patrick.net

tatupu70 says

Here's what I'll say--there are a LOT of unknowns in a situation like that. Nobody can guess with 100% certainty how things will unfold. So, I'll ask you. If there's a 50% chance that the financial system melts down, do you do the bailouts? How about 25%? 10%? What is an acceptable risk to take when the consequence is a complete financial meltdown?

What the fuck is "a complete financial meltdown"? Does the sun the fail to rise? Do crops all die in the field when the otherwise happy corn stalks hear it? Do people march off into the ocean like Lemmings like you? You are such a blind faithful in the banking religion of apocolypse. The bailouts are the financial suicide for the society as a whole . . . as shown to you in spades over the past half decade.

Good morning everybody!

tatupu70 says

errc says

Mind blown

You claim they were necessary. I reply that is false, and you reply by asking me how the hell could I know that they were not necessary?

How could you know that they were necessary? Because warren buffet said so?

In truth, I say that I don't know if they were necessary. I wasn't close
enough to the situation (and neither were you).

Here's what I'll say--there are a LOT of unknowns in a situation like that. Nobody can guess with 100% certainty how things will unfold. So, I'll ask you. If there's a 50% chance that the financial system melts down, do you do the bailouts? How about 25%? 10%? What is an acceptable risk to take when the consequence is a complete financial meltdown?

Actions have consequences. Whatever probability your predictive models would have spit out, would have been an acceptable amount of risk, to have passed on the bailouts. You must not get out much. Step outside and take a look at the world around you. This is a result of the bailouts

errc says

So your proof is that there is a consensus that it was necessary?

Y'all love some consensus science. As a contrarian, I'm always open to the possibility that the majority got it wrong

And I am wide open to that possibility as well. Let's look back and learn from the mistakes of the "majority". But let's not pretend that it's KNOWN that the bailouts weren't necessary.

errc says

Actions have consequences. Whatever probability your predictive models would have spit out, would have been an acceptable amount of risk, to have passed on the bailouts. You must not get out much. Step outside and take a look at the world around you. This is a result of the bailouts

No, I do. I also know what the world could have looked like, however, in the absence of bailouts.

tatupu70 says

What the hell are you talking about--they didn't bet $80MM on the Super Bowl. That is not at all how it worked. The large banks took out derivatives as insurance to cover themselves in case the housing market fell. And AIG sold them. There was no guarantee that one side would lose--if housing stayed steady or rose, everyone is happy.

You don't understand what derivatives are, do you? For every dollar that one party wins/loses in a derivative contract, there is an exact same amount lose/win on the part of the counter-party. The contracts that GS took out were not protective derivatives because they did not have that much exposure to protect to begin with. In fact, at one point, there were more derivative contracts betting against subprime lending than total subprime lending itself! It would be like if I took out 10 "insurance policies" each insuring the whole value against your house, then started hiring arsonists.

Reality says

Incentives for the individuals are what influence actions. "Entities" and "Institutions" are helplessly blind, dumb and lame . . . because they are imaginative entities when they are not natural persons.

Exactly. And incentives for individuals are set by the bank owners. And the free market. If they favor short terms gains over long term health--like at IndyMac--that's the free market at work.

tatupu70 says

Reality says

Incentives for the individuals are what influence actions. "Entities" and "Institutions" are helplessly blind, dumb and lame . . . because they are imaginative entities when they are not natural persons.

Exactly. And incentives for individuals are set by the bank owners. And the free market. If they favor short terms gains over long term health--like at IndyMac--that's the free market at work.

No it is not. IndyMac was subsidiary of Countrywide, and mostly owned by the same gang of crooks. What they counted on was massive executive pay and short-term payouts at the expense of eventual closing down and bailout by FDIC.

tatupu70 says

errc says

So your proof is that there is a consensus that it was necessary?

Y'all love some consensus science. As a contrarian, I'm always open to the possibility that the majority got it wrong

And I am wide open to that possibility as well. Let's look back and learn from the mistakes of the "majority". But let's not pretend that it's KNOWN that the bailouts weren't necessary.

Our entire exchange occurred this morning because you claimed that the bailouts were necessary. I'm glad to see that you've retracted that false statement. We don't want to go on pretending that we know that the bailouts were necessary

tatupu70 says

Reality says

2. With Indymac, the fraud is in pre-selling the bonuses. The bank employees loaned depositors' money to uncreditworthy borrowers (essentially throwing the money out of the window), then collected bonuses on the loans generated / money thrown away. Any wonder why the American work force has lost work ethics but pine for the next get rich quick scheme?

No shit. I know how it works. But--where's the bailout?? I thought precedent was set a decade earlier, right? Didn't the owners of IndyMac "know" that they would get bailed out??

The owners of IndyMac already got the money when the bank was open: in high executive pay and selling stocks as the "revenue"/loan-generation/throwing-money-out-the-window volume increased. They counted on FDIC coming to the rescue when the bank eventually go bust, and get the banksters themselves off the hook of potential personal risk for stealing people's money; they don't even have to spend the rest of their lives in protective custody like Madoff does. FDIC was created during FDR administration.

tatupu70 says

No, I do. I also know what the world could have looked like, however, in the absence of bailouts.

No you do not. You envisioned "financial system failure" as if the sun wouldn't rise the next day. Whereas in reality, the bankruptcy of major existing banks would give way to massive debt reduction in the financial system and rejuvenate the economy, like in Iceland, when all three of their biggest banks (and they only had 3 big banks at the time) failed and were not bailed out by their government.

tatupu70 says

And I am wide open to that possibility as well. Let's look back and learn from the mistakes of the "majority". But let's not pretend that it's KNOWN that the bailouts weren't necessary.

What "majority" are you talking about? The American people were overwhelmingly against bailouts. The elected crooks were the bought and paid for stooges who voted for the bailouts. . . mostly the crooks that you and your dumb ilk elected.

Reality says

You don't understand what derivatives are, do you? For every dollar that one
party wins/loses in a derivative contract, there is an exact same amount
lose/win on the part of the counter-party.

All fine and dandy except for the leverage on the contracts. $1 premium collected had open ended risk in some instances.

Think dominos. One party cannot meet its obligations, causing the policy holder to NOT collect the insurance benefit. They in turn hold positions that were made based upon the belief that their downside was covered, but when it was not, their downside became larger (or unlimited).

They can't meet their obligations.

Another domino falls. And another, and another. Suddenly, your tenants can't pay their rent because the company they worked for got caught up, and they can't meet their payroll because credit is frozen at their bank. Then you can't meet your mortgage obligations. You think "Oh, I'll just sell" - but the market is frozen and there is zero qualified demand. Then your bank fails because it was leveraged and landlords like you are defaulting left and right, and there is a run on bank deposits.

The FDIC steps in, but it doens't have the reserves available to meet all the demands. The FDIC fails. People starve in the street, cops abandone their posts, looting occurs. Basically New Orleans during Katrina. Government collapses.

But hey, the market cleared. Your wet dream.

control point says

All fine and dandy except for the leverage on the contracts. $1 premium collected had open ended risk in some instances.

Then the issuer of the policy was in violation of margin/reserve requirement . . . and the buyer of the policy (a transaction among investment banksers, neither party being average consumers) was being a gullible fool . . . unless of course the buyer of the policy was counting on the government to do the bailout and pay up.

Think dominos. One party cannot meet its obligations, causing the policy holder to NOT collect the insurance benefit. They in turn hold positions that were made based upon the belief that their downside was covered, but when it was not, their downside became larger (or unlimited).

Your domino theory stops as soon as it is revealed that GS did not have nearly enough subprime exposure to require the "insurance" for coverage. It was not covered call or covered put protection situation, but sheer speculative naked puts. In fact, at one point, the volume of drivatives on subprime far exceeded the value of the loans themselves.

So what GS couldn't get the $80B, so they had to live with $200k year end of bonus on average instead of $300k year end bonus in 2008 . . . what exactly is your problem?

control point says

But hey, the market cleared. Your wet dream.

If the crooks did not take their pound of flesh on the rest of us, the economy would have some of the debt burden relieved along with reduced tax burden compared to what's happening in the past half decade. Yes, the market would have cleared better; that means more jobs would have been created. Less people would have to go on disability fraud and food stamps. The youth would have found gainful legal employment instead of the drug dealing, prostitution, flash mobs and "knock-outs."

Mark D says

Call it Crazy says

WARPED, DISTORTED, MANIPULATED, FLIPPED HOUSING MARKET

or simply investors and savers wisely buying after clear signs of a bottom.

permanent bottom?

BTW, your domino theory would dictate that no big business can ever be allowed to fail due to their inter-connectedness. Which means, how can any big business be allowed to exist at all? Or is that what you are essentially advocating: that we should be in a government-big business combine, where no big business is ever allowed to fail . . . i.e. we should all be slaves to a fascist state!

Call it Crazy says

I guess that depends where the bottom is....

Clearly he does not understand which is the correct bottom out of multiple bottoms.

control point says

Suddenly, your tenants can't pay their rent because the company they worked for got caught up, and they can't meet their payroll because credit is frozen at their bank. Then you can't meet your mortgage obligations. You think "Oh, I'll just sell" - but the market is frozen and there is zero qualified demand.

This is gratuitous bullshit. Landlords who can not carry the property on their own for a period of time have no business being landlords. In fact, those marginal landlords should be kicked out of the market place by a good down turn, so the tenants can have more reliable landlords. Good cleansing like that is what makes capitalistic free market work, unlike the socialist dead-weights in bureaucratic costumes managing someone else' property.

bgamall4 says

Here is Murray Rothbard, king of libertarians:

“The parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. … The parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.

Isn't that what safe harbor rules are? That new mothers can legally give up their children shortly after birth.

There is no "king of libertarians," in case having your own thought is an alien concept to you.

bgamall4 says

You libertarians deregulated the financial system, enabling it to create a fascist state. It all started in the Square Mile, where the bank of England, controlled by the Rothschilds Zionists, is found.

Liar loans came from England, the Square Mile, where they were called self certified loans.

Do you not realize that you can only enjoy your conspiracy theories in a relatively libertarian society?

In any case, the Square Mile would be much less powerful if there were less power in British government and the US government for it to exercise through. All the trash paper generated would just have been ignored if not for the central banking rules forcing us to use the money that they artificially create.

bgamall4 says

Reality says

Isn't that what safe harbor rules are? That new mothers can legally give up their children shortly after birth.

Yes, give them up to someone who will feed them you idiot.

Do you really think the new parent would likely do otherwise? and those few who do otherwise wouldn't be immunized under "temporary insanity"? What exactly is your point?

Do you live on the same planet as the human race? No, I forgot, libertarians don't live on our planet. They try to satellite around the Zionists.

You have no idea what my view of Zionism is, or even for that matter, who "the chosen people" are, or for what they are "chosen."

bgamall4 says

Reality says

Do you not realize that you can only enjoy your conspiracy theories in a relatively libertarian society?

No, freedom and liberty are not the same as libertarianism. My libertarian ebook is free today on Amazon. You should read it:

So long as you enjoy your own freedom and liberty, and respect the same for others, that's fine. I will pass on your ebook; thanks but no thanks.

1. They can't save for downpayment
2. Even when they can theoretically save for downpayment, they choose to spend money on entertainment/going out and as a result don't save.
3. Student loan death pledge ain't helping matters.
4. Boomers are working longer which is causing ripple effect of younger generation not having the previous access to the prime paying jobs.

In Russia healthcare.com infects you.

New Renter says

No, I think he would say it was one of if not THE greatest buying opportunity in history.

Really if the DOW crashed all the way to Zero, you would consider that a "Buying" opportunity? What you would think that you would be Special, that you would get a heads up call, just minutes before the mass exodus and next crash?

dublin hillz says

4. Boomers are working longer which is causing ripple effect of younger generation not having the previous access to the prime paying jobs.

Orrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

It could be the Mark Zuckerberg's of the world, are shifting software from productivity, to prying and spying on a honey trap of useless games and chatter. While there's a shit load of money to be made by the advertisers in that model. There's not even one single penny to be had by the users.

Those Geezers still knows what in the hell, all of the function keys on a full sized keyboard does.

Now run along and play with your Pad doodad thingy, Daddy has work to do on his computer.

Call it Crazy says

With a couple of quick keystrokes, YOUR account balance at your brokerage or bank could be zero too!!!

Well we ARE all only a heartbeat or two away from the great hereafter. Why should our money be any different?

Reality says

Then the issuer of the policy was in violation of margin/reserve requirement . .

Not at all. You know exactly what margin is - it is a percentage of the overall risk. At first, probably there would be available demand for the issuer to liquidate his position should his (new) margin requirement exceed his available capital. At first. Eventually the market seizes - and some counterparty is left holding the bag.

The derivatives market total contract value was many times world GDP. This fact alone implies that whatever margin requirement existed it was not sufficient. Was it overleveraged? Yes most probably but this implies a lack of regulation.

Reality says

This is gratuitous bullshit. Landlords who can not carry the property on their
own for a period of time

What is the period of time acceptable? For any length you may speculate, there is positive probability of a black swan event that will wipe you out.

CaptainShuddup says

New Renter says

No, I think he would say it was one of if not THE greatest buying opportunity in history.

Really if the DOW crashed all the way to Zero, you would consider that a "Buying" opportunity? What you would think that you would be Special, that you would get a heads up call, just minutes before the mass exodus and next crash?

In my historical example the DOW did not crash all the way to zero, it did however lose 50% of it value and took several years to climb back to its previous value making money for anyone who bought in along the way.

So yes, that was a buying opportunity. Maybe even a bear trap.

Yeah Lucky you! But what about those who were retiring in 2007, and spite all of their pleas, couldn't get a Mulligan?

Who's to say there wont be repeat of 2007, right as you're being fitted for that Gold watch?

control point says

Reality says

Then the issuer of the policy was in violation of margin/reserve requirement . .

Not at all. You know exactly what margin is - it is a percentage of the overall risk. At first, probably there would be available demand for the issuer to liquidate his position should his (new) margin requirement exceed his available capital. At first. Eventually the market seizes - and some counterparty is left holding the bag.

That's counter-party risk. Those who enter into contracts should assume counter-party risks, not the rest of us innocent by standers. If tenants don't pay rent, can I collect from you instead? If that were the case, I can easily find a shill to rent one of my apartments for $1Mil/mo! he will be a deadbeat before the ink is dry on the contract, and both of us will fully expect to split what you will pay me.

control point says

The derivatives market total contract value was many times world GDP. This fact alone implies that whatever margin requirement existed it was not sufficient. Was it overleveraged? Yes most probably but this implies a lack of regulation.

Most derivatives are mutually offsetting in a normal free market place. What I was talking about was a one-way bet, that nobody expected AIG being able to pay up. The counter-party risk alone should have ensured that nobody should have been dumb enough to buy so many contracts, unless the government was expected to pay up where AIG couldn't.

control point says

This is gratuitous bullshit. Landlords who can not carry the property on their

own for a period of time

What is the period of time acceptable? For any length you may speculate, there is positive probability of a black swan event that will wipe you out.

Black swan events do not last for years or even many months. However, your bailouts are actually prolonging the suffering.

When government prints too much money, how can anyone save enough?

It's not good when prices are going up, and jobs are leaving overseas to some cheap labor. We are as a nation stuck between rock and a hard place. Now houses aren't that expensive, it's just people aren't making the money. If you want to make a competitive salary I guess you have to go to either China or India these days.

dublin hillz says

1. They can't save for downpayment

Because there are few jobs, and even for those with jobs, it takes a two income house to qualify for a home. Rents are so high, that even if a person only bought necessities, they would not save enough to possibly buy a home in a market so inflated until they were well into their sixties. My parents bought into the houseing market when an average home cost no more than twice the median income. The majority of my parents friends did it on one income. My dad purchased his home for less than twice his income and still paying his loan off to Berkeley. His story was common. Naturally, he still owns that home and it is now worth two million.

2. Even when they can theoretically save for downpayment, they choose to spend money on entertainment/going out and as a result don't save.

Some do, but the majority don't. The biggest spenders I know, especially on frivolous entertainment and eating out are over 55.

3. Student loan death pledge ain't helping matters.

That's not at all the problem. My sister's loan is not what is squeezing her out of a market that is thirteen times the median income.

4. Boomers are working longer which is causing ripple effect of younger generation not having the previous access to the prime paying jobs

Maybe, but what prime paying jobs?
There seems to be a few people in tech who are paid outrageous amounts, firefighters and police officers make six figures, but there is an age limit on those, and for everyone else, they are lucky to find a job paying the median income, and that will not buy a home.

Reality says

2. "Loaning" someone $1T at 0.25% then pay the same entity 3.25% each year when they flip the money around to "loan" it back.

The banks are lending the money back to the FED?

My understanding was that the FED paid the banks .25% supposedly to stimulate the economy. And that they weren't because making loans in this environment was too risky.

I would like to understand this better.

Call it Crazy says

This entire contrived episode has been designed to lure dupes back into the market, artificially inflate the insolvent balance sheets of the Too Big To Trust banks, enrich the feudal overlords who have easy preferred access to the Federal Reserve easy money, and provide the propaganda peddling legacy media with a recovery storyline to flog to the willingly ignorant public.

It has been working. Word among the ignorant is buy at all costs. Just this very morning I got news that a close friend if mine bought a house for 18 times her income with the help of her parents as co signers and some cash from granny. I asked her if she felt this was risky. Her answer included a speech on how the market will only go up and how her real estate officer assured her that if she didn't buy now she would be left out in the cold by the soaring spring markets. Funny, I had this same conversation with my friend Cara right before the bubble. Of course, her home went into foreclosure, she ended up with some government assistance to save her 900,000 dollar home and some more money from her husband's grandma, but she was one of the stories with a happier ending. Will my friend have the same bail-outs, or will she be risking everything? It's not safe, and I doubt everyone will say this group was tricked, like they did in the last crash. It's a risk, a terrible risk, and I doubt everyone will be there to save them this time. At least I cannot guess what the justification will be for assistance this time for their poor choices and risk taking.

hrhjuliet says

This is an extremely important chart and everyone should take a real good look at it, but the constant posting may be defeating that purpose. What we should do is all post it to social media sites with a short explanation of its ramifications. Get it out there in the public.

Hi hrhjuliet,
Please note that at the bottom of the thread, above the first listed Comment, you can click on
Last >>
to show the most recent Comment.

indigenous says

The banks are lending the money back to the FED?

They were buying treasuries shortly after the meltdown. This is what he was referring to.

bgamall4 says

So, zzyzzx, what is the point of the picture of the black kids?

It's a common meme. In this case it's mocking the poor performance of the Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl. Nobody want's to buy Bronco's T-Shirts now, so they get shipped off to poor people in Africa.

Last year, 49'ers T-shirts were shipped to Africa after the super bowl.