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. > > -- > SNIPPERMAN, SydneyI 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 while the income tax rates are HIGHER: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28
bang-bang control loop
Started by ●January 25, 2022
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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-countryhttps://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-28If 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
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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? >Oh, nah sometimes I just talk about whatever I feel like talking about on OT threads like this one, everyone else seems to do it. I think it is tangentially relevant to the term "disaster capitalism" but "bang-bang control" as a metaphor for US foreign policy? No I didn't think of that, but lol that's a good one and not a bad metaphor for the Sixty Years War, 1965-2022. A three-word summary of the "free world's" behavior in that respect during this period could be "what a waste" but "bang-bang control" is also grimly amusing; the US has had the bang-bang part down pretty good but reliable control has always seemed elusive, relative to the amount of bang-bang being applied. Military might can't solve social/societal problems, or the problem of a very large set of people just being extremely poor compared to the others. And I think sometimes military-people tend to understand this better than politicians. As I recall Donald Trump seemed to feel similarly about it, and that was one of the few topics I agreed with him on. What a waste.
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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.
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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.
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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
Reply by ●January 28, 20222022-01-28
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.
