bang-bang control loop...

R

Rick C

Guest
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:29:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html



We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Or none that John Larkin can understand.

The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930\'s and Dan Kahneman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

John\'s friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist\'s mathematically tractable
models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

Naomi Klein - in \"Shock Doctrine\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
economy has crashed.

\"Disaster capitalism\" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

What\'s worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
control... lacks \"diversity.\"
Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and
thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
didn\'t, y\'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
influence on the so-called \"free world\"?

Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...

Yeah, what\'s your point? Are you thinking bang-bang control is a military term?

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Or none that John Larkin can understand.

The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930\'s and Dan Kahneman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

John\'s friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist\'s mathematically tractable
models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

Naomi Klein - in \"Shock Doctrine\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
economy has crashed.

\"Disaster capitalism\" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

What\'s worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks \"diversity.\"
Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for \"the leading role of the party\" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren\'t famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

I have a hard time believing that, Sloman. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.

while the income tax rates are HIGHER:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28

If you\'ve got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US doesn\'t have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don\'t get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.

Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it\'s gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 1/27/2022 3:24 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:29:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html



We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Or none that John Larkin can understand.

The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930\'s and Dan Kahneman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

John\'s friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist\'s mathematically tractable
models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

Naomi Klein - in \"Shock Doctrine\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
economy has crashed.

\"Disaster capitalism\" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

What\'s worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
control... lacks \"diversity.\"
Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and
thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
didn\'t, y\'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
influence on the so-called \"free world\"?

Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...

Yeah, what\'s your point? Are you thinking bang-bang control is a military term?

Also for pet-lovers there\'s the theory of \"mess with the meow meow, you
get the peow peow\":

<https://wingstee.com/wp-content/uploads/You-Mess-With-The-Meow-Meow-You-Get-The-Peow-Peow-Shirt-1.jpg>

Bang-bang control.
 
F

Flyguy

Guest
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder..co.uk> wrote:
On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Or none that John Larkin can understand.

The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930\'s and Dan Kahneman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

John\'s friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist\'s mathematically tractable
models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

Naomi Klein - in \"Shock Doctrine\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
economy has crashed.

\"Disaster capitalism\" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

What\'s worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks \"diversity.\"
Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for \"the leading role of the party\" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren\'t famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.

You have to have income to create wealth, SNIPPERMAN. Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from?

while the income tax rates are HIGHER:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28
If you\'ve got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US doesn\'t have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don\'t get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth..

That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth. Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans.

Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it\'s gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.

More libtard bullshit - you don\'t have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it.. Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house? Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation. Anyone in the US who can\'t afford college and doesn\'t want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:21:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Or none that John Larkin can understand.

The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930\'s and Dan Kahneman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

John\'s friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist\'s mathematically tractable
models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

Naomi Klein - in \"Shock Doctrine\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
economy has crashed.

\"Disaster capitalism\" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

What\'s worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks \"diversity.\"
Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for \"the leading role of the party\" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren\'t famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.

You have to have income to create wealth, Sloman.

Or make good investments. Having a bigger income can make it easier to invest, but not everybody does.

> Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from?

Australia now has universal health care. Unexpected illness used to be a drain on many peoples finances - the 1960\'s Melbourne poverty survey high-lighted it as the most common event tipping people into poverty.

while the income tax rates are HIGHER:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28

If you\'ve got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US doesn\'t have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don\'t get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.

That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth.

Not to you.

> Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans.

None of which stop unexpected illness being the most likely cause for an American to fall into bankruptcy.

Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it\'s gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.

More libtard bullshit - you don\'t have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it.

Of course we do. It\'s just that it\'s not the only way to pay for your education, and because out primary and secondary education systems are funded on a state by state basis, you can get decent education even if you live in an area of low average income. The US system of tiny school districts means that the kids of rich parents grow up going to better-funded schools.

> Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house?

There is \"social housing\" - if not enough of it. Nobody gets a free car, but there\'s quite a lot of public tansport.

>Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation.

And opportunity, Growing up with rich neighbours generates quite a lot of opportunities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design

goes into that.

> Anyone in the US who can\'t afford college and doesn\'t want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).

If you are fit and healthy enough for the military to let you enlist. And the US has a wide range of educational institutions. John Larkin went to Tulane.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Guest
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:


https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
the tiger\'s back.

Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That\'s insane.

Just in time for their 100th birthday.

Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
years.


--
Defund the Thought Police
 
T

Tom Gardner

Guest
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:


https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
the tiger\'s back.

Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That\'s insane.

Just in time for their 100th birthday.

Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
years.

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.
 
T

Tom Del Rosso

Guest
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to
sane policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They
are riding the tiger\'s back.

Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That\'s insane.

Just in time for their 100th birthday.

Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
years.

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

Northern Rock had some reason to expect Fannie, Freddie, Goldman,
Lehman, et al, to buy the debt. But they could have loaned 1000 times
assets if the loans were repaid. The left steadfastly refuses to see
that it was the policies of the left that were the overriding factor.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

The last paragraph briefly alludes to the work of then HUD secretary
Andrew Cuomo. As an aside, in SED 16 months ago I mentioned his work as
New York governor that caused the deaths of 10-15k elderly in 2020,
which you and Bill Sloman were quick to dismiss as right wing propaganda
as if you know more about what happens in New York than I do. Democrats
were quick to remove him on weak sexual harrassment charges to prevent a
serious look into that, because it would cast doubt on all their COVID
policies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

\'\'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
kind of financial crisis,\'\' said Representative Barney Frank of
Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
\'\'The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is
on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
housing.\'\'

Yeah let\'s not pressure them to remain solvent. Instead let\'s pressure
them to loan to the poor and then declare there weren\'t enough
regulations. And let\'s not regulate government entities like Fannie and
Freddie - just private companies because they cause all the trouble.

--
Defund the Thought Police
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 1/28/2022 8:52 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:


https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
the tiger\'s back.

Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That\'s insane.

Just in time for their 100th birthday.

Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
years.

The late 1800s in the US aren\'t well-known for a high degree of economic
stability, either, the panic if 1893 set off the second largest
depression in US history next to the Great Depression.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 1/28/2022 10:20 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to
sane policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They
are riding the tiger\'s back.

Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That\'s insane.

Just in time for their 100th birthday.

Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
years.

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The conservative\'s most consistent behavior is pretending he\'s anything
but a vengeful petty tyrant still ruminating over decades-old grudges
most reasonable people would have long forgotten, playing the role of a
\"rational man.\"

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

Northern Rock had some reason to expect Fannie, Freddie, Goldman,
Lehman, et al, to buy the debt. But they could have loaned 1000 times
assets if the loans were repaid. The left steadfastly refuses to see
that it was the policies of the left that were the overriding factor.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

The left has little real power to do much of anything of substance in
America. You\'d expect there\'d at least be a national healthcare system
and the military budget would be a lot less than whatever absurd figure
that it is, if it did, but that\'s not the America we live in.

Oh you mean Democrats, yes Democrats have had fifty years to do
something significantly different than neoconservatives do. But they
vote for defense spending increases as well as anyone, and on the
occasions they do try they get hamstrung by literally two people, from
their own party. Lol

The last paragraph briefly alludes to the work of then HUD secretary
Andrew Cuomo. As an aside, in SED 16 months ago I mentioned his work as
New York governor that caused the deaths of 10-15k elderly in 2020,
which you and Bill Sloman were quick to dismiss as right wing propaganda
as if you know more about what happens in New York than I do. Democrats
were quick to remove him on weak sexual harrassment charges to prevent a
serious look into that, because it would cast doubt on all their COVID
policies.

He also has a tendency towards paranoia.

Yeah let\'s not pressure them to remain solvent. Instead let\'s pressure
them to loan to the poor and then declare there weren\'t enough
regulations. And let\'s not regulate government entities like Fannie and
Freddie - just private companies because they cause all the trouble.

And naturally doesn\'t like the poor very much, figuring anyone who is
must have done something very bad to deserve it. He might be skeptical
of vaccines against Covid, but would never turn down the opportunity to
be vaccinated against poor-cooties.
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 1/28/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:


https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html


We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj


The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
the tiger\'s back.

Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That\'s insane.

Just in time for their 100th birthday.

Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
years.

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Almost like your typical American conservative is pretty far from
anything resembling the concepts of \"decent\" or \"honest\", and knows full
well what type of environment he thinks he\'ll be the most prosperous in.

\"Are you questioning my honor?\"
\"I\'m not questioning your honor, I am denying its existence...\"

<https://youtu.be/fTItsm9meX8>
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 1/28/2022 1:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
On 1/28/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
wrote:


https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html


We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj


The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
the tiger\'s back.

Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That\'s insane.

Just in time for their 100th birthday.

Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
years.

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Almost like your typical American conservative

note that incidentally, I can\'t say I\'ve ever met an atypical one.
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn\'t been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

It\'s just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn\'t addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.

<snipped the rest>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snip

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn\'t been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

It\'s just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn\'t addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.

snipped the rest

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd. Who
were they so afraid of and what consequences. Major lenders settle class
actions by citizens all the time for chump change, they\'re not afraid of
this it\'s a cost of doing business.

<https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-rise-of-bank-prosecutions>

Only times they get really hit hard is when they fuck with the federal
government itself like in tax evasion, money laundering, and anti-trust
suits, that is to say the big gangsters got the impression the little
gangsters were trying to screw them over on their cut. They were never
afraid of violating anyone\'s \"civil rights\", come on.

\"Upon closer examination, the recent string of bank prosecutions, while
noteworthy, fails to address persistent concerns that deterrent fines
are not routinely imposed, that compliance terms designed to
rehabilitate firms are not used effectively, and that individuals remain
largely un-prosecuted.\"

They\'re not afraid of shit
 
S

server

Guest
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snip

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn\'t been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

It\'s just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn\'t addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.

snipped the rest


The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd.

They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
both ends.




--

I yam what I yam - Popeye
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 1/29/2022 1:45 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snip

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn\'t been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

It\'s just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn\'t addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.

snipped the rest


The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd.

They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
both ends.

Yep, there was a profit motive to do it, the customers were looking to
buy despite their lack of funds, and \"it seemed like a good idea at the
time\", no one had to pull a gun and the Civil Rights Act out on anyone
to make it happen.

Business can be pretty equitable all by itself about stuff like race and
class if and when it seems like there\'s a better buck to be made in not
fretting it. Some of the first businesses to independently de-segregate
in the South were railroads, hauling around two types of passenger car
and paying someone to enforce the distinction, was a money-loser long
before 1964.
 
R

Rick C

Guest
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:10:04 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snip

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn\'t been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

It\'s just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn\'t addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.

snipped the rest

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd.

It is absurd. The banks loaned the money because they would not hold the note for more than a few weeks. It would be someone else who actually took the risk. Meanwhile they had met all the requirements so the note could be sold.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
 
A

amdx

Guest
On 1/28/2022 2:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:21:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
We\'ve seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
Or none that John Larkin can understand.

The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930\'s and Dan Kahneman

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

John\'s friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist\'s mathematically tractable
models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

Naomi Klein - in \"Shock Doctrine\"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
economy has crashed.
\"Disaster capitalism\" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
What\'s worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks \"diversity.\"
Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for \"the leading role of the party\" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren\'t famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.
I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.
You have to have income to create wealth, Sloman.
Or make good investments. Having a bigger income can make it easier to invest, but not everybody does.

Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from?
Australia now has universal health care. Unexpected illness used to be a drain on many peoples finances - the 1960\'s Melbourne poverty survey high-lighted it as the most common event tipping people into poverty.

while the income tax rates are HIGHER:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28
If you\'ve got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US doesn\'t have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don\'t get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.
That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth.
Not to you.

Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans.

None of which stop unexpected illness being the most likely cause for an American to fall into bankruptcy.

Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it\'s gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.
More libtard bullshit - you don\'t have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it.
Of course we do. It\'s just that it\'s not the only way to pay for your education, and because out primary and secondary education systems are funded on a state by state basis, you can get decent education even if you live in an area of low average income. The US system of tiny school districts means that the kids of rich parents grow up going to better-funded schools.

Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house?
There is \"social housing\" - if not enough of it. Nobody gets a free car, but there\'s quite a lot of public tansport.

Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation.
And opportunity, Growing up with rich neighbours generates quite a lot of opportunities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design

goes into that.

Anyone in the US who can\'t afford college and doesn\'t want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).
If you are fit and healthy enough for the military to let you enlist. And the US has a wide range of educational institutions. John Larkin went to Tulane.

 It seems are awfully jealous of John\'s accomplishments.

Why don\'t you quit trying to denigrate him and do something for yourself
that you can be proud of.

Readers see your posts and it\'s always you trying to make yourself look
better by climbing on someone else.

Just stop.

                Mikek


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
 
B

bitrex

Guest
On 1/29/2022 2:56 PM, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:10:04 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

snip

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn\'t been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

It\'s just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn\'t addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.

snipped the rest

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd.

It is absurd. The banks loaned the money because they would not hold the note for more than a few weeks. It would be someone else who actually took the risk. Meanwhile they had met all the requirements so the note could be sold.

I\'m going to tell the local Lamborghini dealership they need to lease me
one at $299/month or they will be violating my civil rights
 
A

Anthony William Sloman

Guest
On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:45:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology..com wrote:

<snip>

One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
to a fixed multiple of their assets.

At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren\'t,
or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
beyond them into the impossible.

Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive\'s most
consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
been a mistake.

The law you speak of can\'t hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn\'t lend to
people who couldn\'t afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn\'t a new
law, just a misuse of one.

That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn\'t been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

It\'s just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn\'t addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.

snipped the rest

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
somehow afraid of \"civil rights prosecution\" seems pretty absurd.

They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
both ends.

The fringe banks did a lot of that. The bundled loans were \"innovative financial products\" and the US ratings agencies labelled them as much more secure than they turned out to be, which meant that they got sold around the world. That\'s what turned the US \"sub-prime mortgage crisis\" into the \"global financial crisis\" so the fringe banks weren\'t the only contributors. I don\'t think that the feds had any control of the ratings agencies.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23324880
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
 

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top