Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Most Banks Pass Second Round of Stress Tests

ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.

http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:57:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

We gon' die. o_O
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:58:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:57:17 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

We gon' die. o_O

What makes you say that?
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 10:01:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:58:48 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:57:17 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

We gon' die. o_O

What makes you say that?

The 4 Wall Street banks are prominent banks in the US... and they failed the stress test. WE GON' DIE!
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 10:03:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 10:01:08 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
They didn't fail, though, lol. Bank of America was put on "warning" and has conditional authority to pay out money to its shareholders, and the other three had to scramble at the last second.

That doesn't sound amazing or peachy, and surely it isn't, but these stress test were conducted under Depression-era scenarios, which are extremely unlikely and, I would say, near impossible at this point.

I think this is the best we can get out of a highly flawed law like Dodd-Frank, and generally I'm pleasantly surprised by these results.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 10:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 10:03:34 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 10:01:08 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
They didn't fail, though, lol. Bank of America was put on "warning" and has conditional authority to pay out money to its shareholders, and the other three had to scramble at the last second.

That doesn't sound amazing or peachy, and surely it isn't, but these stress test were conducted under Depression-era scenarios, which are extremely unlikely and, I would say, near impossible at this point.

I think this is the best we can get out of a highly flawed law like Dodd-Frank, and generally I'm pleasantly surprised by these results.

Well, now that I see it through your eyes, I guess it is OK.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 10:07:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 10:06:20 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 3/12/2015 10:03:34 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 10:01:08 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
They didn't fail, though, lol. Bank of America was put on "warning" and has conditional authority to pay out money to its shareholders, and the other three had to scramble at the last second.

That doesn't sound amazing or peachy, and surely it isn't, but these stress test were conducted under Depression-era scenarios, which are extremely unlikely and, I would say, near impossible at this point.

I think this is the best we can get out of a highly flawed law like Dodd-Frank, and generally I'm pleasantly surprised by these results.

Well, now that I see it through your eyes, I guess it is OK.

Certainly "okay," but don't take my word for it: we could very well be screwed nevertheless, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 10:08:37 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 10:07:56 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 10:06:20 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 3/12/2015 10:03:34 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 10:01:08 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
They didn't fail, though, lol. Bank of America was put on "warning" and has conditional authority to pay out money to its shareholders, and the other three had to scramble at the last second.

That doesn't sound amazing or peachy, and surely it isn't, but these stress test were conducted under Depression-era scenarios, which are extremely unlikely and, I would say, near impossible at this point.

I think this is the best we can get out of a highly flawed law like Dodd-Frank, and generally I'm pleasantly surprised by these results.

Well, now that I see it through your eyes, I guess it is OK.

Certainly "okay," but don't take my word for it: we could very well be screwed nevertheless, lol.

lol
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:43:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

Since, big banks passed government requirements, and regulators know what is best. Consequently, if/when these big banks fail, the government is at fault. Who goes to jail, Jack Lew or Janet Yellen?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:50:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 4:43:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

Since, big banks passed government requirements, and regulators know what is best. Consequently, if/when these big banks fail, the government is at fault. Who goes to jail, Jack Lew or Janet Yellen?

That's completely beside the point, especially because Congress is culpable for not breaking the banks up when they had a chance, and instead placing a band-aid in the form of Dodd-Frank which in fact *encourages* risk-taking.

To your question, I don't think the Treasury administered these tests, but that need not mean that Yellen is culpable, unless you can find that she were responsible for signing off on something which she ought not have signed off on. That's, again, speculation, especially because these tests were designed with the *intention* of being tedious beyond belief.

I don't share your pessimism that we're doomed for some apocalypse--particularly because your Austrian buddies have been predicting inflation, a spike in long rates, and another collapse since the Fed began its measures to *save*--yes, save--the economy, yet none of them materialized. Peter Schiff said just a few months ago that the Fed would need to re-launch QE lest the stock market crash. Where is it? I don't see it.

I think it's instructive to view the world not through some jaded ideological lens, but on an objective (or as close to objective as we can be), case-by-case basis. Can you do that with me? Because Peter Schiff and his friends at Freedomworks, Heritage, CATO, and the Mises Institute cannot, and it's made them the laughing stock amongst anyone who has the slightest bit of economic or political savvy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 5:10:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 4:50:24 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:43:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

Since, big banks passed government requirements, and regulators know what is best. Consequently, if/when these big banks fail, the government is at fault. Who goes to jail, Jack Lew or Janet Yellen?

That's completely beside the point, especially because Congress is culpable for not breaking the banks up when they had a chance, and instead placing a band-aid in the form of Dodd-Frank which in fact *encourages* risk-taking.

To your question, I don't think the Treasury administered these tests, but that need not mean that Yellen is culpable, unless you can find that she were responsible for signing off on something which she ought not have signed off on. That's, again, speculation, especially because these tests were designed with the *intention* of being tedious beyond belief.

These "stress tests" are to prevent banks from failing, and if these big banks do fail, someone must be held criminally accountability. Government officials that design and approve required stress test should be the first in handcuffs.

I don't share your pessimism that we're doomed for some apocalypse--particularly because your Austrian buddies have been predicting inflation, a spike in long rates, and another collapse since the Fed began its measures to *save*--yes, save--the economy, yet none of them materialized. Peter Schiff said just a few months ago that the Fed would need to re-launch QE lest the stock market crash. Where is it? I don't see it.

I think it's instructive to view the world not through some jaded ideological lens, but on an objective (or as close to objective as we can be), case-by-case basis. Can you do that with me? Because Peter Schiff and his friends at Freedomworks, Heritage, CATO, and the Mises Institute cannot, and it's made them the laughing stock amongst anyone who has the slightest bit of economic or political savvy.

Can we not use Keynesian basis then? Since, Keynesian economics is only ideology,
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 5:17:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 5:10:44 PM, Chang29 wrote:
These "stress tests" are to prevent banks from failing, and if these big banks do fail, someone must be held criminally accountability. Government officials that design and approve required stress test should be the first in handcuffs.

I could even agree with this, but that need not mean that we indiscriminately target "government officials," or that the test itself was flawed. As I noted, Jack Lew had nothing to do with these stress tests. In fact, the Treasury has in fact questioned the validity of them. But I welcome you to, after pouring through the tests, find something wrong with them. If you can find some glaring, deliberate omission, I welcome you to point it out.

But, let's even say that one of the banks the Fed signed off on, though just barely, fails: what if that were due to some exogenous factor materializing ex post facto? These stress tests take place at one point in time, so it's hardly possible to account for the myriad factors which could induce failure.

That said, I think failure is highly unlikely, and nothing more than, again, unwarranted Austrian-school Doomsday talk.

Can we not use Keynesian basis then? Since, Keynesian economics is only ideology,

What is Keynesian? I'm not using any sort of "Keynesian" basis. The problem is, looking at the world on a case-by-case basis *is* ipso facto Keynesianism relative to the Austrian perspective, which endorses nothing other than straight anarchy. If we dare praise the government for having done anything at all right, it conflicts with the Austrian worldview to such a degree that they must cry fowl--that something else, not their ideology, must be wrong. When their failed hyperinflation predictions came to pass, they claimed the government was cooking the books. Good luck being taken seriously with that view by anyone not wearing clown shoes and a tin-foiled hat.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 6:08:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 5:17:58 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 5:10:44 PM, Chang29 wrote:
These "stress tests" are to prevent banks from failing, and if these big banks do fail, someone must be held criminally accountability. Government officials that design and approve required stress test should be the first in handcuffs.

I could even agree with this, but that need not mean that we indiscriminately target "government officials," or that the test itself was flawed. As I noted, Jack Lew had nothing to do with these stress tests. In fact, the Treasury has in fact questioned the validity of them. But I welcome you to, after pouring through the tests, find something wrong with them. If you can find some glaring, deliberate omission, I welcome you to point it out.

But, let's even say that one of the banks the Fed signed off on, though just barely, fails: what if that were due to some exogenous factor materializing ex post facto? These stress tests take place at one point in time, so it's hardly possible to account for the myriad factors which could induce failure.

That said, I think failure is highly unlikely, and nothing more than, again, unwarranted Austrian-school Doomsday talk.

The public has been told that stress test will prevent bank failure. The designers of these tests are experts, how could these important regulators miss an "exogenous factor"? Therefore, if they miss a factor these experts and approving official should be held responsible by being locked up.

These stress test are just like a TSA checkpoint, theater to make people feel better.


Can we not use Keynesian basis then? Since, Keynesian economics is only ideology,

What is Keynesian? I'm not using any sort of "Keynesian" basis. The problem is, looking at the world on a case-by-case basis *is* ipso facto Keynesianism relative to the Austrian perspective, which endorses nothing other than straight anarchy. If we dare praise the government for having done anything at all right, it conflicts with the Austrian worldview to such a degree that they must cry fowl--that something else, not their ideology, must be wrong. When their failed hyperinflation predictions came to pass, they claimed the government was cooking the books. Good luck being taken seriously with that view by anyone not wearing clown shoes and a tin-foiled hat.

You know exactly what Keynesian bias is, and it is a political bias, rather than an economic. Keynesian bias has a basic premise that governments should steer economies, a fundamentally flaw premise.

A simple question, whom should plan for whom? That is should a person plan for themselves or should a few plan for the many.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 6:19:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 6:08:56 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The public has been told that stress test will prevent bank failure.

I don't think that's the case at all. Implicitly, prevention is the goal, though it's a grueling process of recapitalizing banks so they can weather a depression-era scenario. It isn't as though the tests, ipso facto, are preventing a calamity--but only that they're a means to an end, and a very rigorous one at that which actually costs hundreds of millions of dollars to properly carry out.

The designers of these tests are experts, how could these important regulators miss an "exogenous factor"?

Exogenous shocks....everything in the residual.

Therefore, if they miss a factor these experts and approving official should be held responsible by being locked up.

See above.

These stress test are just like a TSA checkpoint, theater to make people feel better.

I've never been groped by a stress test, though.

In reality, this is absurd paranoia, and you know it. These are some of the most rigorous tests ever administered. I wish the living-will provision were moving faster than it otherwise could, but overall the Fed's enforcement of Dodd-Frank has been exceptional, and I think we're going to see the results in the form of increased financial stability moving forward.

Case in point, when the Fed raises rates in June or September, and Peter Schiff yells "disaster," and nothing happens and long rates actually move, will you admit you were wrong? Schiff still hasn't conceded he was wrong on inflation or QE.

You know exactly what Keynesian bias is, and it is a political bias, rather than an economic. Keynesian bias has a basic premise that governments should steer economies, a fundamentally flaw premise.

When did I say the government should "steer" the economies? That's not what I'm advocating. Even Keynesians, like Krugman, have said they want the economy to be as free as it can be--and he supports more regulation than I do.

All I've said is, if we're going to have these types of financial innovations which we probably all agree *can* make our lives better, why not ensure they don't crash the economy as they have in the past?

What's your solution? On one hand, you're bashing these stress tests, claiming they won't adequately prevent failure, and on the other, you're complaining the government shouldn't oversee these financial firms. Which is it? Too little or too much government?

The point on "bias" is utterly laughable, as well. Bias, as I noted earlier, in your view is that the government ought to have any role at all. Yes, it should--privately administered money, or roads, or bridges or whatever are a libertarian fantasy and nothing more.

A simple question, whom should plan for whom? That is should a person plan for themselves or should a few plan for the many.

I like the latter. I've never advocated a Soviet-style command economy, though that's a classic strawman of my position.

Please, focus on the substance, not on these paranoid fantasies about "central planning" and "bias."
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 6:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 4:50:24 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:43:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

Since, big banks passed government requirements, and regulators know what is best. Consequently, if/when these big banks fail, the government is at fault. Who goes to jail, Jack Lew or Janet Yellen?

That's completely beside the point, especially because Congress is culpable for not breaking the banks up when they had a chance, and instead placing a band-aid in the form of Dodd-Frank which in fact *encourages* risk-taking.

To your question, I don't think the Treasury administered these tests, but that need not mean that Yellen is culpable, unless you can find that she were responsible for signing off on something which she ought not have signed off on. That's, again, speculation, especially because these tests were designed with the *intention* of being tedious beyond belief.

I don't share your pessimism that we're doomed for some apocalypse--particularly because your Austrian buddies have been predicting inflation, a spike in long rates, and another collapse since the Fed began its measures to *save*--yes, save--the economy, yet none of them materialized. Peter Schiff said just a few months ago that the Fed would need to re-launch QE lest the stock market crash. Where is it? I don't see it.

I think it's instructive to view the world not through some jaded ideological lens, but on an objective (or as close to objective as we can be), case-by-case basis. Can you do that with me? Because Peter Schiff and his friends at Freedomworks, Heritage, CATO, and the Mises Institute cannot, and it's made them the laughing stock amongst anyone who has the slightest bit of economic or political savvy.

Of those Heritage is the best one. Mises = all Austrian extremists (though I do like Hayek, I think he is wrong on some issues). Schiff is a noob. Freedomworks isn't always bad, not on fiscal policy anyway. Same with Cato. The Heritage people actually cite *some* valid statistics for their views. The Mises chaps don't like stats. I haven't read Cato for a while, though I agree with their fiscal policy.

The liberal think tanks are just as bad :P
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 6:24:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 6:19:25 PM, 16kadams wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:50:24 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:43:55 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

Since, big banks passed government requirements, and regulators know what is best. Consequently, if/when these big banks fail, the government is at fault. Who goes to jail, Jack Lew or Janet Yellen?

That's completely beside the point, especially because Congress is culpable for not breaking the banks up when they had a chance, and instead placing a band-aid in the form of Dodd-Frank which in fact *encourages* risk-taking.

To your question, I don't think the Treasury administered these tests, but that need not mean that Yellen is culpable, unless you can find that she were responsible for signing off on something which she ought not have signed off on. That's, again, speculation, especially because these tests were designed with the *intention* of being tedious beyond belief.

I don't share your pessimism that we're doomed for some apocalypse--particularly because your Austrian buddies have been predicting inflation, a spike in long rates, and another collapse since the Fed began its measures to *save*--yes, save--the economy, yet none of them materialized. Peter Schiff said just a few months ago that the Fed would need to re-launch QE lest the stock market crash. Where is it? I don't see it.

I think it's instructive to view the world not through some jaded ideological lens, but on an objective (or as close to objective as we can be), case-by-case basis. Can you do that with me? Because Peter Schiff and his friends at Freedomworks, Heritage, CATO, and the Mises Institute cannot, and it's made them the laughing stock amongst anyone who has the slightest bit of economic or political savvy.

Of those Heritage is the best one. Mises = all Austrian extremists (though I do like Hayek, I think he is wrong on some issues). Schiff is a noob. Freedomworks isn't always bad, not on fiscal policy anyway. Same with Cato. The Heritage people actually cite *some* valid statistics for their views. The Mises chaps don't like stats. I haven't read Cato for a while, though I agree with their fiscal policy.

I've have to read their stuff, lol. Generally, I'd agree with the divide on fiscal and monetary policy.

The liberal think tanks are just as bad :P

I don't read those either, LOL. Though Stephen Moore, Chief economist at Heritage, got caught rigging numbers. I've never seen, like, the Economic Policy Institute do that.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 7:01:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 6:19:18 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 6:08:56 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The public has been told that stress test will prevent bank failure.

I don't think that's the case at all. Implicitly, prevention is the goal, though it's a grueling process of recapitalizing banks so they can weather a depression-era scenario. It isn't as though the tests, ipso facto, are preventing a calamity--but only that they're a means to an end, and a very rigorous one at that which actually costs hundreds of millions of dollars to properly carry out.

The designers of these tests are experts, how could these important regulators miss an "exogenous factor"?

Exogenous shocks....everything in the residual.


Therefore, if they miss a factor these experts and approving official should be held responsible by being locked up.

See above.

These stress test are just like a TSA checkpoint, theater to make people feel better.

I've never been groped by a stress test, though.

These banks have been groped.


In reality, this is absurd paranoia, and you know it. These are some of the most rigorous tests ever administered. I wish the living-will provision were moving faster than it otherwise could, but overall the Fed's enforcement of Dodd-Frank has been exceptional, and I think we're going to see the results in the form of increased financial stability moving forward.

Case in point, when the Fed raises rates in June or September, and Peter Schiff yells "disaster," and nothing happens and long rates actually move, will you admit you were wrong? Schiff still hasn't conceded he was wrong on inflation or QE.


You know exactly what Keynesian bias is, and it is a political bias, rather than an economic. Keynesian bias has a basic premise that governments should steer economies, a fundamentally flaw premise.

When did I say the government should "steer" the economies? That's not what I'm advocating. Even Keynesians, like Krugman, have said they want the economy to be as free as it can be--and he supports more regulation than I do.

All I've said is, if we're going to have these types of financial innovations which we probably all agree *can* make our lives better, why not ensure they don't crash the economy as they have in the past?

Poorly planned or executed financial innovation should crash, with those responsible for failure by losing their money. Government restraining everyone's hands to keep a few from failing is immoral.


What's your solution? On one hand, you're bashing these stress tests, claiming they won't adequately prevent failure, and on the other, you're complaining the government shouldn't oversee these financial firms. Which is it? Too little or too much government?

My point, bank stress test are useless, completely useless. The second point is that regulators have zero personal responsibility for the results of their decisions. Regulators should be held responsible for failure.


The point on "bias" is utterly laughable, as well. Bias, as I noted earlier, in your view is that the government ought to have any role at all. Yes, it should--privately administered money, or roads, or bridges or whatever are a libertarian fantasy and nothing more.

A simple question, whom should plan for whom? That is should a person plan for themselves or should a few plan for the many.

I like the latter. I've never advocated a Soviet-style command economy, though that's a classic strawman of my position.

It is not a strawman argument. The underlining premise of Keynesian economics is central planning. Central planners are fundamentally apposed to individual freedom. Keynesian economic thought is only a few steps from Soviet style authority.


Please, focus on the substance, not on these paranoid fantasies about "central planning" and "bias."

Please do the same. Keep paranoid fantasies about personal and economic freedom out of analysis.

We are fundamentally opposed from our foundations.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 7:16:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 7:01:08 PM, Chang29 wrote:
These banks have been groped.

Lol.

I feel like the Constitutional implications (or the lack thereof, in this case) are far more nuanced than that.

Poorly planned or executed financial innovation should crash, with those responsible for failure by losing their money. Government restraining everyone's hands to keep a few from failing is immoral.

You're not responding to giant chunks of text...you did this precise thing when we were debating deflation.

The thing is, that is precisely the point: we *want* to let them fail, but we cannot right now because of moral hazard: if Goldman fails, it takes down the entire global economy, and we all suffer. What your remedy for that? Sophistry. Mine is to break them up so we can LET them fail, and thus won't need to bail them out. Yours is to do nothing and decry government action in all cases. Words don't prevent or clean up after systemic banking crises: action does

My point, bank stress test are useless, completely useless.

The results just came out today. How can you actually conclude that they're useless, when you just said earlier that they're so harsh that they're "groping" the banks? Again, make up your mind: do you want a lot of government or government?

The second point is that regulators have zero personal responsibility for the results of their decisions. Regulators should be held responsible for failure.

I agree. But you said earlier you don't want the government to do anything, lol. Make up your mind.

And, when I say I want to hold regulators accountable--and, strangely, if you believe this, you should love Elizabeth Warren, though she's much too liberal for me--I mean the people who actually, knowingly, made mistakes. I don't want to indiscriminately incarcerate Yellen simply for being the face of the Fed. This needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

I like the latter. I've never advocated a Soviet-style command economy, though that's a classic strawman of my position.

It is not a strawman argument. The underlining premise of Keynesian economics is central planning. Central planners are fundamentally apposed to individual freedom. Keynesian economic thought is only a few steps from Soviet style authority.

No, that *is* a strawman argument and demonstrates you don't understand Keynes. Mind you, I deviate from Keynes quite a lot, but I don't whitewash his work. Keynes wanted to steer the boat because markets, if let to their own devices, will implode--much like they did in 07-09. That's why I want to break the banks up to *facilitate* the market and allow bad practices to fail.

Please do the same. Keep paranoid fantasies about personal and economic freedom out of analysis.

I am doing the same. You're the one bashing government and any sort of intervention as "central plan" akin to the USSR, and last we spoke you linked to the Mises Institute, which wants de-facto anarchy. I'm fairly representing your position. If not, tell me what government you actually want.

We are fundamentally opposed from our foundations.

Very true: I believe in reality and nuance, while you believe in ideological fantasies.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
RevNge
Posts: 13,835
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 7:20:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

Nerd
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 7:36:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 7:20:53 PM, RevNge wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:51:53 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
The Fed released the results of its second round of stress tests yesterday, this time factoring in dividends and stock buybacks, and most of the banks managed to pass, with the exception of the U.S. units of the Deutsche Bank and Santander Group. Four Wall Street banks -- Goldman, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America -- struggled with capital requirements.


http://www.wsj.com...?

Thoughts?

Nerd

No u.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 8:32:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 7:16:34 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 7:01:08 PM, Chang29 wrote:
These banks have been groped.

Lol.

I feel like the Constitutional implications (or the lack thereof, in this case) are far more nuanced than that.

Poorly planned or executed financial innovation should crash, with those responsible for failure by losing their money. Government restraining everyone's hands to keep a few from failing is immoral.

You're not responding to giant chunks of text...you did this precise thing when we were debating deflation.

The thing is, that is precisely the point: we *want* to let them fail, but we cannot right now because of moral hazard: if Goldman fails, it takes down the entire global economy, and we all suffer. What your remedy for that? Sophistry. Mine is to break them up so we can LET them fail, and thus won't need to bail them out. Yours is to do nothing and decry government action in all cases. Words don't prevent or clean up after systemic banking crises: action does

Let's just talk about this idea. Since Goldman-Sachs is "too big to fail" and you support breaking that bank up. Why not the bank bigger than Goldman-Sachs, the Federal Reserve, be broken up? The Fed is Goldman-Sachs' bank.



My point, bank stress test are useless, completely useless.

The results just came out today. How can you actually conclude that they're useless, when you just said earlier that they're so harsh that they're "groping" the banks? Again, make up your mind: do you want a lot of government or government?

The second point is that regulators have zero personal responsibility for the results of their decisions. Regulators should be held responsible for failure.

I agree. But you said earlier you don't want the government to do anything, lol. Make up your mind.

And, when I say I want to hold regulators accountable--and, strangely, if you believe this, you should love Elizabeth Warren, though she's much too liberal for me--I mean the people who actually, knowingly, made mistakes. I don't want to indiscriminately incarcerate Yellen simply for being the face of the Fed. This needs to be taken on a case-by-case basis.


I like the latter. I've never advocated a Soviet-style command economy, though that's a classic strawman of my position.

It is not a strawman argument. The underlining premise of Keynesian economics is central planning. Central planners are fundamentally apposed to individual freedom. Keynesian economic thought is only a few steps from Soviet style authority.

No, that *is* a strawman argument and demonstrates you don't understand Keynes. Mind you, I deviate from Keynes quite a lot, but I don't whitewash his work. Keynes wanted to steer the boat because markets, if let to their own devices, will implode--much like they did in 07-09. That's why I want to break the banks up to *facilitate* the market and allow bad practices to fail.


Please do the same. Keep paranoid fantasies about personal and economic freedom out of analysis.

I am doing the same. You're the one bashing government and any sort of intervention as "central plan" akin to the USSR, and last we spoke you linked to the Mises Institute, which wants de-facto anarchy. I'm fairly representing your position. If not, tell me what government you actually want.

We are fundamentally opposed from our foundations.

Very true: I believe in reality and nuance, while you believe in ideological fantasies.

Considering economic freedom and personal liberty as "ideological fantasies" brings tears to many people eyes.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 8:46:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 8:32:24 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Let's just talk about this idea. Since Goldman-Sachs is "too big to fail" and you support breaking that bank up. Why not the bank bigger than Goldman-Sachs, the Federal Reserve, be broken up? The Fed is Goldman-Sachs' bank.

First, is that even a serious question? You know as well as I do -- at least I hope you do --that the Fed carries no systemic risk whatsoever. The risks it takes by, say, buying MBS's and even the losses it may incur mean absolutely nothing because it's able to print money.

Second, the Fed is relatively decentralized, with 12 regional banks and the Board in D.C.

Third, it completely ignores WHY we want to break up Goldman or any bank. The Fed isn't making risky financial deals that threaten the entire global economy, or selling CDO's backed by MBS's even though, in its own internal communications, it believes those securities are "crap." The moral hazard exists with Goldman, but not the Fed.

Considering economic freedom and personal liberty as "ideological fantasies" brings tears to many people eyes.

You keep ignoring giant blocks of test. I took the time to respond to you. At least read and consider what I'm saying.

No, I'm not. That's another strawman. Absolutist, almost religious fervor over these principles at the expense of nuance is an ideological fantasy.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:31:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 8:46:06 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 8:32:24 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Let's just talk about this idea. Since Goldman-Sachs is "too big to fail" and you support breaking that bank up. Why not the bank bigger than Goldman-Sachs, the Federal Reserve, be broken up? The Fed is Goldman-Sachs' bank.

First, is that even a serious question? You know as well as I do -- at least I hope you do --that the Fed carries no systemic risk whatsoever. The risks it takes by, say, buying MBS's and even the losses it may incur mean absolutely nothing because it's able to print money.

Yes, serious. The Fed is systemic risk. A hugely negative balance sheet, how many billions? The fed is able to have a negative balance sheet based on two key ideas, US dollar being the world reserve currency and Americans fear of tax evasion. If either change then the fed is in trouble.


Second, the Fed is relatively decentralized, with 12 regional banks and the Board in D.C.

Then each Fed bank should be completely independent with no coordinated policy. Each fed bank issuing their own currency and all being legal. Citizens and banks could select the reserve bank with agreeable policies. Breaking up the fed would eliminate a single point of failure in the American system. Today, currencies can be easily converted, this is not the 19th century.

Multiple legal currencies would allow some people to trade inflationary currencies and others to choose deflationary, some with low interest rates or currencies with high interest rates. Decentralization reduces risk and increases personal freedom. There will be people that select a currency, bank, or financial tool that fails. Failure is how systems cleanse the bad ideas.


Third, it completely ignores WHY we want to break up Goldman or any bank. The Fed isn't making risky financial deals that threaten the entire global economy, or selling CDO's backed by MBS's even though, in its own internal communications, it believes those securities are "crap." The moral hazard exists with Goldman, but not the Fed.

A private bank should be able to be in markets of crappy CDO, CDS, or any other product that there is demand for. Banks should be allowed to fail.


Considering economic freedom and personal liberty as "ideological fantasies" brings tears to many people eyes.

You keep ignoring giant blocks of test. I took the time to respond to you. At least read and consider what I'm saying.

I did consider it. Well written mainstream statist views, not questioning the current system's side effects. Only wanting to discuss nuance between positions in a current problematic system not foundational issues.

No, I'm not. That's another strawman. Absolutist, almost religious fervor over these principles at the expense of nuance is an ideological fantasy.

Not a strawman, protecting every person's liberty should be the first role and only role government. Governments should have zero role in economic direction of any country.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 9:45:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:31:50 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Yes, serious. The Fed is systemic risk. A hugely negative balance sheet, how many billions? The fed is able to have a negative balance sheet based on two key ideas, US dollar being the world reserve currency and Americans fear of tax evasion. If either change then the fed is in trouble.

Neither have anything at all to do with the Fed balance sheet, and are utterly non-topical because a "negative balance sheet" is impossible and the dollar has been constantly appreciating. This is nothing more than bogus paranoia. Show me evidence that there's some plausible risk to the Fed's balance sheet.


Second, the Fed is relatively decentralized, with 12 regional banks and the Board in D.C.

Then each Fed bank should be completely independent with no coordinated policy. Each fed bank issuing their own currency and all being legal. Citizens and banks could select the reserve bank with agreeable policies. Breaking up the fed would eliminate a single point of failure in the American system. Today, currencies can be easily converted, this is not the 19th century.

This is all sophistry. The system would literally implode, and to absolutely no avail. You're not actually solving for any actual harms. You oppose the Fed in principle, but can't cite anywhere in practice where your harms have materialized.

Multiple legal currencies would allow some people to trade inflationary currencies and others to choose deflationary, some with low interest rates or currencies with high interest rates. Decentralization reduces risk and increases personal freedom. There will be people that select a currency, bank, or financial tool that fails. Failure is how systems cleanse the bad ideas.

People can do that now. They can hold their wealth in euros or yens or francs, or whatever. No one is stopping them, but this would complete preclude any kind of expansionary policy. Can you not see these clear and present harms?


Third, it completely ignores WHY we want to break up Goldman or any bank. The Fed isn't making risky financial deals that threaten the entire global economy, or selling CDO's backed by MBS's even though, in its own internal communications, it believes those securities are "crap." The moral hazard exists with Goldman, but not the Fed.

A private bank should be able to be in markets of crappy CDO, CDS, or any other product that there is demand for. Banks should be allowed to fail.

You dodged the entire point on moral hazard, which is the crux of my argument.


Considering economic freedom and personal liberty as "ideological fantasies" brings tears to many people eyes.

You keep ignoring giant blocks of test. I took the time to respond to you. At least read and consider what I'm saying.

I did consider it. Well written mainstream statist views, not questioning the current system's side effects. Only wanting to discuss nuance between positions in a current problematic system not foundational issues.

Why do I think I'm not questioning the side effects of the system? I do that constantly, which is why I said I'm for streamlining and reducing regulation, which is what I think Glassed Steagall lets us do. I'm also not for expansionary monetary policy ad infinitum, but think that low rates are a consequence of overly tight money, and thus the Fed ought to react aggressively to crises.

No, I'm not. That's another strawman. Absolutist, almost religious fervor over these principles at the expense of nuance is an ideological fantasy.

Not a strawman, protecting every person's liberty should be the first role and only role government. Governments should have zero role in economic direction of any country.

The first I agree with, though it's nevertheless absolutist sophistry. The latter is absolutist hogwash with no historical precedent at all--or at least working precedent.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 10:16:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 9:45:40 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 9:31:50 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Yes, serious. The Fed is systemic risk. A hugely negative balance sheet, how many billions? The fed is able to have a negative balance sheet based on two key ideas, US dollar being the world reserve currency and Americans fear of tax evasion. If either change then the fed is in trouble.

Neither have anything at all to do with the Fed balance sheet, and are utterly non-topical because a "negative balance sheet" is impossible and the dollar has been constantly appreciating. This is nothing more than bogus paranoia. Show me evidence that there's some plausible risk to the Fed's balance sheet.

The US dollar is strong because of being the world reserve currency and has backing by Americans fear of tax evasion.


Second, the Fed is relatively decentralized, with 12 regional banks and the Board in D.C.

Then each Fed bank should be completely independent with no coordinated policy. Each fed bank issuing their own currency and all being legal. Citizens and banks could select the reserve bank with agreeable policies. Breaking up the fed would eliminate a single point of failure in the American system. Today, currencies can be easily converted, this is not the 19th century.

This is all sophistry. The system would literally implode, and to absolutely no avail. You're not actually solving for any actual harms. You oppose the Fed in principle, but can't cite anywhere in practice where your harms have materialized.

You like the word sophistry. The system would not impose it would strengthen. An example of failure is the financial crisis of 2008, caused by the Fed.

I oppose any central planning, let people plan for themselves.



Multiple legal currencies would allow some people to trade inflationary currencies and others to choose deflationary, some with low interest rates or currencies with high interest rates. Decentralization reduces risk and increases personal freedom. There will be people that select a currency, bank, or financial tool that fails. Failure is how systems cleanse the bad ideas.

People can do that now. They can hold their wealth in euros or yens or francs, or whatever. No one is stopping them, but this would complete preclude any kind of expansionary policy. Can you not see these clear and present harms?

People can not use Euros to pay taxes in America. Avoiding expansionary policy is the goal. By using multiple currencies, you and others that want an expansionary monetary policy can use that currency. Other and myself can select a currency that is deflationary. My guess is most people would use the currency that is worth more everyday, and that is the real threat to the system.



Third, it completely ignores WHY we want to break up Goldman or any bank. The Fed isn't making risky financial deals that threaten the entire global economy, or selling CDO's backed by MBS's even though, in its own internal communications, it believes those securities are "crap." The moral hazard exists with Goldman, but not the Fed.

A private bank should be able to be in markets of crappy CDO, CDS, or any other product that there is demand for. Banks should be allowed to fail.

You dodged the entire point on moral hazard, which is the crux of my argument.

I answered it. Punish failure not prop it up. The Fed creates moral hazard.


Considering economic freedom and personal liberty as "ideological fantasies" brings tears to many people eyes.

You keep ignoring giant blocks of test. I took the time to respond to you. At least read and consider what I'm saying.

I did consider it. Well written mainstream statist views, not questioning the current system's side effects. Only wanting to discuss nuance between positions in a current problematic system not foundational issues.

Why do I think I'm not questioning the side effects of the system? I do that constantly, which is why I said I'm for streamlining and reducing regulation, which is what I think Glassed Steagall lets us do. I'm also not for expansionary monetary policy ad infinitum, but think that low rates are a consequence of overly tight money, and thus the Fed ought to react aggressively to crises.


No, I'm not. That's another strawman. Absolutist, almost religious fervor over these principles at the expense of nuance is an ideological fantasy.

Not a strawman, protecting every person's liberty should be the first role and only role government. Governments should have zero role in economic direction of any country.

The first I agree with, though it's nevertheless absolutist sophistry. The latter is absolutist hogwash with no historical precedent at all--or at least working precedent.

How can a government set an economic direction without violating someone's liberty?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 10:28:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 10:16:12 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The US dollar is strong because of being the world reserve currency and has backing by Americans fear of tax evasion.

Not even close, because if that were the case, it would never fall--also not true. It's strong because the U.S. economy is performing well relative to the rest of the world and investors trust the currency. Even *amid* the crisis, people flocked to dollars. It's a safe-haven asset. You need to actually look at the moving part in the equation.

I have no idea what your point on tax evasion is, but I'm sure it's utterly irrelevant--especially because America's most affluent love to evade taxes. Are you familiar with the Caymans?

You like the word sophistry.

If the shoe fits.

The system would not impose it would strengthen. An example of failure is the financial crisis of 2008, caused by the Fed.

Another bogus assertion. The crisis was only caused by the Fed insofar as it kept money far too lose in late 2008, allowing the dollar to appreciate, not responding to rapidly falling NGDP growth, allowing the real 5-year Treasury rate to rise from .5 percent to over 4 percent, etc. But, no, "loose" money is not responsible for the crisis--deregulation was.

I oppose any central planning, let people plan for themselves.

More absolutist thinking.

People can not use Euros to pay taxes in America.

No, but they can (a) move to Europe if they're so scared of the dollar, which is stunning because the dollar is, again, a safe-haven asset and the euro is plummeting or (b) hold their wealth in euros and convert it to dollars. But this is all silly and obfuscates the broader point that there's zero evidence for your worldview.

Avoiding expansionary policy is the goal.

What goal? How to destroy a civilization? How to create as much misery and unemployment as possible? That's a pretty crappy goal.

By using multiple currencies, you and others that want an expansionary monetary policy can use that currency.

If people hold other currencies, what's the point? The Fed almost becomes a non-entity.

Other and myself can select a currency that is deflationary. My guess is most people would use the currency that is worth more everyday, and that is the real threat to the system.

I'm not sure if you even understand how utterly crazy that is or what the ramifications are. Had the Fed not done anything in 2008, as you would like, do you realize where we'd be right now? What's your plan to solve for mass unemployment?

I answered it. Punish failure not prop it up. The Fed creates moral hazard.

Not even close--the Fed ensures that moral hazard doesn't induce a Depression. It's almost as though we live in an alternate universe, mine of facts, yours of Austrian folklores.

How can a government set an economic direction without violating someone's liberty?

First, there's a difference between positive liberty and negative freedom. I care about both, you only about the latter.

Second, sure, it'll probably restrict some people's liberty. So? We're creating an infinitely better society to the benefit of everyone, even, heck, the banks we want to regulate.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 7:36:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 10:28:40 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 3/12/2015 10:16:12 PM, Chang29 wrote:
The US dollar is strong because of being the world reserve currency and has backing by Americans fear of tax evasion.

Not even close, because if that were the case, it would never fall--also not true. It's strong because the U.S. economy is performing well relative to the rest of the world and investors trust the currency. Even *amid* the crisis, people flocked to dollars. It's a safe-haven asset. You need to actually look at the moving part in the equation.

The dollar is on top of a pile of crap, but still the top. The others are racing to the bottom, or pegged to the dollar.

My friends that are paid in Euros are not very happy now.


I have no idea what your point on tax evasion is, but I'm sure it's utterly irrelevant--especially because America's most affluent love to evade taxes. Are you familiar with the Caymans?

A major reason of the strength of the dollar comes from America's ability to tax collect tax revenues. If average tax payers refused to pay, the dollar will decline in value.


You like the word sophistry.

If the shoe fits.

My arguments are solid, not based on a Keynesian circle flow fallacy.


The system would not impose it would strengthen. An example of failure is the financial crisis of 2008, caused by the Fed.

Another bogus assertion. The crisis was only caused by the Fed insofar as it kept money far too lose in late 2008, allowing the dollar to appreciate, not responding to rapidly falling NGDP growth, allowing the real 5-year Treasury rate to rise from .5 percent to over 4 percent, etc. But, no, "loose" money is not responsible for the crisis--deregulation was.

As the myth goes, if only Glass-Steagall had not been repealed, what a load of bull excrement! Re-regulation was a contributing factor of the 2008 crash, but not the cause. Any objective person, can clearly see that the Fed policies were responsibility for the crash. The crash is what turned to learn Austrian economics. The others theories had no plausible sources for he crash.

Dodd-Frank did not significantly change the regulations, derivatives and credit default swaps are still legal, risky loans are still being made, wall street is still greedy, FDIC still backing moral hazard, and regulators not responsible. There has been little change.


I oppose any central planning, let people plan for themselves.

More absolutist thinking.

Focusing on individual liberty can never be a negative.


People can not use Euros to pay taxes in America.

No, but they can (a) move to Europe if they're so scared of the dollar, which is stunning because the dollar is, again, a safe-haven asset and the euro is plummeting or (b) hold their wealth in euros and convert it to dollars. But this is all silly and obfuscates the broader point that there's zero evidence for your worldview.

You have not noticed my location on this profile. Already expatriated, I still have family and assets in America, plus have you seen the fees to turn in your passport? I would like to move back some day.

Multiple legal currencies in one country is a great solution to all financial issues in America. In Laos, the Kip is not used in any border areas. People only want USA dollars or Thai Baht. This abandonment of the Kip has force Laos to change monetary policy. Let each individual decide their level of risk, not a handful of central planners deciding risk of the nation's currency.


Avoiding expansionary policy is the goal.

What goal? How to destroy a civilization? How to create as much misery and unemployment as possible? That's a pretty crappy goal.

One monetary policy is a single point of failure. If it is so bad then let some people feel the pain. With two or more American currencies and people able to select the type of currency best for their own needs. If expansionary policy is superior then people will gravitate to it, and other currencies will only be for those that do not desire to participate. Freedom is something that Keynesian are scared of.


By using multiple currencies, you and others that want an expansionary monetary policy can use that currency.

If people hold other currencies, what's the point? The Fed almost becomes a non-entity.

That is the idea, make the Fed a non-player in the system.


Other and myself can select a currency that is deflationary. My guess is most people would use the currency that is worth more everyday, and that is the real threat to the system.

I'm not sure if you even understand how utterly crazy that is or what the ramifications are. Had the Fed not done anything in 2008, as you would like, do you realize where we'd be right now? What's your plan to solve for mass unemployment?

If there is another crash soon, what should the Fed do? Another bailout and pay banks to borrow money.

If America had let the system clear the poorly operated banks and correct the mal-investments from the dot com bubble, America would have been better off. Poorly run businesses must be allowed to fail.

I answered it. Punish failure not prop it up. The Fed creates moral hazard.

Not even close--the Fed ensures that moral hazard doesn't induce a Depression. It's almost as though we live in an alternate universe, mine of facts, yours of Austrian folklores.

The Fed is the moral hazard.



How can a government set an economic direction without violating someone's liberty?

First, there's a difference between positive liberty and negative freedom. I care about both, you only about the latter.

Positive liberties are fictional! If a liberty burdens anther person it is not a liberty. Negative liberties are the only liberties, with the only role of government being protection of individual's negative liberties. Keynesian economic theory is not compatible with negative liberties. Keynesians can not just leave harmless people alone.


Second, sure, it'll probably restrict some people's liberty. So? We're creating an infinitely better society to the benefit of everyone, even, heck, the banks we want to regulate.

Now utilitarian arguments, no government should select the loser to make a society better. The losers do not think the society is better.

If anyone is asking for regulation, that is a brier rabbit issue. Regulation gives banks regulators to hind behind. When the next crash happens bankers can again blame it on regulators, and no regulator will be held accountable. Then the regulators can demand more power. A circle of failure operating as designed.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 9:27:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 7:36:24 AM, Chang29 wrote:
The dollar is on top of a pile of crap, but still the top. The others are racing to the bottom, or pegged to the dollar.

My friends that are paid in Euros are not very happy now.

Pick any currency you want, and hold your wealth in that currency--heck, hold it in gold. Then let's compare 5 years down the road. What do you say?

A major reason of the strength of the dollar comes from America's ability to tax collect tax revenues. If average tax payers refused to pay, the dollar will decline in value.

No, that presupposes that, if not for taxes, they'd hold their wealth in other assets. With a strong dollar as we currently have, and usually have, that's a terrible idea.

I'm not sure if you even understand the dangers of a strong dollar. It erodes erodes, pushes down on import prices, and reduces inflation, which is deleterious at the zero lower bound because it raises real interest rates. Further, it's going to continue to appreciate this year as the rest of the world declines and the Fed raises interest rates.

My arguments are solid, not based on a Keynesian circle flow fallacy.

No, they're utter BS. My arguments are actually rooted in fact--you'll note, also, that I never cited the circular flow. You'll learn even in "Keynesian" classes that it's overly simplistic because of the parallel economy, people holding cash, funds going overseas, etc. The *Austrians* are responsible for oversimplifying economics via their unwavering, religious fervor over the perfection of markets.

As the myth goes, if only Glass-Steagall had not been repealed, what a load of bull excrement!

Such a strawman. I never said this. I took care in my last thread to prevent myself from saying precisely this. You need to pay attention.

I said the financial excesses would not have been *as* severe.

Re-regulation was a contributing factor of the 2008 crash, but not the cause.

What world are you living in? We *deregulated* in the 80s, late 90s, and early 2000s. You said the Fed *missed* the crisis, which is to say its regulators didn't see the bubble in time to lean on it. Make up your mind. Now you're just spewing hogwash.

Any objective person, can clearly see that the Fed policies were responsibility for the crash.

No, and more knowledgable people than you have tried, and failed. This is nonsense.

Seriously, you haven't even read into this if you think "reregulation" was the case. That's not illogical, but historically illiterate.

The crash is what turned to learn Austrian economics. The others theories had no plausible sources for he crash.

That is so unbelievably stupid. Keynes even wrote about this. Minsky wrote about this. Have you never heard of the financial stability hypothesis or a "Minsky moment?" Keynes's "steer the boat" analogy from Shakespeare's Tempest was precisely on this, and all of his popular writings focused on recessions resulting from AD shortfalls.

The explanations are there; you're just ignorant of them.

Dodd-Frank did not significantly change the regulations, derivatives and credit default swaps are still legal, risky loans are still being made, wall street is still greedy, FDIC still backing moral hazard, and regulators not responsible. There has been little change.

I agree. That's the fundamental *point.* Thank you, let's have *more effective* regs, like Glassed-Steaggall.

Focusing on individual liberty can never be a negative.

It is if it's at the expense of logic.

You have not noticed my location on this profile. Already expatriated, I still have family and assets in America, plus have you seen the fees to turn in your passport? I would like to move back some day.

You're right. I didn't look because I haven't the slightest reason to care.

But tell me--why do you want to move back if you think the dollar's collapsing?

Multiple legal currencies in one country is a great solution to all financial issues in America. In Laos, the Kip is not used in any border areas. People only want USA dollars or Thai Baht. This abandonment of the Kip has force Laos to change monetary policy. Let each individual decide their level of risk, not a handful of central planners deciding risk of the nation's currency.

The issue is so much more complex than this, and the notion that "currency competition" which will perpetually apply *downward* pressure on the dollar's exchange value in some way safeguards a "collapsing dollar* is ridiculous.

One monetary policy is a single point of failure.

No, it's the single thing since the recession that prevented another depression.

If it is so bad then let some people feel the pain.

From the recession? Do I even need to define "moral hazard" for you?

With two or more American currencies and people able to select the type of currency best for their own needs

And perpetually devalue them. Even if you think that investment decisions are predicated on a stable dollar, which may be the case in the longer run, this is ludicrous, because the exchange rate will be constantly fluctuating.

. If expansionary policy is superior then people will gravitate to it, and other currencies will only be for those that do not desire to participate. Freedom is something that Keynesian are scared of.

Another strawman, especially because your conception of "freedom" is dangerous and unrealistic.

That is the idea, make the Fed a non-player in the system.

And, again, that's highly dangerous. Do you tie the value of the dollar to gold? You'd have even *more* volatility--23 times, to be exact. There's been research on this. Look it up.

If there is another crash soon, what should the Fed do? Another bailout and pay banks to borrow money.

First, there won't be. That's what the stress tests are for.

Second, it depends. It's lifting rates now so it has the ability to cut them further should disaster come It's not "paying banks" to borrow money. That's a misnomer and a complete fabrication of what expansionary policy actually means. It provides liquidity to hold own interest rates and induce borrowing by investors and households. I shouldn't need to explain these very basic things to you.

If America had let the system clear the poorly operated banks and correct the mal-investments from the dot com bubble, America would have been better off. Poorly run businesses must be allowed to fail.

Such BS, and I explained to why in the other thread--the system cannot "clear" at zero nominal interest rates. Real rates will rise, demand will fall again, inflation will fall, real rates will rise, ad infinitum.

On the "allowing them to fail" thing, I already answered that. You need to pay attention. It's called moral hazard.

The Fed is the moral hazard.

So totally wrong it's embarrassing.

Positive liberties are fictional! If a liberty burdens anther person it is not a liberty.

This is that absolutist thinking I was referring to earlier: if it doesn't fit with your ideology, you drop it entirely. Tell me how you can enjoy freedom of speech if you don't have adequate nutrition, or water, or a home. They need to coexist.

Negative liberties are the only liberties, with the only role of government being protection of individual's negative liberties.

See above.

Keynesian economic theory is not compatible with negative liberties. Keynesians can not just leave harmless people alone.

That's only if you fundamentally misunderstand and strawman it.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 9:32:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Now utilitarian arguments, no government should select the loser to make a society better. The losers do not think the society is better.

I don't want it to--hence my calls for breaking up the banks so this *isn't* the case. Again, pay attention.

If anyone is asking for regulation, that is a brier rabbit issue. Regulation gives banks regulators to hind behind.

What in the world are you talking about? They hate these stress tests. This went from ignorant to downright illogical.

When the next crash happens bankers can again blame it on regulators, and no regulator will be held accountable.

This is stupid. The regulation is to prevent the crash from ever happening. They can't "blame the regulator," though I agree the regulator should be held accountable. You're missing the entire point or regulation, and your no-nuance approach doesn't allow you to see more than 3 feet in front of you. Let me break this down for you slowly.

P1) Financial excesses caused the crash
P2) Regulation prevents financial excesses
C1) Regulation prevents the crash

Understand now? Let me know, and I cant try something else if needed.

Then the regulators can demand more power. A circle of failure operating as designed.

This is so utterly cynical and devoid of fact that you've practically become impossible to reason with.

I wan you to read over and think out my arguments carefully. I want you to respond to what I'm saying, not to what you wanted me to say, and to stay on-topic--not on the topic you want to discuss and to revert this discussion back to, which is Austrian fantasies. I want you to either address the giant blocks of text you're skipping, or to stop responding, because this is pitiful.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 5:35:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 9:32:44 AM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
Now utilitarian arguments, no government should select the loser to make a society better. The losers do not think the society is better.

I don't want it to--hence my calls for breaking up the banks so this *isn't* the case. Again, pay attention.

And, many others to end the Fed, you are one ignorant SOB thinking that breaking lower level banks will solve these issues. Correct the problem at the top, despicable..

If anyone is asking for regulation, that is a brier rabbit issue. Regulation gives banks regulators to hind behind.

What in the world are you talking about? They hate these stress tests. This went from ignorant to downright illogical.

Again, just a plain non-understanding of how blame works. When a person can state that I followed all the rules, that person are no longer at fault. Thus, banks ask to be regulated, so that future collapses can be blamed on regulation and full reimbursement for loses can occur. You lack any understanding of human psychology, pathetic.

When the next crash happens bankers can again blame it on regulators, and no regulator will be held accountable.

This is stupid. The regulation is to prevent the crash from ever happening. They can't "blame the regulator," though I agree the regulator should be held accountable.

You do not want regulation held accountable. You countered statement about locking regulators up for failure.

You're missing the entire point or regulation, and your no-nuance approach doesn't allow you to see more than 3 feet in front of you. Let me break this down for you slowly.

P1) Financial excesses caused the crash
Faulty premise
P2) Regulation prevents financial excesses
Completely wrong
C1) Regulation prevents the crash
Simply untrue, did you even take a logic class?


Understand now? Let me know, and I cant try something else if needed.

I understand you are one piece of work, incapable of questioning anything that is regurgitated in front of you.

Then the regulators can demand more power. A circle of failure operating as designed.

This is so utterly cynical and devoid of fact that you've practically become impossible to reason with.

Hence, the truth about regulators, never enough regulation, and the regulation causes more failure.


I wan you to read over and think out my arguments carefully. I want you to respond to what I'm saying, not to what you wanted me to say, and to stay on-topic--not on the topic you want to discuss and to revert this discussion back to, which is Austrian fantasies. I want you to either address the giant blocks of text you're skipping, or to stop responding, because this is pitiful.

Responding to the pure uncleaned tripe is not necessary, especially when the tripe is only red herrings.

I don't think we have many ideas to exchange. Your religious devotion to the Fed gods is just plain embarrassing to even read. Is the shrine to Bernanke still on your wall or is it now Yellen?

I usually refrain from ad hominem attacks, but not this morning. You demonstrate an insecurity about your believes by denigrating opposition.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.