Is the American Dream Dead?

#351
#351
utgibbs said:
Question:

If we gave the banks near zero interest loans, and they loan it back to us at 3 - 4%, thus securing almost three months of zero loss days ---

What is Capitalism?
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what you're talking about - ever?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#353
#353
utgibbs said:
They don't publish the M3, BPV (probably because they are printing too much money!!!!!).

You brought up this red herring. Not me. However, I don't mind slapping you with your own dead fish.
Click to expand...

they do publish m1 and m2 and institutional money flows. this isn't brain surgery to figure out m3.
 
#354
#354
utgibbs said:
They don't publish the M3, BPV (probably because they are printing too much money!!!!!).

You brought up this red herring. Not me. However, I don't mind slapping you with your own dead fish.
Click to expand...

This has to be the lamest answer humanly possible. If you knew anything at all, you'd shotgun blast us with because it's your way. You don't, so it's just pure ignorance. Awe inspiring.

Fulmer should have done this with all the Spurrier ass kickings.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#356
#356
utgibbs said:
Question:

If we gave the banks near zero interest loans, and they loan it back to us at 3 - 4%, thus securing almost three months of zero loss days ---

What is Capitalism?
Click to expand...

wait banks borrow low and loan at higher rates. my god!
 
#358
#358
Mulligans. Understood. :hi: In case you want to ring in with something other than lunacy, I'll help you further:

Did the banks use the money to buy Treasuries (not loan money)?

Were the tax laws amended to specifically reward bank mergers?

Tell me what the PPIP did exactly?

TARP was bait-and-switch, pure and simple. As I've been saying since this thread began.
 
#359
#359
droski said:
wait banks borrow low and loan at higher rates. my god!
Click to expand...

And you get the rope to hang yourself:

Because the US government is lending money to the big banks at near-zero interest rates. And the banks are then turning around and lending that money back to the US government at 3%-4% interest rates, making 3%+ on the spread. What's more, the banks are leveraging this trade, borrowing at least $10 for every $1 of equity capital they have, to increase the size of their bets. Which means the banks can turn relatively small amounts of equity into huge profits--by borrowing from the taxpayer and then lending back to the taxpayer.
The government's zero-interest-rate policy, in other words, is the biggest Wall Street subsidy yet. So far, it has done little to increase the supply of credit in the real economy. But it has hosed responsible people who lived within their means and are now earning next-to-nothing on their savings. It has also allowed the big Wall Street banks to print money to offset all the dumb bets that brought the financial system to the brink of collapse two years ago.
Click to expand...

Game, Set, and Match.

Actually, that's almost as good an account on how US Capitalism (sic) really works as I've ever read.
 
Last edited:
#360
#360
utgibbs said:
Mulligans. Understood. :hi: In case you want to ring in with something other than lunacy, I'll help you further:

Did the banks use the money to buy Treasuries (not loan money)?

Were the tax laws amended to specifically reward bank mergers?

Tell me what the PPIP did exactly?

TARP was bait-and-switch, pure and simple. As I've been saying since this thread began.
Click to expand...

Answer 1: See, banks work on this little idea called net interest margin. They invest typically borrowed capital in loans and securities and like to make more interest than the cost of their capital. One of the problems with this idiotic idea you've put forth is that banks only buy treasuries when the FED forces those purchases because the returns are typically substantially net negative. So, no, the banks weren't taking on TARP funds, at their stiff costs, and buying treasuries so they could lose more money. Banks borrowed the money because they were forced, by the FED or OTS to do so. They then bought for their securities portfolio the best returning instruments that the same FED or OTS would allow them to buy without taking an immediate write down to their capital.

2: What the hell difference does that make? Clearly the FED would like to see fewer banks, but what does that have to do with the lunacy you've been pushing in this thread?

3: PPIP is the law of unintended consequences, but is inevitable when you have the government stepping into the open market to purchase securities. It's a free money joygasm every time they do. They actually told the world that they were going to make enough money available to make weak looking mortgage portfolios attractive to purchase. The thought was that mortgage lending would improve and we'd have a big diversified pool of people putting money into these risk reduced pools. All it did is drive a lot of smart money into the market and they'll make a truckload of money off of more governmental stupidity.

4: TARP was conceptually fine, but executed by government boneheads, who were the same idiots throwing darts at a board to determine that too many lenders were undercapitalized. Market correction generated much of the problem and the Fed quadrupled down on it by cramming capital ratios down everyone's throats.

Did you have a point or were you just trying to get around the absurd money supply / TARP link you were pushing?
 
#361
#361
utgibbs said:
And you get the rope to hang yourself:



Game, Set, and Match.

Actually, that's almost as good an account on how US Capitalism (sic) really works as I've ever read.
Click to expand...

The paragraph you posted is garbage. If it were the case, everyone would be in that perfect arbitrage business, but they aren't. Of course you bought, because you don't know your arse from your ear, but the gloating silliness just adds to the entertainment value, so it's OK.
 
#362
#362
BigPapaVol said:
The paragraph you posted is garbage. If it were the case, everyone would be in that perfect arbitrage business, but they aren't. Of course you bought, because you don't know your arse from your ear, but the gloating silliness just adds to the entertainment value, so it's OK.
Click to expand...

Wait you mean there isn't some magical margin fairy loaning the banks free money so they can leverage treasuries 10 to 1?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#363
#363
utgibbs said:
I'll gladly give you the mulligan, boys. You were painted into a corner again. Throwing out the M3 which we haven't published in a decade or more was almost as brilliant as the thinking on the cancer rates. Repo loans? HAW HAW HAW.
Click to expand...

What do you have on your resume that makes you think you can go toe to toe in financial dealings with Droski?

I'm just asking.

And please don't name some book you've read.

I'm asking about a degree like a MBA or CPA or a certification like a CFA or CFP.
 
#365
#365
NEOCON said:
What do you have on your resume that makes you think you can go toe to toe in financial dealings with Droski?

I'm just asking.

And please don't name some book you've read.

I'm asking about a degree like a MBA or CPA or a certification like a CFA or CFP.
Click to expand...

I think this thread is loaded with MBA's, CPA's, CFA's and CFP's and they're all here for the entertainment value of laughing at gibbs' posts.
 
#366
#366
I only made it through about 11 pages of this, but all doom/gloomers should check out George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. Friedman is a well respected Geo-Political Scientist that has worked in academia, gov't advisory roles and started STRATFOR. In a nutshell, he sees the 21 century as America's century with things getting better every decade. The first 50 yrs. will really help reassure you about the direction we're taking regardless of how you feel this country is currently doing. Admittedly the second half sounds a little sci-fi but in his defense he is making predictions 70-100 years in the future. If you seriously try to check it out, look for a 2nd or 3rd edition as he updates the foreward to include the recent economic developments. Interesting and quick read.
 
#367
#367
CSVol said:
I only made it through about 11 pages of this, but all doom/gloomers should check out George Friedman's The Next 100 Years. Friedman is a well respected Geo-Political Scientist that has worked in academia, gov't advisory roles and started STRATFOR. In a nutshell, he sees the 21 century as America's century with things getting better every decade. The first 50 yrs. will really help reassure you about the direction we're taking regardless of how you feel this country is currently doing. Admittedly the second half sounds a little sci-fi but in his defense he is making predictions 70-100 years in the future. If you seriously try to check it out, look for a 2nd or 3rd edition as he updates the foreward to include the recent economic developments. Interesting and quick read.
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting - STRATFOR is an interesting group.
 
#368
#368
One part I found particulary interesting is his anology of Presidential descions and a chess game. He explains that each president basically comes into the middle of a chess game when he takes office. His moves are predicated/limited by all the moves of his predecessor(s). This inhibits/influences certain actions regardless of party affliations.
 
#369
#369
volinbham said:
His gorilla is also his accountant?
Click to expand...

How much does the gorilla weigh??









obamathesocialistnetwor.jpg
 
#370
#370
BigPapaVol said:
Answer 1: See, banks work on this little idea called net interest margin. They invest typically borrowed capital in loans and securities and like to make more interest than the cost of their capital. One of the problems with this idiotic idea you've put forth is that banks only buy treasuries when the FED forces those purchases because the returns are typically substantially net negative. So, no, the banks weren't taking on TARP funds, at their stiff costs, and buying treasuries so they could lose more money. Banks borrowed the money because they were forced, by the FED or OTS to do so. They then bought for their securities portfolio the best returning instruments that the same FED or OTS would allow them to buy without taking an immediate write down to their capital.

2: What the hell difference does that make? Clearly the FED would like to see fewer banks, but what does that have to do with the lunacy you've been pushing in this thread?

3: PPIP is the law of unintended consequences, but is inevitable when you have the government stepping into the open market to purchase securities. It's a free money joygasm every time they do. They actually told the world that they were going to make enough money available to make weak looking mortgage portfolios attractive to purchase. The thought was that mortgage lending would improve and we'd have a big diversified pool of people putting money into these risk reduced pools. All it did is drive a lot of smart money into the market and they'll make a truckload of money off of more governmental stupidity.

4: TARP was conceptually fine, but executed by government boneheads, who were the same idiots throwing darts at a board to determine that too many lenders were undercapitalized. Market correction generated much of the problem and the Fed quadrupled down on it by cramming capital ratios down everyone's throats.

Did you have a point or were you just trying to get around the absurd money supply / TARP link you were pushing?
Click to expand...

Answer 1: :eek:lol: Patently ridiculous. In other words, the government can finance wealth indefinitely. In other words, you have just given a complete and comprehensive vindication of Keynes. :eek:lol:

Answer 2: It makes a lot of difference; especially when capitalism requires decentralization in the first instance, and in the second instance when you are trying to save the banking system and need to find stuff for the left hand column in the ledger books. It helps to suddenly put stuff on the Credit side of the accounts for a few big boys.

Answer 3: Totally incorrect. Nice try. The PPIP basically converted "worthlessness" into "assets." The securitization phenomenon made these "toxic" papers look valuable, but it was all fantasy. PPIP has helped continue the fantasy a little longer.

Answer 4: By you and droski's own arguments, TARP has been WILDLY, WILDLY, WILDLY successful. But, we've already seen the wild internal contradictions in this post alone.

Answer 5: My point was TARP was peanuts. It was. My point was most of the banks haven't paid back TARP. They haven't. TARP is in the red. It is. They cooked up several schemes to subsidize the banks to the tune of a few trillion which hasn't come back. That's true.

At least you had the guts not to take the mulligan again. Was unwise, but I'm proud of you nonetheless. :hi:
 
#371
#371
NEOCON said:
What do you have on your resume that makes you think you can go toe to toe in financial dealings with Droski?

I'm just asking.

And please don't name some book you've read.

I'm asking about a degree like a MBA or CPA or a certification like a CFA or CFP.
Click to expand...

Why do I need one? When BPV (bravely, but unwisely) chose not to take his mulligan, he has been proven to have wild internal contradictions in the first instance, and to be locked into an "accounting" ideology.

Simply understanding the ideology of the accountant (and the supremacy of capital in their thinking) is more than enough to show these internal contradictions.

If you can dream up ways (like the tax laws, like the PPIP, like the 0% interest converting into 5% interest loans) of suddenly moving something from the debit to the credit side of the ledger, everything balances forever. That's what droski and BPV are trying to argue. Of course, that's not how the real world outside the backdoor works at all. If it were, there would be no Bubbles, no Collapses, and no Bailouts.

The accounting tricks are figuring out how to move things from the debit side to the credit side. The truly clever people understand this is simply illusion, as has been proven by history, time and time and time again.
 
#372
#372
Gibbs, the next time you appear yo even remotely know anything about finance or economics, particularly as it pertains to FIG, will be the first.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#373
#373
BigPapaVol said:
Gibbs, the next time you appear yo even remotely know anything about finance or economics, particularly as it pertains to FIG, will be the first.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

And when you can tie vocabulary words to the real world outside the back door, you will be truly formidable. :hi:
 
#374
#374
utgibbs said:
Why do I need one? When BPV (bravely, but unwisely) chose not to take his mulligan, he has been proven to have wild internal contradictions in the first instance, and to be locked into an "accounting" ideology.

Simply understanding the ideology of the accountant (and the supremacy of capital in their thinking) is more than enough to show these internal contradictions.

If you can dream up ways (like the tax laws, like the PPIP, like the 0% interest converting into 5% interest loans) of suddenly moving something from the debit to the credit side of the ledger, everything balances forever. That's what droski and BPV are trying to argue. Of course, that's not how the real world outside the backdoor works at all. If it were, there would be no Bubbles, no Collapses, and no Bailouts.

The accounting tricks are figuring out how to move things from the debit side to the credit side. The truly clever people understand this is simply illusion, as has been proven by history, time and time and time again.
Click to expand...

I don't know about BPV because he has never mentioned it but Droski, who I actually named in my post, has a CFA. I'm not sure if you understand the weight that carries but it's basically a golden ticket in the financial world on the in-house side. They don't just hand those out. It's kinda like debating open heart surgery with a heart surgeon and all you have is a BS in English. You can disagree with him but they way you are coming across is just amazing.
 
#375
#375
NEOCON said:
I don't know about BPV because he has never mentioned it but Droski, who I actually named in my post, has a CFA. I'm not sure if you understand the weight that carries but it's basically a golden ticket in the financial world on the in-house side. They don't just hand those out. It's kinda like debating open heart surgery with a heart surgeon and all you have is a BS in English. You can disagree with him but they way you are coming across is just amazing.
Click to expand...

Then is demonstrates the hollowness of the ideology in the first instance. I don't doubt it takes a lot of knowledge to achieve a CFA, but it is easy to take apart vocabulary words at the root. It is easy to expose the vocabulary exercise and demonstrate what is happening in the real world.

Which is what I have done.

Droski has shouted "repo loans" and wisely (but not so bravely) taken a mulligan on the debate. We can admire BPV for foregoing his mulligan, but the result was catastrophic.

Which has been pretty normal around here. But, it is a testament to their knowledge that I have to work harder on this subject. :hi:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top