Discussion
  • Read More
    Silencio!Hamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 12:38pm

    Jesus Hamilton. Get a grip. “Net output loss” is just as fuzzy a concept as the output of every study saying cities will make a ton of money from new stadia.

    Halden actually measured the difference during the period of the crisis between what economists predicted growth was going to be and what it actually was. So basically he is blaming the entirety between an educated guess and reality over the course of several years on banks.

    BTW, U.S. banks repaid (except for the smallest banks) all the money they were “bailed out with” and, moreover, paid interest on that borrowed money.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Hamilton NolanSilencio!
      4/20/16 12:44pm

      Yes, it is an educated guess, but the concept he is illustrating is not a new one. Banks periodically blow up and lose more than they’ve made. They maintain their existence via bailouts.

      Regulating banks like utilities instead of allowing them to operate like casinos is the general idea for a fix.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      RobertMadooSilencio!
      4/20/16 12:45pm

      “BTW, U.S. banks repaid (except for the smallest banks) all the money they were “bailed out with” and, moreover, paid interest on that borrowed money.”

      So? Millions of people’s lives would be easier if they had access to emergency loans with non-predatory rates, especially if the need for these loans was predicated on their own negligence.

      Also, what the shit is up with “bailed out with” being in quotes like that. Are you asserting that they were not actually bailed out?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Masshole JamesHamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 12:34pm

    How about we cut out the middlemen completely and the Fed lend money directly to indvidulas and businesses? I’m pretty sure the Fed has done this before, specifically during the banking collapse in the Great Depression. So why can’t this be done again (aside from political will.) Everyone hates the banks so I can’t imagine that most small buisnesses and even corporations wouldn’t get behind something like this.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      LongSnakeMasshole James
      4/20/16 12:36pm

      There is no reason why not other than political will and special interests.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      RobertMadooMasshole James
      4/20/16 12:37pm

      Isn’t one of the purposes of the Fed to bring stability? Is that ostensibly what the rounds of QE are doing?

      Just one of those areas where I’ve never understood the purpose vs. what actually seems to happen.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    1standLongHamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 12:28pm

    produced an output loss equivalent to $60 trillion to $200 trillion for the world economy.

    excuse my ignorance, but where does this money go? it goes somewhere, right? does it just disappear? i mean, it has to be in someone’s pocket. or, am i completely off?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      SlickWillie1standLong
      4/20/16 12:29pm

      It’s sitting in a pile next to Saddam’s nukes

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Sid and Financy1standLong
      4/20/16 12:33pm

      Mostly to Hillary for speeches, and a little bit into Hampton’s real estate, but largely up-Island, which — ugh, gross.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Netflix and ShillHamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 12:36pm

    But HamNo, [insert tired Ayn Rand BS here]. Everyone knows that [insert regurgitated freshman economics concepts here]. Just let the market sort everything out.

    I don’t understand why you want to punish success, which is what makes America the greatest country on earth!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Sarah Palin DenierNetflix and Shill
      4/20/16 12:44pm

      You have to wonder what people are going to think about our society in 500 years... “They just assumed markets were efficient and that they would sort out all the problems”...

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Netflix and ShillSarah Palin Denier
      4/20/16 2:11pm

      You have to wonder what people are going to think about our society in 500 years... “They just assumed markets were efficient and that they would sort out all the problems”...

      I doubt it will take that long before that attitude seems insane in hindsight, and it will probably be right after the mobs with pitchforks. Not to get too far off topic, but that’s how I feel about climate change, as well.

      Somebody hundreds of years from now:

      “So you’re telling me they knew there was a problem, but they couldn’t be 100% sure that humans were causing it, so they did virtually nothing about it until it was too late? What a bunch of selfish a$$holes.”

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    carpetboxerHamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 12:45pm

    Clinton would diametrically oppose Elizabeth Warren’s Wall Street legislation.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ReburnsABurningReturnscarpetboxer
      4/20/16 12:47pm

      Her platform pretty clearly lays out her thoughts on financial regulation. They are not the same as Elizabeth Warren’s but it displays what should be, but unfortunately in 2016 will not be, deeply embarrassing ignorance on your part to say that they are “diametrically opposed”.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      carpetboxerReburnsABurningReturns
      4/21/16 2:08am

      Missed your reply.

      1. http://my.elizabethwarren.com/page/s/glass-s…

      2. http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/pol…

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    20 Shades of Grey including PorpoiseHamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 12:27pm

    And nothing will be done because those in power, who could change things, are bought and sold by those same banks.

    Im eagerly awaiting Hillary’s first term as President. Will she bite the hand that feeds her, and change anything? Stay tuned!

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PrettyLegit20 Shades of Grey including Porpoise
      4/20/16 12:35pm

      I’ve read the comic. She doesn’t.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      kamla devi20 Shades of Grey including Porpoise
      4/20/16 12:35pm

      Will she bite the hand that feeds her, and change anything?

      Answer: No.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    starcrunchHamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 12:49pm

    It is funny to heear these super-capitalists speak of everything being driven “by the market”. The problem is “the market” has been corrupted from decades of deregulation. There are no more checks and balances. Risky investments are not offset by tangible collateral. The old adage of “risk and reward” has been bastardized. Bankers offset risk with worthless stocks, mortgages and bundles of derivitive nonsense.

    Just look to Canada and their financial system. Banks need real reserves. Personal mortgages need 25% down or mortgage insurance is needed. This is nothing new. The US had the same system, but politicians sold out the 99% to big money lobbyists.

    In many ways, wild west capitalism has achieved the same result as the failed Soviet socialist model. Little hope

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      TheRealFrying_slothstarcrunch
      4/20/16 1:23pm

      One reason most Canadians with any entrepreneurial drive move to the US to start their companies.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      starcrunchTheRealFrying_sloth
      4/20/16 4:46pm

      Yes “most Canadians”. Got any data to back that up?

      Most Canadians I know are quite content living in Canada

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MockingbirdHillHamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 12:43pm

    Also, we must arrest and sentence the high-ups involved in bank collapses. That will get them acting more rationally.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      TheRealFrying_slothMockingbirdHill
      4/20/16 1:24pm

      Given that there were few demonstrable instances of laws being broken, good luck with that.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MockingbirdHillTheRealFrying_sloth
      4/20/16 1:32pm

      That’s a bit like saying we didn’t find any crimes because we didn’t look.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    mjskyeHamilton Nolan
    4/20/16 6:22pm

    What is the correct response to the issue of banks? This, it seems to me, is the question Dr (Ham)No asks, and we don’t get a satisfactory response in the comments.

    Look at the situation in Flint. A terrible crisis, brought about as a way to “save money” (which, being State funds, could then be spent on gold toilets or other folderol).

    The State politicos (re: Bank managers) go on teevee to say this could not be predicted and we will do everything we can to make it right again. Since it could not be predicted you really can’t hold us (State politicians or Bank managers) responsible. Of course, in hindsight everyone saw it coming.

    This is what it comes down to: serious and severe punishment. 20 years in prison with no hope for parole. I realize I’m just blowing in the wind, we’re talking about rich white guys, but the idea of severe punishment enjoys universal support in the US.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      PeabodyHereHamilton Nolan
      4/20/16 5:21pm

      Create a national bank from the assets of failed banks. This has been the historical solution and private banks don’t like it because they know they can’t compete. Government banks can offer lower terms on loans, higher rates of return, better terms. Over the long term a national bank can phase out wage taxation since it already holds all of the paychecks not cashed and can maximize the return on that, which would give the government incentive to support unions which would strengthen their revenue base.

      Reply
      <