If you advocate for gov reg of vol transfer, then you create the economics for pol to be bought. Then they will be bought by the highest bidder. Then the will write the rules to eliminate the smaller competitor. Again are the number of banks increasing?
Right, and all of that could have been stopped if politicians (who would normally have to earn an honest living) couldn't be bought to make sure the rules are written to crush smaller competitors and enshrine the larger interests.
Are we seeing an increase in the number of banks, or a decrease? If you follow the money you will find two fraudsters in bed with each other, planning on what taxpayer funded breakfast to have. Chicken or eggs? Oh heck, the sucker taxpayer that believes in the fantasy of a gov regulated economy will pay for both.
Well the banks were making the loans for the A&D. If the FDIC had rules from the beginning to limit that sort of exposure, then much of that concentration development would have never happened. Then the house and condo building would have been extremely limited. But, how do you think congress would have reacted when an existing 1200sqft house was selling for 700k? They would be outraged at the lack of "affordable" housing, and would have demanded action in the name of the consumer. At some point the FDIC would have been rolled by the politicians, and the bubble would still have formed.
And what does the "G" in GSE stand for?
The problem the banks had, is that they failed to see the asset bubble, just like the regulators. Its like blaming the Jews for not leaving Poland when Hitler came to power. Sure looking back, it would have been worth your while to leave your job, take your family, and move to the US even though it meant spending your entire savings, because it would have meant avoiding a gas chamber. You can't blame people for falling for gov fraud when they aren't the advocates of the policies causing the damage.
Bottom line here, 100% of this can be laid at the feet of those in our population that fall for the fraud that the gov can regulate voluntary transactions to ensure that none of them ever go bad. This is just a pie in the sky, fantasy land promise that is used to get people to give up their liberty and their money to the people making these promises. The fraudsters in the gov get rich, and everyone else goes through austerity when the bubble pops. The very gov that is supposed to be used to deter fraud, becomes the entity perpetrating the fraud.
I'm blame the regulators (not so much the banks, they get their orders from the regulators) from the perspective that the assumption that a regulatory environment will create a situation where people never make mistakes. The assumption here is that the regulators are infallable because they are given orders by infallable politicians.
Its all a fraud. Its all vote buying by politicians that use our capital to promise things no human could ever deliver, and then they attack someone for pointing out this reality by saying that we are simply opposed to the wonderful outcomes of their good intentions.
The only thing gov can regulate are issues with regards to force and fraud. The reason for this, is the populace can grant the gov a monopoly of force. Of course, once that grant is given, then the gov must be regulated, because if that grant of force is not controlled, then the gov will become the source of the force and fruad (like regulators whose job it is to make sure nothing ever goes wrong). If a populace could give a gov a grant of a monopoloy of market knowledge, then they could regulate markets with regards to nothing ever going wrong. However, if a populace could really legislate that good intentions should come true, then somewhere in history some group of people would already have done that.
In order for the US gov to control the economy, the bill of rights will need to be eliminated. In fact the constitution could be boiled down to the following:
"Whoever manages to gain power, can do whatever they want to everyone else."
Ripping The Bandage - Greece And The Eurozone [View article]
What they don't want to admit is that they have a failed economic model. They have fallen for the fraud that the elite can manage the economy via guns in such a way so as everyone gets a "fair shot". Well that sounds nice, everyone has a different perception of what that means, thus you have to use force to stamp out any perceptions that differ from the people with the guns. The end result from this is the inability of advances in productive capacity to keep up with advances in consumption. Expenses are always ahead of income, and the result is capital erosion that leads to a receding balance sheet, or a recession. But since the elites consider themselves elite, and thus infallable, they will never admit their mistake, so they will continue to tax their people into austerity until violence finally breaks the cycle.
"Sell your house ... yesterday," Gary Shilling tells Bloomberg. It will take 4 years, he says, to work off still-high inventories, during which time prices could fall another 20%. Turning to Facebook: "(It's) the end of the social media boom ... reminds me of Pets.com." [View news story]
I wonder if people appreciate the myriad of rules and regulations that supply all sorts of subsidies for buyers of US treasuries (capital rules for banks give them a 0 risk weight-like Europe where that has worked well). If you have your money on deposit at a bank somewhere, you probably own treasuries without even realizing it. These rules create a sort of quasi second tier primary dealer network. The individual that buys treasuries outright should think about that. Buyer beware.
Europe's Pain Is America's Gain, Not Bane [View article]
"strengthen import requirements that match our reg's"
That's the same thing as a tax hike. Just because you raise the cost of imports, doesn't mean jobs will come back to the US. If a flat screen costs $500 now from Korea, imposing rules that raises the price to $3k whether from US or Korea doesn't mean people will keep buying flat screens at the same rate, thus producers will be indifferent as to where they produce, it just means a lot less flat screens will be bought, and thus neither Korea or the US will have those jobs.
Its all about comparative advantage. Its about finding ways to constantly lower the cost of everything, which means that assets that can do that go up in value. In other words you stocks go up because the company has found a way to make things better and cheaper. Gov regulations are price blind. They create fix costs that have nothing to do with current technology.
Gov regs assume the perfect product can be made for the same cost, and that gov has that knowledge and it just needs to impose that knowledge on business. This results in everything being less affordable (funny how gov always couches everything they do in "affordability" though - affordable housing that skyrockets in price -say what?), thus less and less people buy which requires less and less production which means less and less jobs.
Ironically, part of the reason China reformed in the 70s after Mao's death, because Mao tried to get the Chinese economy to produce everything internally. They almost starved themselves to death with that strategy.
The bottom line with trade is, the more you trade the more you have and the less you have to work, which means eventually you job will create enough capital that you can actually afford to retire at 50, becuase everything is getting so cheap, that you don't need that much in savings to live.
Europe's Pain Is America's Gain, Not Bane [View article]
You'd have to get everyone that is currently getting a subsidy to be willing to give it up. Those folks tend to burn things down before that happens, or they pull campaign contributions from politicians that suggest the subsidies should go away.
It was also the politicians. I was speaking to an examiner not long ago, that stated they wanted to crack down harder on CRE and A&D in 2006 instead of just issuing non-actionable guidance, but political pressure from DC was so intense that they backed off on their positions. If they had been really worth their salt, they would have set the rules in 2001. Now its too late. The target reserve ratio for the fund is 2%. They expect to reach that by 2025. They need to charge higher premiums, but that would screw with the subsidy mix and cause assets to deflate even further.
What's really interesting is that states used to provide deposit insurance, and guess what happened? That's right, they kept going bankrupt. They create asset bubbles just like other stimulus action does, like QE or Fannie and Freddie or a CB in general can. So instead of compartmentalizing these losses to just individual states, we wound up spreading it to the whole country. The bubble these types of programs create was simply spread to everyone, and it popped just like the state ones did.
If regulators had done their job in the past, why would there be a need to increase capital for bad loans now? There shouldn't have been any bad loans. Regulators examine banks every year, and they have call reports every quarter. How could there ever be bad loans?
Ripping The Bandage - Greece And The Eurozone [View article]
Maybe there is a bunch of liquidating to meet liquidity demands. This would imply taking gains to pay off debt, which bolsters capital. Like say in a deposit run.
Is The Latest Euro-Scare Now Behind Us? [View article]
"mercantilist nation Germany is"
Adam Smith talked about this, and now Germany is living it. Smith pondered what good did a nation do itself to regulate its economy for the sake of exports, and then to measure its success by how much gold it piled up in exchange for those exports, then when it went to these other nations with whom they had exported with their gold to buy something, only to realize that they had nothing else of value to exchange for the gold. Suddenly they realized the gold was the equivalent of an account receivable that they couldn't collect on.
Germany is finding out that you can't eat Euros the same way you can't eat gold.
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
Are we seeing an increase in the number of banks, or a decrease? If you follow the money you will find two fraudsters in bed with each other, planning on what taxpayer funded breakfast to have. Chicken or eggs? Oh heck, the sucker taxpayer that believes in the fantasy of a gov regulated economy will pay for both.
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
And what does the "G" in GSE stand for?
The problem the banks had, is that they failed to see the asset bubble, just like the regulators. Its like blaming the Jews for not leaving Poland when Hitler came to power. Sure looking back, it would have been worth your while to leave your job, take your family, and move to the US even though it meant spending your entire savings, because it would have meant avoiding a gas chamber. You can't blame people for falling for gov fraud when they aren't the advocates of the policies causing the damage.
Bottom line here, 100% of this can be laid at the feet of those in our population that fall for the fraud that the gov can regulate voluntary transactions to ensure that none of them ever go bad. This is just a pie in the sky, fantasy land promise that is used to get people to give up their liberty and their money to the people making these promises. The fraudsters in the gov get rich, and everyone else goes through austerity when the bubble pops. The very gov that is supposed to be used to deter fraud, becomes the entity perpetrating the fraud.
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
Its all a fraud. Its all vote buying by politicians that use our capital to promise things no human could ever deliver, and then they attack someone for pointing out this reality by saying that we are simply opposed to the wonderful outcomes of their good intentions.
The only thing gov can regulate are issues with regards to force and fraud. The reason for this, is the populace can grant the gov a monopoly of force. Of course, once that grant is given, then the gov must be regulated, because if that grant of force is not controlled, then the gov will become the source of the force and fruad (like regulators whose job it is to make sure nothing ever goes wrong). If a populace could give a gov a grant of a monopoloy of market knowledge, then they could regulate markets with regards to nothing ever going wrong. However, if a populace could really legislate that good intentions should come true, then somewhere in history some group of people would already have done that.
In order for the US gov to control the economy, the bill of rights will need to be eliminated. In fact the constitution could be boiled down to the following:
"Whoever manages to gain power, can do whatever they want to everyone else."
Ripping The Bandage - Greece And The Eurozone [View article]
"Sell your house ... yesterday," Gary Shilling tells Bloomberg. It will take 4 years, he says, to work off still-high inventories, during which time prices could fall another 20%. Turning to Facebook: "(It's) the end of the social media boom ... reminds me of Pets.com." [View news story]
Europe's Pain Is America's Gain, Not Bane [View article]
That's the same thing as a tax hike. Just because you raise the cost of imports, doesn't mean jobs will come back to the US. If a flat screen costs $500 now from Korea, imposing rules that raises the price to $3k whether from US or Korea doesn't mean people will keep buying flat screens at the same rate, thus producers will be indifferent as to where they produce, it just means a lot less flat screens will be bought, and thus neither Korea or the US will have those jobs.
Its all about comparative advantage. Its about finding ways to constantly lower the cost of everything, which means that assets that can do that go up in value. In other words you stocks go up because the company has found a way to make things better and cheaper. Gov regulations are price blind. They create fix costs that have nothing to do with current technology.
Gov regs assume the perfect product can be made for the same cost, and that gov has that knowledge and it just needs to impose that knowledge on business. This results in everything being less affordable (funny how gov always couches everything they do in "affordability" though - affordable housing that skyrockets in price -say what?), thus less and less people buy which requires less and less production which means less and less jobs.
Ironically, part of the reason China reformed in the 70s after Mao's death, because Mao tried to get the Chinese economy to produce everything internally. They almost starved themselves to death with that strategy.
The bottom line with trade is, the more you trade the more you have and the less you have to work, which means eventually you job will create enough capital that you can actually afford to retire at 50, becuase everything is getting so cheap, that you don't need that much in savings to live.
Europe's Pain Is America's Gain, Not Bane [View article]
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
What's really interesting is that states used to provide deposit insurance, and guess what happened? That's right, they kept going bankrupt. They create asset bubbles just like other stimulus action does, like QE or Fannie and Freddie or a CB in general can. So instead of compartmentalizing these losses to just individual states, we wound up spreading it to the whole country. The bubble these types of programs create was simply spread to everyone, and it popped just like the state ones did.
The Housing Recovery: An Update [View article]
Ripping The Bandage - Greece And The Eurozone [View article]
Is The Latest Euro-Scare Now Behind Us? [View article]
Adam Smith talked about this, and now Germany is living it. Smith pondered what good did a nation do itself to regulate its economy for the sake of exports, and then to measure its success by how much gold it piled up in exchange for those exports, then when it went to these other nations with whom they had exported with their gold to buy something, only to realize that they had nothing else of value to exchange for the gold. Suddenly they realized the gold was the equivalent of an account receivable that they couldn't collect on.
Germany is finding out that you can't eat Euros the same way you can't eat gold.