffered so significantly due to the decisions of a nebulous group of guys with green eyeshades and calculators... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Another institution that is too big to fail. AIG bailed out. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/271257f2-83f1-11...0077b07658.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Revenge of the nerds! Never have so many suffered so significantly due to the decisions of a nebulous group of guys with green eyeshades and calculators... What scares me the most is that those who are really in charge of the money supply have no oversight whatsoever, they are not voted into power, and they are not transparent on who is on their board and what they do behind the scenes. They have more power than Congress and the President and we have no idea who they are although Congress and the President allow this travesty. The Federal Reserve is an amazing abuse of the Constitution and financial transparency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Do they all happen to come from Chicago U or GMU or the Liberty Fund? Christ! Here's a simple one: look at the magnitude of recessions (the duration and severity) since government involvement was ratcheted up after WWII vs prior to WWII--on average, which were worse, before or after? Large government has stabilized demand so that servere downturns are prevented. That's an economic fact, it's not a value judgment. Or you can say that the Fed has been a lot more proactive since WWII to minimize the downside swings. The market system is not some ideal that if left alone produces the best of all possible worlds Candide. The nature of the beast is based on the profit motive and risk taking, and with a financial structure based on leverage and faith, you get periodic crises regardless of government's role. Imagine what happens to those crises as "capital" gets more concentrated, in both the real and financial sectors. And what exactly is government now? Governments operate to protect the people that line their pockets. So, in a sense, I agree with arguments to reduce the size and scope of government, because you are really talking about reducing the ability to protect "vested interests." Aside: I have to laugh every time I think about the discussion of "capital formation" and supply side tax cuts. It appears the capital created was paper capital only...but it did create a lot of finance jobs. I wonder who that could be? So, are you willing to back your argument with facts or more rhetoric? If you can agree that the equity markets represent a fairly broad sentiment of the outlook on American capitalism and capital formation, what has the S&P 500 done since supply side economics shook up your world? If the capital gains are illusory bubbles, why isn't S&P far below the 2000 & 2007 levels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Revenge of the nerds! Never have so many suffered so significantly due to the decisions of a nebulous group of guys with green eyeshades and calculators... and the geek shall inherit the earth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Another institution that is too big to fail. AIG bailed out. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/271257f2-83f1-11...0077b07658.html I posted in another thread--it doesn't seem this is a bailout. It's a loan while AIG sells off some of its substantial assets, which should be plenty to payback its loan. The problem is one of liquid--AIG couldn't liquidate fast enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 I posted in another thread--it doesn't seem this is a bailout. It's a loan while AIG sells off some of its substantial assets, which should be plenty to payback its loan. The problem is one of liquid--AIG couldn't liquidate fast enough. Nope. It's a bailout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 What scares me the most is that those who are really in charge of the money supply have no oversight whatsoever, they are not voted into power, and they are not transparent on who is on their board and what they do behind the scenes. They have more power than Congress and the President and we have no idea who they are although Congress and the President allow this travesty. The Federal Reserve is an amazing abuse of the Constitution and financial transparency. That's BS. The Fed's "independence" is something of a mythical beast like a unicorn. It's a very political organization, and no major decision is made without consulting Treasury. The Fed governors are appointed by the POTUS and are not elected for life, like the Supremes. Hank Paulson's input in the current Wall Street mess is reflective of this reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted September 17, 2008 Author Share Posted September 17, 2008 Do they all happen to come from Chicago U or GMU or the Liberty Fund? Christ! Here's a simple one: look at the magnitude of recessions (the duration and severity) since government involvement was ratcheted up after WWII vs prior to WWII--on average, which were worse, before or after? Large government has stabilized demand so that servere downturns are prevented. That's an economic fact, it's not a value judgment. B-I-N-G-O and bingo was his name-o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Nope. It's a bailout. Welcome to the dark side.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Or you can say that the Fed has been a lot more proactive since WWII to minimize the downside swings. It's both, but demand is more important than lowering interest rates in a downturn. So, are you willing to back your argument with facts or more rhetoric? If you can agree that the equity markets represent a fairly broad sentiment of the outlook on American capitalism and capital formation, what has the S&P 500 done since supply side economics shook up your world? If the capital gains are illusory bubbles, why isn't S&P far below the 2000 & 2007 levels? According to taterhill's post, the S&P is lower now than when Bush took office. Or did the tax cuts end in 2007? My point. Supply-side policies, or trickle-down, focuses most of the tax breaks on the upper income levels. What do the wealthier classes do with it? They purchase more financial assets or real estate. Increased values of financial assets doesn't mean increased real business investment. It's increases in the capital stock that are important, not inflated financial asset values or real estate. We're seeing the "real" impact from this period as financial manipulations based on the real estate bubble, not any real productive change in the American economy. A real supply-side tax cut would focus on tax cuts for businesses directly, not indirectly through "cutting taxes on the rich" and hoping more financial capital formation leads to more physical capital formation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 That's BS. The Fed's "independence" is something of a mythical beast like a unicorn. It's a very political organization, and no major decision is made without consulting Treasury. The Fed governors are appointed by the POTUS and are not elected for life, like the Supremes. Hank Paulson's input in the current Wall Street mess is reflective of this reality. That's BS. Who can see the Fed Res books? Who can see what they are doing? Who can see who their board consists of? Are you that blind to think Paulson's discussion is commensurate with oversight? All Paulson can see is what they want them to see. The Federal Reserve is a private bank for the love of God, a bank more powerful than the president and the Senate. Their independence is not a unicorn until you can prove to me who is on their board of directors. I mean they're a private bank so show me their records. Don't try, it doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
East Brady Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 That's BS. Who can see the Fed Res books? Who can see what they are doing? Who can see who their board consists of? Are you that blind to think Paulson's discussion is commensurate with oversight? All Paulson can see is what they want them to see. The Federal Reserve is a private bank for the love of God, a bank more powerful than the president and the Senate. Their independence is not a unicorn until you can prove to me who is on their board of directors. I mean they're a private bank so show me their records. Don't try, it doesn't exist. What your not happy with American Fascism?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted September 17, 2008 Author Share Posted September 17, 2008 It's both, but demand is more important than lowering interest rates in a downturn. According to taterhill's post, the S&P is lower now than when Bush took office. Or did the tax cuts end in 2007? My point. Supply-side policies, or trickle-down, focuses most of the tax breaks on the upper income levels. What do the wealthier classes do with it? They purchase more financial assets or real estate. Increased values of financial assets doesn't mean increased real business investment. It's increases in the capital stock that are important, not inflated financial asset values or real estate. We're seeing the "real" impact from this period as financial manipulations based on the real estate bubble, not any real productive change in the American economy. A real supply-side tax cut would focus on tax cuts for businesses directly, not indirectly through "cutting taxes on the rich" and hoping more financial capital formation leads to more physical capital formation. So let's say, just for the sake of argument, taxes on the wealthy were really jacked up, like pre-Reagan levels. And taxes for the middle classes cut. If the money was used to fund infrastructure, alternative energy projects and other things to benefit the nation wouldn't the economy still grow pretty well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 That's BS. Who can see the Fed Res books? Who can see what they are doing? Who can see who their board consists of? Are you that blind to think Paulson's discussion is commensurate with oversight? All Paulson can see is what they want them to see. The Federal Reserve is a private bank for the love of God, a bank more powerful than the president and the Senate. Their independence is not a unicorn until you can prove to me who is on their board of directors. I mean they're a private bank so show me their records. Don't try, it doesn't exist. Honest to God, do your take pride in your moniker? Board of Governors FMOC Members Federal Reserve Balance Sheet (as of Sept 11, 2008--released weekly) Federal Reserve Annual Report for 2007 (with audited financial statements) Monetary Policy Report to Congress (twice annually) Primer on How the Fed Operates Coordination with other regulatory and executive branch entities. Example of how the Fed & Treasury work together: Covered Bonds Request for public input on Fed regulatory proposal change Testimony to Congress on the state of the banking industry Fat, dumb and stupid is no way to go through life, son... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Flu? More like walking pneumonia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Flu? More like walking pneumonia. The flu's actually a much more serious infection... ...he says, as though you're going to pay any attention to the fact that in your usual, inimitable way you butchered the metaphor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 The flu's actually a much more serious infection... ...he says, as though you're going to pay any attention to the fact that in your usual, inimitable way you butchered the metaphor. Actually, I thought about that too after I posted it. Maybe it is my age... But, you always think of pneumonia sounding worse! Good catch... I knew I could count on you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 Actually, I thought about that too after I posted it. Maybe it is my age... But, you always think of pneumonia sounding worse! Good catch... I knew I could count on you! Anytime. Walking pneumonia is mycoplasma pneumonia (as opposed to bacterial or viral) Had it for six weeks once, and barely knew it. It's kind-of a pain in the ass, but if you want to die from it you've really got to be a moron and work at it. In metaphorical terms, this market has something more like...I don't know, maybe dengue fever. Incredibly painful, but you'll probably live. Probably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts