patrick.net

errc says

yup1 says

Red pill = soup lines

In your fantasy world where the financial system would have been left to collapse under its own weight, how on earth do you figure that there would have been and soup, or lines for that matter?

Without berkshire hathaway and WFC there to take their vig on their markers of wealth, how would anyone figure out how to make soup? How would people have figured out how to form lines?

You just won dumbest comment of the day /golfclap

indigenous says

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

The idea that we will not survive or even try to survive without government is complete bullshit.

I'm sorry--who do you think has that idea?

You

Excellent--another member of the reading comprehension failure club.

yup1 says

errc says

yup1 says

Red pill = soup lines

In your fantasy world where the financial system would have been left to collapse under its own weight, how on earth do you figure that there would have been and soup, or lines for that matter?

Without berkshire hathaway and WFC there to take their vig on their markers of wealth, how would anyone figure out how to make soup? How would people have figured out how to form lines?

You just won dumbest comment of the day /golfclap

Wow you just won dumbest response of the day,,,,

Don't be afraid to try and respond. Its obvious as a whore for the State, you don't want to engage in discussion, but its really not that scary. Go ahead and give it a try

They say heroin is the problem, go figure, it is blue pill addiction that is the real problem.

To quote the infamous duck

All money and finance is a game using markers with arbitrary real values. The only thing that matters in the end is who controls productive capital

----------

So now, by allowing the banks to fail, and allowing the bad actors to realize their insolvency, what would happen?

Would all of us working stiffs all of a sudden decide to stop doing all of the productive work that keeps the world spinning? Just because the ownership class went belly up and lost their markers on labor?

Wouldn't people instead decide to work more, now that the long line of grubby handed leeches had their means of siphoning wealth, destroyed?

errc says

Would all of us working stiffs all of a sudden decide to stop doing all of the productive work that keeps the world spinning? Just because the ownership class went belly up and lost their markers on labor?

Of course not. Just like in 1929--there were plenty of people who wanted to work. Yet, despite that, all the factories remained closed, and people froze and went hungry.

Amazing, isn't it?

tatupu70 says

errc says

Would all of us working stiffs all of a sudden decide to stop doing all of the productive work that keeps the world spinning? Just because the ownership class went belly up and lost their markers on labor?

Of course not. Just like in 1929--there were plenty of people who wanted to work. Yet, despite that, all the factories remained closed, and people froze and went hungry.

Amazing, isn't it?

This isn't 1929

with all the technological advancements, and the information age revolution, we working humans would certainly find work arounds, and a new, better system would take this outdated systems place in a heartbeat

That was 1929

This is 2014

Much has since changed.

errc says

with all the technological advancements, and the information age revolution, we working humans would certainly find work arounds, and a new, better system would take this outdated systems place in a heartbeat

It astounds me that there are so many people that believe that "a new, better system" would magically appear. Will it rain gumdrops under this new system too?

Call it Crazy says

But now, they just go collect UE and Extended UE, Food Stamps, Section 8, heating supplements, Long Term Disability, etc....

Amazing, isn't it?

You're right-that would help lessen the pain somewhat. So you wouldn't freeze and starve to death at least.

It is relevant to talk about the anatomy of group think.

The result of group think is the Dark Ages, Nazi Germany, Eugenics, Keynesian economics.

Anything worthy comes from an individual.

I don't think individually most people/congressman are particularly bad but once co-opted into the group they do bad things. As a group is the source of mass hysteria.

There are architects of group think and they are evil. Think who is the man behind the curtain, was it Hitler or the money guys was it FDR or the the Jekyl Island guys, was it LBJ or the defense contractors?

The result of group think is agreement.

The product of the individual is objective.

tatupu70 says

errc says

with all the technological advancements, and the information age revolution, we working humans would certainly find work arounds, and a new, better system would take this outdated systems place in a heartbeat

It astounds me that there are so many people that believe that "a new, better system" would magically appear. Will it rain gumdrops under this new system too?

Umm, your reading comprehension skills are either severely lacking, or you're putting your own words in my mouth. There's no magic about it

Solar panels
Bitcoin
The internet

errc says

This isn't 1929

with all the technological advancements, and the information age revolution,
we working humans would certainly find work arounds, and a new, better system
would take this outdated systems place in a heartbeat

Tell that to the fellow from Zimbabwe. Somalia also sounds like a lovely place.

yup1 says

These companies would have failed. Citi, [...], US Steel, and with that the rest of the economy would have gone down in flames.

Because you assume that the only alternative is to let the world go down in flame.

It isn't. This is a false dichotomy.

errc says

Solar panels

Bitcoin

The internet

How do solar panels, bitcoin or the internet help any? Please educate me on how exactly those technologies would avert another Great Depression.

indigenous says

The group think was the agreement that there should be slavery. BTW there have been more white slaves than black slaves. The group agreement was also that there should be a civil war engineered by Lincoln. BTW he did not care about ending slavery at all.

The individual brought us abolition not the group. BTW slavery was ended in the world without war.

You are delusional. History based on your fantasy of reality is well fantasy.

I thought the blue pill was a matrix reference. I did not think that you actually are actively taking blue pills. Get your dose adjusted........

Heraclitusstudent says

Because you assume that the only alternative is to let the world go down in flame.

It isn't. This is a false dichotomy.

It is if the only other choice being offered is doing nothing--which is was being discussed.

indigenous says

Anything worthy comes from an individual.

Whether we like it or not, we are not a set of individuals doing their own things. We are a society where each person depends on a bunch of others. This is no longer a wild frontier. There are dependencies involved. That requires top down organization. Like every person in a city depends on a government to organize a sanitation system, or they are doomed to die from cholera.

Group think is demonstrated here where the usual suspects don't have an original thought just a regurgitating of memes

indigenous says

Group think is demonstrated here where the usual suspects don't have an original thought just a regurgitating of memes

You are regurgitating Ayn Rand how the hell is that original?

Heraclitusstudent says

indigenous says

Anything worthy comes from an individual.

Whether we like it or not, we are not a set of individuals doing their own things. We are a society where each person depends on a bunch of others. This is no longer a wild frontier. There are dependencies involved. That requires top down organization. Like every person in a city depends on a government to organize a sanition system, or they are doomed to die from cholera.

Individuals working in cooperation are still individuals. Government is not a monolith it is a bunch of individuals as well but with very little accountability and to the degree it is perceived as a monolith it allows them to act through group think

yup1 says

indigenous says

The group think was the agreement that there should be slavery. BTW there have been more white slaves than black slaves. The group agreement was also that there should be a civil war engineered by Lincoln. BTW he did not care about ending slavery at all.

The individual brought us abolition not the group. BTW slavery was ended in the world without war.

You are delusional. History based on your fantasy of reality is well fantasy.

I thought the blue pill was a matrix reference. I did not think that you actually are actively taking blue pills. Get your dose adjusted........

That is NOT an argument.

tatupu70 says

It is if the only other choice being offered is doing nothing--which is was being discussed.

I'll give you an other choice:
1 - raise rates, stop any subsidies of debts (mortgages, student debt). Stop encouraging people to go in debt.
2 - raise taxes to finance the government
3 - Print money to compensate debt deflation. But do it without debt, from the liability side of the Feds balance sheet: send a check of $1000 (or whatever) to every person in the country every month to maintain a stable inflation level. The same check to every person, Warren Buffett or Joe six-pack.

Instead what we are doing now, at the country level, is the same that homeowners were doing in 2005: increasing their leverage and spending the extra equity. It's a suicidal way of keeping an ugly reality behind an increasingly tattered veil of fake wealth.

indigenous says

How does this work? If the rich guys share their wealth then consumption goes up?

Yes

indigenous says

If their is complete equality then what motivation does the rich guy have?

Logical fallacy of the extremes. Nobody is arguing for complete equality.

indigenous says

If the poor guy is given what he has what motivation does he have?

The same motivation we all have--to get more.

tatupu70 says

If their is complete equality then what motivation does the rich guy have?

Logical fallacy of the extremes. Nobody is arguing for complete equality.

As a theory?

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

If the poor guy is given what he has what motivation does he have?

The same motivation we all have--to get more.

Why the incentives are to work less and get as much as possible with out doing any work?

Heraclitusstudent says

There is a reason why 100+% of new revenues in the 'recovery' in fact went to
the top 1%.

It isn't 100%, but it is close. The reason for this is because the wealthy own all the productive capital.

From the PEW study:

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/04/wealth_recovery_final.pdf

In 2011, Households with net worth under $500k have total net worth of $10.6T. Of this, fully 53% are in non-prodcutive assets like your primary home, your car, and checking accounts.

This is 87% of households, under $500k net worth. Definitely all of the middle class and all of the lower classes.

The average family doesn't have anywhere near $500k - $500k in total net worth is really $235k in productive net worth. This means roughly 26 out of 30 households have $235k or less in productive assets.

$10.6T in total assets * 47% productive = $10.6T*.47 = $5T in total productive assets, for 87% of the country.

The top 13% have $29T in total assets * 79% productive = $22.9T in total prodcutive assets for 13% of the country.

Basically, the top 13% control 82% of the productive assets.

Lowering taxes on capital, devaluing labor, devaluing entitlements = all of these policies will only make this worse.

control point says

Basically, the top 13% control 82% of the productive assets.

Lowering taxes on capital, devaluing labor, devaluing entitlements = all of these policies will only make this worse.

What were the statistics say in the 90s or the 60s?

Heraclitusstudent says

If these people are allowed to keep the cash when the debt is not paid, then
yes they swoop-in and take back the assets on the cheap. The policy created
this.

Not all of the rich would have wiped out, they weren't all leveraged. A smaller subset of the current rich would have done the same things at even better prices. They are the only ones with cash.

It would have consolidated wealth more.

control point says

Basically, the top 13% control 82% of the productive assets.

I would contend that there has been more inequality with government intervention

indigenous says

I would contend that there has been more inequality with government
intervention

And if I prove otherwise, will that weaken your belief in the cult or will you just attack the data?

First would need to agree on when there was "less" government intervention, right? When do you think there was less? Let's start there first before I go digging.

control point says

First would need to agree on when there was "less" government intervention, right? When do you think there was less? Let's start there first before I go digging.

The past 6 years and the early 30s

control point says

Not all of the rich would have wiped out, they weren't all leveraged. A smaller subset of the current rich would have done the same things at even better prices. They are the only ones with cash.

When money is lent, and the loan goes bad, the owners of the bond or loan lose their money (or at least part of it). When companies go badly shareholders lose money. If you prevent this process, you preserve the wealth of rich people.

I don't think all rich would suffer or be wiped out. But a lot of the wealth being created today is not a function of productive assets. I don't think Tweeter for example created a value of $30 billions. Its valuation and that of many other assets is purely a function of speculation driven by the Feds money flood. When they realign with reality, they will make the owners a lot poorer.

And it's not the poor who are owning these stocks or these loans.

Heraclitusstudent says

When money is lent, and the loan goes bad, the owners of the bond or loan lose their money (or at least part of it). When companies go badly shareholders lose money. If you prevent this process, you preserve the wealth of rich people

Are you under the impression that the bailed out companies didn't lose money?

Heraclitusstudent says

The question is not whether they should have bailed out key companies. They had no choice.

Sure they did, and it would have been infinitely better if they had.

indigenous says

Heraclitusstudent says

The question is not whether they should have bailed out key companies. They had no choice.

Sure they did, and it would have been infinitely better if they had.

Destroying a lot of companies that had nothing to do with the problem was not the best solution.

Heraclitusstudent says

indigenous says

Heraclitusstudent says

The question is not whether they should have bailed out key companies. They had no choice.

Sure they did, and it would have been infinitely better if they had.

Destroying a lot of companies that had nothing to do with the problem was not the best solution.

You need to learn about the business cycle and why this is important.

I think Mell said something about that on this thread

Heraclitusstudent says

Of course they lost money. The Fed lost control and there was a deflationary crisis.

First they wouldn't have lost money if the Fed had not encouraged huge and unwarranted risk taking.

How exactly did the Fed encourage unwarranted risk taking? If I gave you a low interest loan, would that compel you to invest it in a risky manner?

indigenous says

You need to learn about the business cycle and why this is important.

I think Mell said something about that on this thread

This kind of disruption has nothing to do with the normal business cycle.

It's like saying that the destruction caused by a volcano is part of the natural order of things.

tatupu70 says

How exactly did the Fed encourage unwarranted risk taking? If I gave you a low interest loan, would that compel you to invest it in a risky manner?

Interest rates are supposed to reflect the risks of the loan. When the Feds manipulate rates, they manipulate this estimate. Lowering rates is equivalent to lowering the perceived risk. And since all asset classes are linked, investors are pushed to take more risks than they otherwise would.

Or if you want the money supply is increased and this money chases yield, taking risks in the process. While the market goes up and the economy grows, risks are muted because... precisely things are going well. But when the cycle turns and the market starts going down, the risks are multiplied.

That's why investors are made into speculators: they all know that in the long run, the assets they hold are not worth the current market value. They just hope to find a bigger idiot who can buy it from them before it collapses.

Heraclitusstudent says

Interest rates are supposed to reflect the risks of the loan. When the Feds manipulate rates, they manipulate this estimate

How? Whoever lends out money can set whatever rate he/she chooses. The Fed doesn't set interest rates on loans made in industry. It can influence the prime rate, but the risk premium is set entirely by whoever makes the loan.

Heraclitusstudent says

Or if you want the money supply is increased and this money chases yield, taking risks in the process.

Why does it chase yield. The money is cheaper so it should be satisfied with lower returns. The difference should be the same.