In the [US Economy] the Bean Counters are Batty

2456

Posts

  • DoodmannDoodmann Registered User regular
    Does she know that most rich people's money is very much not real but just numbers on a computer?

    Whippy wrote: »
    nope nope nope nope abort abort talk about anime
    Torchlight | Steam | ART
    FencingsaxKayne Red RobeBlackDragon480Moridin889painfulPleasanceWinkyShadowhope
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Does she know that most rich people's money is very much not real but just numbers on a computer?

    I guarantee that for nearly anyone in the trump administration, the answer to any question beginning with those three words is 'No.'

    DoodmannKarozPolaritieBullheadmonikerSleepkimeCommander ZoomFencingsaxZonugalshrykeTicaldfjamKayne Red RobeElldrenButtersRingoExtreaminatusLord_AsmodeusL Ron HowardMillGennenalyse RuebenSanguinius666264CelestialBadgerpainfulPleasanceemp123ToxSkeithelectricitylikesmeTNTrooperwebguy20KamarShadowhopeRaijuMegaMekchrishallett83never die
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    My experience with people advocating for a return to the gold standard is they have no idea what money is or how it works.

    DoodmannGnome-InterruptusKarozIncenjucarPolaritieBullheadmonikersilence1186SleepkimeDuke 2.0durandal4532Phoenix-DCommander ZoomFencingsaxZonugalshrykeTicaldfjamCojo MojoKayne Red RobeStabbity StyleOghulkXaquinElldrenOneAngryPossumBlackDragon480ButtersBloodsheedRingoMartini_PhilosopherMvrckRozLord_Asmodeus38thDoescherbchenL Ron HowardMillGennenalyse RuebenSanguinius666264LucedesbrynhrtmnCelestialBadgerKetBrapainfulPleasanceToxTynnanEinzelTNTrooperwebguy20KamarthatassemblyguyShadowhopeDoctorArchRaijuMegaMekchrishallett83GONG-00HappylilElfnever die
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    Those people tend to make good nominees to the Federal Reserve

    No but seriously That’s So RavenGOP to nominate someone to a department/agency they don’t see the value of

    Captain Inertia on
    Karoz
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    I'm too frightened to go look up what she has to say about Bitcoin.

    Captain InertiaFencingsaxTicaldfjam
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I'm sure the phrase "inherent value" comes up.

    SleepFencingsaxTicaldfjamOghulkpainfulPleasanceelectricitylikesmechrishallett83
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Doodmann wrote: »
    Does she know that most rich people's money is very much not real but just numbers on a computer?

    I guarantee that for nearly anyone in the trump administration, the answer to any question beginning with those three words is 'No.'

    I am praying that enough Senators and their donors do, though.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    HappylilElf
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.
    I am praying that enough Senators and their donors do, though.

    Sadly multiple GOP senators are quoted in that Post article about how while her ideas suck on ice, it'd be nice to have one person pushing those ideas on Fed board, for um..reasons.

    Dark_Side on
    Karoz
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.

    moniker on
    TicaldfjamDark_SideKarozGnome-InterruptusSleepBlackDragon480QuidZonugalMartini_PhilosopherHefflingLord_AsmodeusMoridin889FencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenbrynhrtmnCelestialBadgerpainfulPleasanceTNTrooperwebguy20DoctorArchRaijuMegaMeknever die
  • Jebus314Jebus314 Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Jebus314 on
    "The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
    Gnome-InterruptusDark_SideGiggles_Funsworth
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    i love the "gold has inherent value" thing

    it's like, y'all, it only has value because you believe it has value

    raoADVy.png
    TicaldfjamXaquinKarozmonikerElldrenGnome-InterruptusSleepBlackDragon480QuidkimePolaritieZonugalBigJoeMMartini_PhilosopherKayne Red RobeCommander ZoomRozLord_Asmodeus38thDoeStabbity StyleIncenjucarL Ron HowardshrykeMoridin889FencingsaxLovelyGiggles_FunsworthschussGennenalyse RuebenSanguinius666264brynhrtmnKetBrapainfulPleasanceemp123ToxSkeithEinzelWinkyTNTrooperwebguy20KamarShadowhopeDoctorArchMegaMekchrishallett83GONG-00never die
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    i love the "gold has inherent value" thing

    it's like, y'all, it only has value because you believe it has value

    It is a better heat conductor than banknotes.

    BlackDragon480TicaldfjamkimeVishNubLord_Asmodeus38thDoeBullheadStabbity StyleL Ron HowardshrykeMoridin889FencingsaxGnizmoMillGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenDevoutlyApatheticLucedesbrynhrtmnemp123ToxSkeithTynnanEinzelWinkywebguy20enc0reKamarArbitraryDescriptorthatassemblyguyShadowhopeMegaMekGONG-00never die
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    TBTF is a legit thing, yes, but pointing to FDIC as an issue with it is ridiculously ignorant for someone appointed to the Fed

    Captain Inertia on
    BlackDragon480SleepTicaldfjamElldrendurandal4532monikerDoodmannButtersDark_SideMartini_PhilosopherGnome-InterruptusLord_AsmodeusL Ron HowardMoridin889FencingsaxMillGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse Ruebenemp123Raijunever die
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit I'm a good person yes it's trueRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    i love the "gold has inherent value" thing

    it's like, y'all, it only has value because you believe it has value

    It is a better heat conductor than banknotes.

    But by the same token, banknotes make for better insulation

    fuck gendered marketing
    KarozBlackDragon480RingoDavid WalgasGiggles_FunsworthpainfulPleasanceArbitraryDescriptorShadowhopenever die
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    i love the "gold has inherent value" thing

    it's like, y'all, it only has value because you believe it has value

    It is a better heat conductor than banknotes.

    Terrible for kindling tho

    SleepmonikerZonugalRingoKarozDavid WalgasLovelyGiggles_FunsworthpainfulPleasanceemp123Shadowhopenever die
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant

    Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.

    Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.

    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    ElldrenmonikerDark_SideL Ron HowardFencingsax
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    TBTF is a legit thing, yes, but pointing to FDIC as an issue with it is ridiculously ignorant for someone appointed to the Fed

    It's almost as though Federal Deposit Insurance is some kind of Insurance Policy. Who could have guessed?

    BlackDragon480shrykeMoridin889FencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenToxRaijuchrishallett83GONG-00never die
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    moniker wrote: »
    That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.

    I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.

    Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.

    Dark_Side on
    BlackDragon480VishNubmonikerMartini_PhilosopherKarozGnome-InterruptusElldrenLord_AsmodeusStabbity StyleOrcaL Ron HowardMoridin889VeagleFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenpainfulPleasanceemp123EinzelTNTrooperwebguy20Raijunever die
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    edited February 7
    Quid wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    i love the "gold has inherent value" thing

    it's like, y'all, it only has value because you believe it has value

    It is a better heat conductor than banknotes.

    Terrible for kindling tho

    The 40,000,000,000,000 Weimar Deutschemark note is still the gold standard of firestarters.

    BlackDragon480 on
    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    ZonugalQuidmonikerGnome-InterruptusLord_AsmodeusIncenjucarI ZimbraL Ron HowardMoridin889FencingsaxKetBraemp123ToxSkeithEinzelShadowhopechrishallett83never die
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant

    Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.

    Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.

    Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    Gnome-InterruptusFencingsax
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant

    Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.

    Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.

    Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.

    That's since 2017. Actually that's probably more attributable to the rise of online banking than anything else (I've never set foot in a bank, for example, cause I've only ever used USAA).

    raoADVy.png
    Gnome-InterruptusMoridin889Raiju
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant

    Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.

    Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.

    That's probably more to do with how bank branches were being used more like billboards to get mortgage applicants to pick them rather than one of the other Big 4, and that isn't really a sustainable business model when most people just need a website and an ATM. The only time I've gone inside a bank branch since our mortgage a few years ago has been to break $20's into small bills.

    BlackDragon480DoodmannElldrenGnome-InterruptusPolaritieVeagleFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthKetBra
  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant

    Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.

    Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.

    Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.
    I think this is probably the case. Around here all the closing banks wind up mostly being rebranded as another bank. Seems like we are seeing a bit of a wave of mid sized credit unions/banks buying up some of the smaller local ones.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.

    I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.

    Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.

    It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.

    It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.

    moniker on
    Dark_SidePhillishereBlackDragon480Martini_PhilosopherIncenjucarshrykeFencingsaxGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenLucedesWinkyShadowhopeRaijunever die
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    My experience with people advocating for a return to the gold standard is they have no idea what money is or how it works.

    To be fair some are rich assholes who’d love a return to inherently deflationary currency

    Gnome-InterruptusMartini_PhilosopherBlackDragon480
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.

    I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.

    Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.

    It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.

    It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.

    I'm doing research on the finance markets for low-income Americans, do you know which books these were?

    raoADVy.png
  • Dark_SideDark_Side Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    moniker wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.

    I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.

    Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.

    It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.

    It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.

    That's why I often wish we could get people on Fed Boards and into government that understand the financial world where you're not shuttling around 100k in the stock market as play money, and juggling two homes. Because none of them seem to understand the predatory, insane world of things like payday loans, check cashing outfits, and now car title loan operations. Or even how big banks routinely try to fuck over and scam their poorest customers. (It's also why Warren is my pick for president)

    Dark_Side on
    Gnome-InterruptusElldrenLord_AsmodeusmonikerJragghenL Ron HowardMoridin889FencingsaxLovelyGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenMeeqeHefflingemp123WinkyForarTNTrooperHappylilElfnever die
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    Oghulk wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.

    I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.

    Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.

    It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.

    It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.

    I'm doing research on the finance markets for low-income Americans, do you know which books these were?

    It was either All Your Worth or the Two Income Trap. Pretty sure it was Two Income Trap.

    Both were initially published in 2004/2005 so any data would be out of date.

    moniker on
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    That reminds me of the mindset I saw a lot of during the '08 collapse. Where people seemed to legitimately believe that random typical guy who wants to buy a house ought to be the expert about mortgages, financing, and real estate rather than the fucking bank.

    I can't even begin to explain how much that attitude aggravates me. Cause none of the people who make those arguments are experts on anything and often don't realize that their success heavily benefited from the system, just as much as it may have from savvy decisions.

    Also, it's a stupid Randian argument that lady is making when the truth is, you shouldn't need to be a bonafide bank expert just to have a safe fucking place to put your money.

    It reminds me of a chapter from one of Elizabeth Warren's books (from before she entered politics) about how most of the finance and debt traps that people fall into today literally just didn't exist for my grandparents. Either they hadn't been invented, or were expressly barred from various statutes and regulations making it illegal. They might have been more likely to get turned down for a loan that they needed, or have a lower credit limit, but that also means they were more protected from falling into debt and poverty traps with usurious rates.

    It also eliminated the mental load of having to figure all this shit out, since it was outsourced to someone as their actual full time job. Especially retirement.

    That's why I often wish we could get people on Fed Boards and into government that understand the financial world where you're not shuttling around 100k in the stock market as play money, and juggling two homes. Because none of them seem to understand the predatory, insane world of things like payday loans, check cashing outfits, and now car title loan operations. (It's also why Warren is my pick for president)

    Conversely, a lot of those people are directly or indirectly invested in companies that offer payday loans, check cashing outfits, and usurious car loans. The secret problem with alleviating poverty in this country is that there is an insane amount of money to be made exploiting the poor, and whole swathes of our leaders at every level benefit from these poverty extraction industries.

    Dark_SideGnome-InterruptusPolaritieLord_AsmodeusIncenjucarL Ron HowardFencingsaxRingoGiggles_FunsworthHefflingpainfulPleasanceWinkyRaiju
  • Martini_PhilosopherMartini_Philosopher Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    My experience with people advocating for a return to the gold standard is they have no idea what money is or how it works.

    In my experience it's not that they don't understand money, it's that they don't understand how...well, how anything at all works. Those that aren't gifters, that is. The non-grifting sort don't have the ability to abstract things, they don't get how symbolism works. It isn't ignorance, it's like there's a lack of development of that part of their imagination.

    Then there's the educational aspect of it. The badly and in need of replacing supply vs demand lessons in basic econ and social study courses. As anyone on the street how stores set their prices and that's the answer you'll get. Which is...disappointing at this juncture of history.

    All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
  • Captain InertiaCaptain Inertia Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant

    Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.

    Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.

    Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.

    That's since 2017. Actually that's probably more attributable to the rise of online banking than anything else (I've never set foot in a bank, for example, cause I've only ever used USAA).

    We’re all trying to replicate USAA and/or CapOne, btw....

    BlackDragon480
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    Terry Pratchett's Making Money is my favorite example of the pointlessness of a gold standard.

    Just an empty vault that everyone assumed was full of gold if they decided they wanted to turn their money in for some metal. But no one did because it was worthless for day to day life.

    DoodmannElldrenmonikerBlackDragon480Stabbity StyleIncenjucarkimeKarozCaptain InertiaMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxRingoGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenKetBrapainfulPleasanceRiusemp123ForarMvrckTNTrooperMr FuzzbuttShadowhopeRaijuchrishallett83never die
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar Audio Game Developer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Terry Pratchett's Making Money is my favorite example of the pointlessness of a gold standard.

    Just an empty vault that everyone assumed was full of gold if they decided they wanted to turn their money in for some metal. But no one did because it was worthless for day to day life.

    The unobtainium standard.

  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Bluster Kerfuffle Master of Windy ImportRegistered User regular
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Terry Pratchett's Making Money is my favorite example of the pointlessness of a gold standard.

    Just an empty vault that everyone assumed was full of gold if they decided they wanted to turn their money in for some metal. But no one did because it was worthless for day to day life.

    The unobtainium standard.

    Stephan Lang (with mech knife) for security sold separately

    First they came for the Muslims and we said...NOT TODAY MOTHERFUCKERS!
    IncenjucarCommander ZoomPreacherZonugalshrykeMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxTicaldfjamBurnage
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Modern conservatives are literally the descendants of the rural whites who were screaming about being crucified on a cross of gold in the 19th century.

    Giggles_FunsworthpainfulPleasance
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Modern conservatives are literally the descendants of the rural whites who were screaming about being crucified on a cross of gold in the 19th century.

    ...

    I don't think you understood what William Jennings Bryan was arguing.

    OghulkBlackDragon480Kayne Red RobeKetBra
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited February 7
    moniker wrote: »
    Modern conservatives are literally the descendants of the rural whites who were screaming about being crucified on a cross of gold in the 19th century.

    ...

    I don't think you understood what William Jennings Bryan was arguing.

    That the gold standard was limiting money supply and causing farmers and businessmen to be unable to repay loans - thus losing their property to the banks - despite an otherwise healthy economy? Hence the irony.

    Phillishere on
    ElldrenpainfulPleasance
  • schussschuss Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Jebus314 wrote: »
    Dark_Side wrote: »
    She's just another crazy grifter/book writer taking advantage of the current adminstration's penchant for rewarding suck ups. She's clearly been playing the game to buy a position. This quote alone ought to sink her from ever setting monetary policy anywhere:
    Shelton’s views on the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have also drawn criticism. In her 1994 book, “Money Meltdown,” Shelton advocated for ending federal deposit insurance, which most economists credit with restoring faith in the banking system following the Great Depression. Shelton called it a government subsidy that distorted financial markets. “Depositors no longer have to make judgments about the competence of bank management or the characteristics of the loan portfolio,” she wrote.

    Now granted, while it's likely that entire idea is just a cruel hot take meant to rustle jimmies and sell books, it's still possible she's actually that out of touch or dumb.

    I dunno, I mean I think she kind of has a point about how we have removed the incentives for banks to not be irresponsible in their investments, since consumers are protected by FDIC and banks will most likely get bailouts anyway. She just takes the opposite conclusion than I would (remove insurance and make customers try and figure out what a bank is doing, lol good luck there, versus having the government step in with more regulations on bank investments).

    Banks pay FDIC premiums to keep the fund solvent, it’s not a bailout mechanism

    FDIC is about preventing “bank runs” not propping up failing/failed banks

    Shelton’s comment is ridiculously ignorant

    Until the and S&L debacle in the 80s we were averaging less than 40 bank failures a year after the FDIC was put in during the New Deal. It more than has done its job and still serves a very big purpose in maintaining stability and availability of capital.

    Granted the last 2 years have been absolute shit with more than 4% of local branch offices of FDIC participating entities getting shuttered since 2017, but that's an exception when looking at the last 80+ years.

    Pretty sure you can attribute this to mergers and acquisitions after the bailouts.

    That's since 2017. Actually that's probably more attributable to the rise of online banking than anything else (I've never set foot in a bank, for example, cause I've only ever used USAA).

    We’re all trying to replicate USAA and/or CapOne, btw....

    Ha, so true. Good ol FinServ.
    That said, my boss's boss is ex USAA and awesome

  • ProhassProhass Registered User regular
    Look when society breaks down my gold bars will be very valuable to hit people over the head with and take their food

    KarozRaiju
  • OghulkOghulk biggest externality low-energy economistRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Modern conservatives are literally the descendants of the rural whites who were screaming about being crucified on a cross of gold in the 19th century.

    ...

    I don't think you understood what William Jennings Bryan was arguing.

    In fact the cross of gold was ABOUT getting rid of the gold standard. Talk about irony here.

    raoADVy.png
    monikerBlackDragon480
Sign In or Register to comment.