Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The [ECONOMY]

1697072747585

Posts

  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Michael Savage keeps pitching this website, claiming a catastrophe for all Americans is coming.
    http://finance.moneyandmarkets.com/reports/SMR/4597/vsp-smr2.php?s=MSAV&e=4626101

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    "I went to high school in a large foreign country, one of the largest in the world."

    With those kind of credentials, you should definitely listen to everything he has to say.

    etxvv5.jpg
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote:
    Michael Savage keeps pitching this website, claiming a catastrophe for all Americans is coming.
    http://finance.moneyandmarkets.com/reports/SMR/4597/vsp-smr2.php?s=MSAV&e=4626101

    confusion between fiscal solvency crisis and financial crisis

    BEEEEP

    Steam
    shryke wrote: »
    Talking to ronya is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, that has been shit out and then eaten again by a bulldog.
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    emnmnme wrote:
    Michael Savage keeps pitching this website, claiming a catastrophe for all Americans is coming.
    http://finance.moneyandmarkets.com/reports/SMR/4597/vsp-smr2.php?s=MSAV&e=4626101

    That's crazy

    The rich are almost certainly going to come out ahead

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    I didn't make it far enough to actually see what he was saying. I skipped around until he started comparing Ireland's woes to the Fed's monetary policy since 2008.

    *close window*

    etxvv5.jpg
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    His Ph.D. is apparently in cultural anthropology, according to Wikipedia.

    ...

  • CantelopeCantelope Registered User regular
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/19/idUS200361147020111019



    The way I'm reading this, Bank of America has some risky derivatives that are likely to go bad (I have a poor understanding of derivatives and how to talk about them), and they've moved the risk from the investment part of their bank to the depository part of their bank so that in the event that they lose money on these derivatives they can use leverage from the depositors money to pay for them?


    According to the Young Turks these derivatives are worth significantly more than the bank itself. Wouldn't the bank failing have drastic effects on the economy, and doesn't it seem that based on this information that is a likely scenario?

  • a5ehrena5ehren Registered User regular
    Cantelope wrote:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/19/idUS200361147020111019



    The way I'm reading this, Bank of America has some risky derivatives that are likely to go bad (I have a poor understanding of derivatives and how to talk about them), and they've moved the risk from the investment part of their bank to the depository part of their bank so that in the event that they lose money on these derivatives they can use leverage from the depositors money to pay for them?


    According to the Young Turks these derivatives are worth significantly more than the bank itself. Wouldn't the bank failing have drastic effects on the economy, and doesn't it seem that based on this information that is a likely scenario?

    If BoA failed we would be, in a word, fucked.

  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    As an aside: Young Turks are heavily partisan without really (from my own layman's perspective) having a firm grasp of the economics behind their claims. They were anti-bailout, which to my understanding is basically saying they were pro-depression-instead-of-recession.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    a5ehren wrote:
    Cantelope wrote:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/19/idUS200361147020111019



    The way I'm reading this, Bank of America has some risky derivatives that are likely to go bad (I have a poor understanding of derivatives and how to talk about them), and they've moved the risk from the investment part of their bank to the depository part of their bank so that in the event that they lose money on these derivatives they can use leverage from the depositors money to pay for them?


    According to the Young Turks these derivatives are worth significantly more than the bank itself. Wouldn't the bank failing have drastic effects on the economy, and doesn't it seem that based on this information that is a likely scenario?

    If BoA failed we would be, in a word, fucked.

    [citation needed]

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    emnmnme wrote:
    Michael Savage keeps pitching this website, claiming a catastrophe for all Americans is coming.
    http://finance.moneyandmarkets.com/reports/SMR/4597/vsp-smr2.php?s=MSAV&e=4626101

    You can tell it's not well informed because he opens with opinions, stories, and fearmongering rather than the stats. A solid sign that someone doesn't believe in their own opinions.

    edit - He also doesn't understand how debt works. He seems to think that taxation is illegal confiscation of wealth.

    edit2 - Hey, here comes the pointless personal anecdotes about how big the debt is! And considering debt in dollars at the time it was held.

    edit3 - And here come the graphs which fail to account for inflation and growth in population in terms of debt. And the misunderstanding of the way the world economy works. I'm betting at no point does he say "Of course, the US could solve this entire problem with raising taxes by 1%"

    tbloxham on
    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    tbloxham wrote:
    emnmnme wrote:
    Michael Savage keeps pitching this website, claiming a catastrophe for all Americans is coming.
    http://finance.moneyandmarkets.com/reports/SMR/4597/vsp-smr2.php?s=MSAV&e=4626101

    You can tell it's not well informed because he opens with opinions, stories, and fearmongering rather than the stats. A solid sign that someone doesn't believe in their own opinions.

    edit - He also doesn't understand how debt works. He seems to think that taxation is illegal confiscation of wealth.

    edit2 - Hey, here comes the pointless personal anecdotes about how big the debt is! And considering debt in dollars at the time it was held.

    edit3 - And here come the graphs which fail to account for inflation and growth in population in terms of debt. And the misunderstanding of the way the world economy works. I'm betting at no point does he say "Of course, the US could solve this entire problem with raising taxes by 1%"

    I'm convinced that a lot of the fearmongering over the national debt just comes from its name. People immediately assume that the national debt is like a household debt. We should give it a different name- something boring and technical- so that people will stop worrying so much about it.

  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    I'm convinced that a lot of the fearmongering over the national debt just comes from its name. People immediately assume that the national debt is like a household debt. We should give it a different name- something boring and technical- so that people will stop worrying so much about it.
    Parallel negative cash-flow subsidies.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote:
    a5ehren wrote:
    Cantelope wrote:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/19/idUS200361147020111019



    The way I'm reading this, Bank of America has some risky derivatives that are likely to go bad (I have a poor understanding of derivatives and how to talk about them), and they've moved the risk from the investment part of their bank to the depository part of their bank so that in the event that they lose money on these derivatives they can use leverage from the depositors money to pay for them?


    According to the Young Turks these derivatives are worth significantly more than the bank itself. Wouldn't the bank failing have drastic effects on the economy, and doesn't it seem that based on this information that is a likely scenario?

    If BoA failed we would be, in a word, fucked.

    [citation needed]

    Remember how everyone talks about too big to fail? They're mostly talking about BofA.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • a5ehrena5ehren Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote:
    a5ehren wrote:
    Cantelope wrote:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/19/idUS200361147020111019



    The way I'm reading this, Bank of America has some risky derivatives that are likely to go bad (I have a poor understanding of derivatives and how to talk about them), and they've moved the risk from the investment part of their bank to the depository part of their bank so that in the event that they lose money on these derivatives they can use leverage from the depositors money to pay for them?


    According to the Young Turks these derivatives are worth significantly more than the bank itself. Wouldn't the bank failing have drastic effects on the economy, and doesn't it seem that based on this information that is a likely scenario?

    If BoA failed we would be, in a word, fucked.

    [citation needed]

    Really? You need a citation on why the failure of the 2nd largest bank in the US and the 3rd largest company in the world would be a bad thing for the US economy? Really?

  • CantelopeCantelope Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote:
    As an aside: Young Turks are heavily partisan without really (from my own layman's perspective) having a firm grasp of the economics behind their claims. They were anti-bailout, which to my understanding is basically saying they were pro-depression-instead-of-recession.

    From my perspective, if the banks need a bailout, we need to nationalize them. If you can't not wreck the entire economy when you fail, and you do fail, you need to be run by the government.

  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    Cantelope wrote:
    Hamurabi wrote:
    As an aside: Young Turks are heavily partisan without really (from my own layman's perspective) having a firm grasp of the economics behind their claims. They were anti-bailout, which to my understanding is basically saying they were pro-depression-instead-of-recession.

    From my perspective, if the banks need a bailout, we need to nationalize them. If you can't not wreck the entire economy when you fail, and you do fail, you need to be run by the government.

    I don't think we need the federal government to be in the business of running the financial sector.

    We do, however, need fewer "innovations" (that wind up pushing the global economic system to the brink of collapse) in the financial sector.

  • dojangodojango Registered User
    It's a pretty common human failing to want both high returns and low risk at the same time... and whenever a new product comes along that promises to deliver both of those things, we tend to end up with one of these economic collapses, whether it's Dutch tulips or Albanian pyramid schemes or credit default swaps... I doubt we'll ever be rid of them and the "innovations" that spawn them.

  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    The point of a regulatory body (that does its job) is not to foresee and account for every possibility.

    But once it becomes clear that people are conducting business in such a way that it threatens an entire industry or sector... well, it'd be nice if the regulators did something.

    Fun fact: Adam Smith specifically warned that the Invisible Hand mechanism doesn't apply to the financial sector.

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    edited October 2011
    dojango wrote:
    It's a pretty common human failing to want both high returns and low risk at the same time... and whenever a new product comes along that promises to deliver both of those things, we tend to end up with one of these economic collapses, whether it's Dutch tulips or Albanian pyramid schemes or credit default swaps... I doubt we'll ever be rid of them and the "innovations" that spawn them.

    Whoa whoa whoa, dutch tulips were never a historically low risk investment.

    mrt144 on
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    Hamurabi wrote:
    Fun fact: Adam Smith specifically warned that the Invisible Hand mechanism doesn't apply to the financial sector.

    Can you tell us more?

  • mrt144mrt144 King of the Numbernames Registered User regular
    Cantelope wrote:
    Hamurabi wrote:
    As an aside: Young Turks are heavily partisan without really (from my own layman's perspective) having a firm grasp of the economics behind their claims. They were anti-bailout, which to my understanding is basically saying they were pro-depression-instead-of-recession.

    From my perspective, if the banks need a bailout, we need to nationalize them. If you can't not wreck the entire economy when you fail, and you do fail, you need to be run by the government.

    But when nationalized are they any better or any inherently risky? Unless you're saying that the act of nationalization is just a way to wind the bank down completely.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote:
    Hamurabi wrote:
    Fun fact: Adam Smith specifically warned that the Invisible Hand mechanism doesn't apply to the financial sector.

    Can you tell us more?
    Adam Smith wrote:
    Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But these exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments…[T]he obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.

    Don't have a page reference, sorry.

  • nightmarennynightmarenny Registered User regular
    mrt144 wrote:
    Cantelope wrote:
    Hamurabi wrote:
    As an aside: Young Turks are heavily partisan without really (from my own layman's perspective) having a firm grasp of the economics behind their claims. They were anti-bailout, which to my understanding is basically saying they were pro-depression-instead-of-recession.

    From my perspective, if the banks need a bailout, we need to nationalize them. If you can't not wreck the entire economy when you fail, and you do fail, you need to be run by the government.

    But when nationalized are they any better or any inherently risky? Unless you're saying that the act of nationalization is just a way to wind the bank down completely.
    I think the point(or at least the hope) is that they would be more directly accountable to the people.

    Quire.jpg
  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    mrt144 wrote:
    Cantelope wrote:
    Hamurabi wrote:
    As an aside: Young Turks are heavily partisan without really (from my own layman's perspective) having a firm grasp of the economics behind their claims. They were anti-bailout, which to my understanding is basically saying they were pro-depression-instead-of-recession.

    From my perspective, if the banks need a bailout, we need to nationalize them. If you can't not wreck the entire economy when you fail, and you do fail, you need to be run by the government.

    But when nationalized are they any better or any inherently risky? Unless you're saying that the act of nationalization is just a way to wind the bank down completely.
    I think the point(or at least the hope) is that they would be more directly accountable to the people.

    Permanently nationalizing would also be really unethical. You think there isn't already a lot of regulatory capture?

  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    I think the point(or at least the hope) is that they would be more directly accountable to the people.
    I don't think that nationalization is the answer. I think we should simply enforce the regulations that we already have, and make it so that the FDIC has fine power and is unentangled from the Federal Reserve and congress.

  • DerrickDerrick Registered User regular
    If BofA is too big to fail, it's time to bust it down into smaller chunks.

    It's as simple as that.

    "The welfare of each of us is dependent fundamentally upon the welfare of all of us."
    Spoiler:
    -Theodore Roosevelt
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    Derrick wrote:
    If BofA is too big to fail, it's time to bust it down into smaller chunks.

    It's as simple as that.
    I agree with this, but in a different way. Let it fail. Chop it up and sell it off.

  • HamurabiHamurabi Cambridge, MARegistered User regular
    I think the experience has been that these big banks are in too incestuous a relationship to just "let them fail." It's the same reason we don't want Greece to go bankrupt (at least, not before we can make sure Greek and French banks have enough capital to take the hit).

  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    Pretty much, the only way to let something like BoA fail without tanking the world economy is to have the US government guarantee all its debt in the event it goes bankrupt.

    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote:
    Pretty much, the only way to let something like BoA fail without tanking the world economy is to have the US government guarantee all its debt in the event it goes bankrupt.
    It would cause problems, but having the FDIC takeover and break up BoA would not be the apocalyptic scenario that some groups say it is. They aren't even the largest bank anymore.

  • CalixtusCalixtus Registered User regular
    mrt144 wrote:
    Cantelope wrote:
    Hamurabi wrote:
    As an aside: Young Turks are heavily partisan without really (from my own layman's perspective) having a firm grasp of the economics behind their claims. They were anti-bailout, which to my understanding is basically saying they were pro-depression-instead-of-recession.

    From my perspective, if the banks need a bailout, we need to nationalize them. If you can't not wreck the entire economy when you fail, and you do fail, you need to be run by the government.

    But when nationalized are they any better or any inherently risky? Unless you're saying that the act of nationalization is just a way to wind the bank down completely.
    Owner incentatitive. The private owner can never lose his entire stake in a company too big too fail, hence, that scenario doesn't need to enter his risk calculations. Hence, significantly less of an incentative to prepare for that kind of scenario. It's like gambling with someone else's money.

    They want loans, make them pay in preferential shares. There's no point in privatizing profits and socializing losses.

    -This message was deviously brought to you by:
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Derrick wrote:
    If BofA is too big to fail, it's time to bust it down into smaller chunks.

    It's as simple as that.

    Yep. More than just monopoly laws, we need to have some sort of economic load-bearing boss law. Any company so large that it can hold the country hostage needs to be broken up into smaller companies.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Derrick wrote:
    If BofA is too big to fail, it's time to bust it down into smaller chunks.

    It's as simple as that.

    Yep. More than just monopoly laws, we need to have some sort of economic load-bearing boss law. Any company so large that it can hold the country hostage needs to be broken up into smaller companies.

    I understand the desire and all but how the fuck do you stop them from becoming the Bank of Somalia and telling you to fuck your size limit laws?

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I understand the desire and all but how the fuck do you stop them from becoming the Bank of Somalia and telling you to fuck your size limit laws?

    Same way we handle monopolies when we're not bought off by the monopolies?

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    I understand the desire and all but how the fuck do you stop them from becoming the Bank of Somalia and telling you to fuck your size limit laws?
    Assuming we wanted too and this purely a theoretical ignore the laws and rights point of view.

    We could simply just use our police powers takeover all the financial centers, hold the executives under a national security directive while we transfer control. Break down the business and resell it. Let the executives out of custody and then stone wall them with executive privilege when they try to go to court. The government could do that and get away with it.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote:
    I understand the desire and all but how the fuck do you stop them from becoming the Bank of Somalia and telling you to fuck your size limit laws?

    Same way we handle monopolies when we're not bought off by the monopolies?

    I think the realities of the situation are slightly different from 100 years ago, or even 30 when we broke up Ma Bell. Note that Ma Bell had a huge infrastructure that firmly tied them to a specific country. A large portion of the investment finance stuff from BoA could happily base off shore.

    I think this is a giant can of worms that isn't as easy as saying "Pass a Law."

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    zepherin wrote:
    I understand the desire and all but how the fuck do you stop them from becoming the Bank of Somalia and telling you to fuck your size limit laws?
    Assuming we wanted too and this purely a theoretical ignore the laws and rights point of view.

    We could simply just use our police powers takeover all the financial centers, hold the executives under a national security directive while we transfer control. Break down the business and resell it. Let the executives out of custody and then stone wall them with executive privilege when they try to go to court. The government could do that and get away with it.

    I will concede that if we want to become a dictatorship we could do it by cutting all ties to the world economy. We could have our very own little North Korea in America.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    I think the realities of the situation are slightly different from 100 years ago, or even 30 when we broke up Ma Bell. Note that Ma Bell had a huge infrastructure that firmly tied them to a specific country. A large portion of the investment finance stuff from BoA could happily base off shore.

    I think this is a giant can of worms that isn't as easy as saying "Pass a Law."

    This is like saying that Nike can have sweatshops in the US because they have them in China.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic I've Done Worse Registered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote:
    I think the realities of the situation are slightly different from 100 years ago, or even 30 when we broke up Ma Bell. Note that Ma Bell had a huge infrastructure that firmly tied them to a specific country. A large portion of the investment finance stuff from BoA could happily base off shore.

    I think this is a giant can of worms that isn't as easy as saying "Pass a Law."

    This is like saying that Nike can have sweatshops in the US because they have them in China.

    No, the problem is that investment finance does not a have strong tie to a locality. This is like what happened when they tried to ban online poker in the US except there is more money involved by a factor of a 1000 and a much greater incentive for a small country to simply get bought out. This is going to raise the whole question of where sovereignty ends when the world is as interconnected as it is.

    These are issues we are going to have to address at some point in the future but brushing them aside to say "Fuck x!" is very much the wrong way to do it.

Sign In or Register to comment.