Econ 2009

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

My Comment: Presumably these are the same "pros" who didn`t seen the housing bust coming, denied that it was happening for at least a full year after it had clearly begun, then, once further-denials-of-the-obvious became untenable, claimed it would not have a major impact on the wider economy, all the while telling all the near-retirement folks they`d help steer into far-too-risky-investments-for-that-age-group that "now is not the time to sell", "bottom is near", "you don`t want to lock in your losses", "over the long haul, the stock markets beat every other kind of investment", et cetera, while those poor suckers were losing upwards of half of their retirement nest egg. Oh yeah, I`m *really* inclined to listen to the "experts" now. But let`s see what kinds of sage advice the author of the article and the "experts" he cites have to offer to our dear seniors:

The problem with experts is that if they were *always* wrong we'd be laughing.

As for 401(k) and all the other regulated investments: you have a Ponzi-bias built in because you can only go long. The Cheeseheads of the world probably believe that we need to regulate more with proper wording, so that people only choose the *really safe* investments, like real-estate, stocks, and bonds.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Prime95

Put some meat on your voucher proposal before asking for us to shoot it down

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

Cheesehead, I make a point to listen to your opinions because they are usually thoughtful and reasonable. In this case, my gut instinct is that you are totally wrong.

< snip >

Instead of telling me about vouchers, try telling me why the govt should NOT wipe out this farce and resolve the banking problems in the proven effective way?

Some of you folks, including some not quoted above, have gotten lazy recently; instead of responding to what I actually wrote, you respond to something else.

The voucher proposal was not MY proposal; it was one of

Originally Posted by cheesehead

two interesting ideas

that I had heard and passed on here.

I haven't advocated the voucher proposal. I did presume that

there would be legal terms that would restrict voucher use to legitimate loans of the sort intended, such as mortgages

, but I'd say that about any proposed legislation -- that I would assume, by default, until informed otherwise, that whatever-plan-it-is would be legislated to have appropriate restrictions and limitations, whether or not I liked the main idea. (And don't give me the lazy automatic cynical bit about how that's an unreasonable assumption about Congress. I'm trying to discuss things reasonably here, without irrelevant political digs.)

I'm trying to form opinions about various alternative economic plan proposals; so far I have NO strong opinion one way or the other on most proposed plans, and I'd appreciate thoughtful explanations of your various views on them. I'm appalled by the size and deficit implications of many of the plans, but opposing that is that I recognize, which some folks apparently don't as of yet, that we have a B-I-G problem here that is going to require B-I-G solutions of some sort. Simply condemning all proposals that don't conform to some political ideal (e.g., balanced budgets) is not going to work.

- - -

Instead of "your proposal" or "your 'vouchers'", please use phrases such as "the proposal you heard" or "the 'vouchers' plan you mentioned".

This isn't just being picky, because:

(1) when you've used a phrase directly crediting me with the voucher plan, your criticisms of the plan have tended to morph into personal attacks on me,

(2) when you restrain yourselves to factually-correct attributions, you are less likely to erroneously veer into inappropriate off-the-track comments about me personally,

and

(3) when you practice using correct attributions in comments addressed to me, then you're more likely to remember to do so when addressing other participants in this thread, leading to a rise in the civility level (and a decrease in stupidity exhibition) in this discussion.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

Your belief that 'we only got to put it in proper words'

1) that is an erroneous summary of my views. Please try to confine yourself to attribution of ideas that I actually do express.

2) Trivially, ALL laws are just proper sequences of proper words.

Repent your sins.

How about repenting of your own sins before chastising me about sins I don't commit?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Prime95

You are an idealist :)

You need to conduct your vacation reading-and-responding elsewhere.

You're obviously having trouble concentrating on what I actually wrote. Either go back to some novel, or stick to threads discussing current PrimeNet problems.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Fusion_power

Cheesehead, I make a point to listen to your opinions because they are usually thoughtful and reasonable. In this case, my gut instinct is that you are totally wrong.

Are you referring to my opinion that the voucher idea is "interesting"? You're saying that it's not at all interesting? Or which other opinion do you mean?

Instead of telling me about vouchers,

Instead of telling me about only answers that have historically worked ... try reading what I actually wrote instead of what others erroneously attribute to me.

try telling me why the govt should NOT wipe out this farce and resolve the banking problems in the proven effective way?

I'd be delighted to! But I don't know how -- I'm soliciting opinions about one plan i heard.

Please note, I can do the math, you are looking at a $5 trillion problem so where would the money come from?

I am looking at a $5 trillion problem? To which problem do you refer? I know of one $5 trillion problem, but it's in the past (Bush the Younger's administration's cumulative budget deficit) and probably not the one you mean. I don't know which other problem has a magnitude of $5 trillion; please enlighten me.

As I write this, the following systemic problems are rearing ugly heads:

< snip >

Until you acknowledge that there is a problem

Until I acknowledge that there is a problem? I've acknowledged the existence of several problems. What makes you think I haven't acknowledged some particular problem?

and that throwing money at it will NOT make it go away, you can't possibly fix it.

Please show me where I advocated "throwing money" at whichever-problem-you-mean. Or, else, apologize, then readjust your thinking about what I have or have not acknowledged or advocated, please.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by garo

Excellent post fusion.

garo!

Did you, too, overlook that fusion was criticizing me for ideas I never advocated? Do you really think that such an off-target (the part that was addressed to me) post was "excellent"?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

The problem with experts is that

< snip >

The Cheeseheads of the world probably believe that we need to regulate more with proper wording, so that people only choose the *really safe* investments

The problem with YOU is that you invent things that I supposedly wrote, then respond as though they were reality instead of only your own inventions. Please try to pay more attention to reality. I don't like being slandered; if you don't stop it, I may try doing it to you to see how _you_ like it.

Your imaginary accusations against me seem to be influencing others here to stray. Congratulations on being so influential ... not.

- - - - -

To Everyone Else,

Please remember that HRB habitually makes false attributions to me, and don't confuse his imaginings with reality.

[ewmayer]

Oh, boys ... everyone try to calm down ... this is the Soapbox, robust discussion, quite often tendentious and colored by personal views, is supposed to be welcome.

Cheesehead, I read HRB's "repent" comment as being directed at humanity-in-general ... so perhaps you should ask him to clarify before taking extreme umbrage.

Mike Shedlock has an interesting piece on the aftermath of China's Olympic-sized construction spree today, and Barry Ritholz takes apart former FDIC chair William Isaac`s argument against mega-bank nationalization:

In this morning’s WSJ, William Isaac, the 1980s FDIC chair, argues against nationalization of the insolvent mega banks. Isaacs oversaw the nationalization of Continental Illinois National Bank and Trust Company, and uses that as the basis of his opinion.

Unfortunately, it makes for an awful comparison. In his OpEd, Isaacs overlooks so many dissimilarities between the present situation and that of 1984 so as to render his argument meaningless.

...

Continental was the first major bank rescue of the modern era. Since then, we have learned how to accomplish these workouts through the entire savings and loan crisis, along with the Resolution Trust Corporation (the government-owned firm which disposed of failed S&L assets); the subsequent government takeover of the Bear Stearns (immediately flipped to JPM), the 80% nationalization of AIG, the full blown takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the seamless transition of Wachovia, and Washington Mutual by the FDIC; What is effectively a 75% takeover of CitiGroup and Bank of America.

And that’s before we even get to the current issue of systemic risk, or the drag on the overall economy of having two massive Japan-like zombie banks hanging around. Given that we have already spent 300% of their market caps in terms of capital injections, and are on the hook for another 1500% of their valuations in terms of insured paper, these two banks are becoming vast money pits, ginormous black holes into which vast sums of taxpayers wealth disappear, never to be seen again in this universe.

Former FDIC chairman William Seidman notes that we have not only encourage moral hazard, we have incentivized the banks to keep coming back to Uncle Sam for more cost-free taxpaper money:

“It’s the question of, ‘What’s the best way to get this system cleaned up and going again?’” William Seidman, a former FDIC chairman said in an interview. “In my view, you have to nationalize some of the banks to do that. The alternative is they’re losing money, they come back to say, ‘We’re too big to fail, we need money.’ They’ll do that every month.”

It would be fair to state that Mr. Isaacs was dealing with a problem of first impression. We have since learned a great deal through trial and error — especially Seidman’s role as first chairman of the Resolution Trust Corporation.Seidman oversaw far greater liquidations and nationalizations than did Isaacs. And at present, the FDIC is liquidating 2 banks per week without any fuss or muss.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Cheesehead, I read HRB's "repent" comment as being directed at humanity-in-general

Sorry, Ernst, but all his uses of "you" and "your" in that post before the last line are clearly directed to me, and there's no justification in any intervening words for supposing that the final one is different.

extreme umbrage

Total eclipse? The central line of totality?

I once watched an annular eclipse, with a couple of dozen other Milwaukee amateur astronomers, from the maximum-duration spot on the central line. Bonus: spotting Air Force One practicing mid-air refueling above central Illinois!!! Looked sorta like an angler fish, with the KC-37(?) perched on a stick angled up from the 747. (Clinton was in Chicago that day. The pilots probably angled to get a view of the eclipse.)

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

How about repenting of your own sins before chastising me about sins I don't commit?

Your place in heaven is already reserved: "beati pauperes spiritu". But as soon as your proposals are made law, the rest of us know the Apocalypse is nigh, so repenting our sins will be the only thing left for us to do.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

But as soon as your proposals are made law,

Which proposals are that, exactly? In reality, that is, not your imagination.