Financial Crisis

[jazzbo]

Sen. Gregg (Republican - NH) says Federal Reserve audit amendment panders to 'populist fervor' says an article in the blog section of TheHill.com

Comment #1 is Gregg is bought and paid for with FIAT FED money BY Rick... I didn't know Kuhn F.'s real name was Rick.

[midas]

It is hard to be optimistic when you read about them repeating the same mistakes

" A week ago, he and a couple of buddies bought a two-unit apartment building for nearly a million dollars. They had only a little cash to bring to the table but, with the federal government insuring the transaction, a large down payment was not necessary. "

Some F.H.A. borrowers here say they have the cash for a full down payment but would rather invest it in the stock market or use it for remodeling. Others, like Mr. Rowland and his friends, simply do not have the money required by private lenders — which would have been nearly $200,000, in their case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/business...nted=1&_r=1

[jazzbo]

Kvetch.

[Naam]

shall we form the fanclub "Three Cheers for Dr. B."?

let us see how many admire him after the audit has been completed ?

the swine flu, the Bilderbergs, the Illuminati and the usual conspirative subjects who hold secretly passports of the 51st state of the U.S. of A. will make sure that the audit results are A1². that various contributors of/in "blogspot.coms" and their blind followers will continue to masturbate in their dark or dim lit corners and post their ejaculations in the form of youtoube clips on Thaivisa goes of course without saying.

the realists will keep on ingesting caviar and, port and freshly baked Laugenbrezel whilst puffing a Habana and leave the vodka to the gourmands.

[flying]

the realists sheeple will keep on ingesting caviar and, port and freshly baked Laugenbrezel whilst puffing a Habana and leave the vodka to the gourmands.

[Abrak]

Kuhn A. -- I read the wsj article you referenced and the word 'irresponsible' does not once occur. Bernanke comes from the academic world. I am sure he would be the first to say it is your right to disagree with his montary policies and his methods to effect any change in the macro economy.

Actually Jazzbo I wasnt setting the bar that high. I really didnt expect you to actually read the article simply look at the chart at the beginning of it.

We can take it one step lower and say his nickname is not 'helicopter Ben' because he is a pilot

So all I am saying is that one can (maybe) make a case that the good Dr. B. is misguided in his efforts to stabilize the USA economy (keeping in mind that much of his expertise stems from study of the 1930s Depression) without personal attacks

And then you mention 'personal attacks'. I consider a huge insult to Bernanke for you to imply that his policies are either 'conventional or responsible' that is the only reason I reply to these ridiculous posts. I dont mind it at all when people refer to him as an 'idiot' or a 'moron' in this thread because he obviously isnt but do regard the concept that he is 'conventional and responsible' as possibly the greatest insult you could throw at him.

Even he himself points out that his policies are 'irresponsible relative to orthodox, conventional thinking'

As for his expertise I recommend you start at the beginning with his book 'Principles of Microeconomics' move on to another of his books 'Principles of Macroeconomics' and go on from there.

I really hate to think what that ATM thread is like. I will keep myself sane by reducing all your posts to one line.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Abrak

[flying]

us-commercial-banks-turkeys-are-stuffed

The increase in the monetary base created by the Fed's monetization of debt is striking, not seen since the early stages of the Great Depression.

Banks are not lending despite the massive quantitative easing. They are fat with reserves, paying huge bonuses again, and obviously doing something with their money other than providing funds for the commercial activity of the nation.

Excess Reserves are an accounting function. The banks themselves do not reduce their reserves significantly through lending. But it is symptomatic in the sense that the lack of reserves is most definitely NOT an issue with lending.

No one can deny with any credibility that if the Federal Reserve reduced their payment on reserves to zero, or even a negative, that lending activity would not increase. And yet they do not. Why?

Because the first priority of the Fed is the health of the banking system itself, and not the national economy and the availability of credit. And the unspoken factor is that the banking system is not yet healthy, is not sound, is not well capitalized despite the record expansion in the monetary base and its specific direction to the banks themselves. They have simply not taken the writedown necessary to make themselves financially sound.

Ben Bernanke's gambit is as much financial fraud as it is a monetarist exercise in cynicism.

[jazzbo]

Kuhn A. -- You said that I will keep myself sane by reducing all your posts to one line. Why stop there? You can use on your control panel:

Manage your ignored users:

This section allows you to set up your ignored users list. When you add a user to your ignore list, any posts they make will be masked until you specify that you wish to read them. You may not be able to ignore users if they are in a member group which doesn't allow them to be added.

That way it will be much easier for you to go on convincing yourself that you are sane.

Edited November 22, 2009 by jazzbo

[jazzbo]

Ben Bernanke's gambit is as much financial fraud as it is a monetarist exercise in cynicism.

[jazzbo]

What drives some of the posters here nuts is that while they KNOW and can prove with their charts so much more about the macro economy and economic policy than Dr. Bernanke, HE is in Washington, DC, with the POWER to make all those fraudulent and irresponsible decisions while you guys are stuck with this silly little forum as a soapbox.

[Naam]

When you add a user to your ignore list, any posts they make will be masked until you specify that you wish to read them.

but then... where's all the fun Jazzbo?

[jazzbo]

Where, Kuhn N.? Plunk your magic twanger, Froggy "Hiya Kids! Hiya! Hiya! Hiya!"

from wikipedia:

Froggy was a troublemaker on the shows. He was known for being disrespectful of adult authority figures and enjoyed playing practical jokes and disrupting other guests, repeating two-word phrases ("you will, you will") and giving commands that the guests had to follow despite their efforts to resist.

So we're just out to have some fun while they are out pursuing the Full-Scale-War to save the USA and the World from total economic ruination and damnation truth be told.

[flying]

I really hate to think what that ATM thread is like. I will keep myself sane by reducing all your posts to one line.

Take pity on the meat head & give it 1.5 lines.........after all it is not a fair fight.

[jazzbo]

I'd rather be a meat head than the self-sanctimonious meat head

[lannarebirth]

Banks are not lending despite the massive quantitative easing. They are fat with reserves, paying huge bonuses again, and obviously doing something with their money other than providing funds for the commercial activity of the nation.

Excess Reserves are an accounting function. The banks themselves do not reduce their reserves significantly through lending. But it is symptomatic in the sense that the lack of reserves is most definitely NOT an issue with lending.

No one can deny with any credibility that if the Federal Reserve reduced their payment on reserves to zero, or even a negative, that lending activity would not increase. And yet they do not. Why?

Because the first priority of the Fed is the health of the banking system itself, and not the national economy and the availability of credit. And the unspoken factor is that the banking system is not yet healthy, is not sound, is not well capitalized despite the record expansion in the monetary base and its specific direction to the banks themselves. They have simply not taken the writedown necessary to make themselves financially sound.

All true, but the fact is the world is awash in cash and alternative mechanisms exist. For the first time in a long time, hard money lending is starting to pick up in the sector I operate in. Still, it's a tough environment as almost no one seems to have any equity in anything.

[flying]

All true, but the fact is the world is awash in cash and alternative mechanisms exist. For the first time in a long time, hard money lending is starting to pick up in the sector I operate in. Still, it's a tough environment as almost no one seems to have any equity in anything.

I am assuming you mean all the money that was sidelined.

Also your sector I am assuming you mean the markets?

If so how do you mean none have equity? Because of previous losses or because they enter now & hope?

From where I operate I see some money coming in now too & trying to buy short sales,

hoping this is a bottom. But they are coming in spending & now have no real equity & are just hoping

their new hard asset appreciates & does not fall lower.

Edited November 23, 2009 by flying

[lannarebirth]

All true, but the fact is the world is awash in cash and alternative mechanisms exist. For the first time in a long time, hard money lending is starting to pick up in the sector I operate in. Still, it's a tough environment as almost no one seems to have any equity in anything.

I am assuming you mean all the money that was sidelined.

Also your sector I am assuming you mean the markets?

If so how do you mean none have equity? Because of previous losses or because they enter now & hope?

From where I operate I see some money coming in now too & trying to buy short sales,

hoping this is a bottom. But they are coming in spending & now have no real equity & are just hoping

their new hard asset appreciates & does not fall lower.

No, I mean everyone and his dog has mean able to get money cheap and play the spread in lending on to others. Rules became so lax and LTV became so high that a lot of those people have been washed out of the hard money lending business. They were even taking second positions for crissakes! What did they expect?

My sector is loans for "business purposes" in the states of Oregon and Washington because those are the places I understand the prevailing laws, which differ by state. My standards are much lower LTV's than has been extant recently and now my phone is finally ringing. A lot of sad stories out there.

Sure, the $USD is going to zero, but I might as well make 12%-14% on it while it does.

[jazzbo]

Take pity on the VERY WEALTHY meat head & give it 1.5 lines.........after all it is not a fair fight.

Pity the happy fool with a diversified portfolio of stocks, bonds, corporate debt, domestic/international. emerging markets, Hi-tech, low-tech commodities, precious metals even gold... and out there having a good time dollars spending my FIAT dollars while you are out fighting the Full-Scale-War with your 3.79 average daily posts per day and nobody who can make a difference is listening or gives a sh-t what you say...

even though those who do not agree with your are condemned to burn in hel_l -- just ask Gary.

[flying]

My sector is loans for "business purposes" in the states of Oregon and Washington because those are the places I understand the prevailing laws, which differ by state. My standards are much lower LTV's than has been extant recently and now my phone is finally ringing. A lot of sad stories out there.

Sure, the $USD is going to zero, but I might as well make 12%-14% on it while it does.

Oh that is very interesting. I thought you were retired & just investing in the puts & calls.

Never knew you were doing business loans.

Well congrats & glad to hear your area is picking up.

Agreed that you have to make it when you can regardless of the long term trend.

[Abrak]

When you add a user to your ignore list, any posts they make will be masked until you specify that you wish to read them.

but then... where's all the fun Jazzbo?

Of course posts become unmasked when someone else quotes from them.

What is actually incredibly stupid about the 'ignore function' is that while you have to make a considerable effort to ignore a user and every post is masked, it gives you both the option to 'view it' and to 'unignore user' with a click of a mouse. This is almost as irritating as you find the user yourself and totally illogical.

I mean everyone already has the option whether to read anyone's posting or not. The whole point of an 'ignore function' is you have made a judgment that you no longer wished to be offered the option. So his spam turns each page of thread into a combination of posts and quasi posts which question your judgment twice in each one repeatedly.

[jazzbo]

OK guys, here's your chance for the big time! Nobel Prize-winning pinko FIAT-loving economist Dr. Paul Krugman has just posted a column in The New York Times:

The Phantom Menace

A funny thing happened on the way to a new New Deal. A year ago, the only thing we had to fear was fear itself; today, the reigning doctrine in Washington appears to be “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”

What happened? To be sure, “centrists” in the Senate have hobbled efforts to rescue the economy. But the evidence suggests that in addition to facing political opposition, President Obama and his inner circle have been intimidated by scare stories from Wall Street...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/opinion/23krugman.html

It is 4 AM in New York right now and the Comment Section (in the blue area below Dr. Krugman's photo) is now OPEN!

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

from FAQ What kind of comments are you looking for?

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely.

So if you reasonably behave yourselves, you might get yourself in REAL print... (I would leave out the insane printing press)

[Abrak]

My sector is loans for "business purposes" in the states of Oregon and Washington because those are the places I understand the prevailing laws, which differ by state. My standards are much lower LTV's than has been extant recently and now my phone is finally ringing. A lot of sad stories out there.

Sure, the $USD is going to zero, but I might as well make 12%-14% on it while it does.

If you take those paragraphs at face value it seems to imply the sort of logic that got us into this whole mess. I mean if the US$ goes to zero then no US$ asset you own has infinite returns relative.

If you lend for business purposes you are going long dollars expecting to a return of nothing on the loan. Well if you get a high interest rate on the loan it will if you keep it dollars equate to a 100% loss on interest payments. And of course he can simply borrow more to make interest payments when the ultimate value of his interest payments are zero

I am sure I am missing the strategy here. For a start, for some totally unknown reason to me (I dont understand banking) the USTs yield on 6 months USTs closed at -0.3% on Friday (I think). My guess though is that yield is a desperate is simply some function of the carry trade paticularly into SE Asian economies which it will sooner or later.

[lannarebirth]

My sector is loans for "business purposes" in the states of Oregon and Washington because those are the places I understand the prevailing laws, which differ by state. My standards are much lower LTV's than has been extant recently and now my phone is finally ringing. A lot of sad stories out there.

Sure, the $USD is going to zero, but I might as well make 12%-14% on it while it does.

If you take those paragraphs at face value it seems to imply the sort of logic that got us into this whole mess. I mean if the US$ goes to zero then no US$ asset you own has infinite returns relative.

I thought everyone here knew that I am emoticonically challanged. I probably should have slipped a in after "zero", but I'm well aware it could turn out to be a , or even a , or God forbid a . It's all a crap shoot really and I'm thinking having a finger in many pies may be the way to go if . Honestly, as sad as it sounds the USA is my economic growth engine. What I derive there doesn't stay there, so each year it becomes a smaller portion of my overall wealth and only a portion of it is taxable.

Unless we can convince Herr Naam to let us on his island, come the revolution I'll probably be standing near you at the wall (perhaps not in the VIP section) and the next day someone will be dining on our livers, so I'll take what I can get till then.

[Naam]

Unless we can convince Herr Naam to let us on his island, come the revolution I'll probably be standing near you at the wall (perhaps not in the VIP section) and the next day someone will be dining on our livers, so I'll take what I can get till then.

you are welcome gentlemen. but to set the record straight: i bought recently some land from which i can SEE the island of Singapore. whether i build something on this land is an open question, as open as the US-Dollar going to zero or will appreciate. anyway, one can also enjoy caviar and champagne in a tent or under a sunshade.

[jazzbo]

Well 25 comments so far to Dr. Krugman and not one from any of you guys although there was one from Ho Chi Minh City and one ex-pat from Japan... all but one or 2 critical of Obama. You would think when Dr, Krugman writes:

Most economists I talk to believe that the big risk to recovery comes from the inadequacy of government efforts: the stimulus was too small, and it will fade out next year, while high unemployment is undermining both consumer and business confidence...

you guys would move in to dispel this insane notion... But I guess you are so much happier here in Podunk where you can write stuff like I mean if the US$ goes to zero then no US$ asset you own has infinite returns relative. and no one is going to call you an idiot,

[Naam]

But I guess you are so much happier here in Podunk where you can write stuff like I mean if the US$ goes to zero then no US$ asset you own has infinite returns relative. and no one is going to call you an idiot,

why do i have the funny feeling that i'm an idiot? reason: i have no bloody idea what Abrak meant to say

[Naam]

by the way, what happened to Geithner? why is Alex the Lah not present to tell us Geithner is as big an idiot as Bernanke? is Geithner now in the good books of the doom&gloomers? is there no youtube clip or blogspot that explains the situation?

the same questions go as far as the conspiracies are concerned. did the Bilderbergs retire? are the Illuminati on holidays? was the pig flu virus engineered by the CIA or the KGB?

[teletiger]

by the way, what happened to Geithner? why is Alex the Lah not present to tell us Geithner is as big an idiot as Bernanke? is Geithner now in the good books of the doom&gloomers? is there no youtube clip or blogspot that explains the situation?

the same questions go as far as the conspiracies are concerned. did the Bilderbergs retire? are the Illuminati on holidays? was the pig flu virus engineered by the CIA or the KGB?

Try to keep up Herr Naam. Little Timmah is so yesterday. (as in pink slip)

"Geithner’s Crisis Sleepwalk Is Reason He Must Go"

and:

"Jamie Dimon seen as good fit for Treasury"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=a1B7Cs1f.TO8

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/poli...K#ixzz0XgULTN9u

Regards.

[lannarebirth]

by the way, what happened to Geithner? why is Alex the Lah not present to tell us Geithner is as big an idiot as Bernanke? is Geithner now in the good books of the doom&gloomers? is there no youtube clip or blogspot that explains the situation?

the same questions go as far as the conspiracies are concerned. did the Bilderbergs retire? are the Illuminati on holidays? was the pig flu virus engineered by the CIA or the KGB?

Try to keep up Herr Naam. Little Timmah is so yesterday. (as in pink slip)

"Geithner's Crisis Sleepwalk Is Reason He Must Go"

and:

"Jamie Dimon seen as good fit for Treasury"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=new...id=a1B7Cs1f.TO8

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/poli...K#ixzz0XgULTN9u

Regards.

Jamie Dimon? Oh My Lord! Get your 2012 LEAP calls purchased, start eyeing the 2014 LEAP puts and get busy on that cave excavation.

[Abrak]

But I guess you are so much happier here in Podunk where you can write stuff like I mean if the US$ goes to zero then no US$ asset you own has infinite returns relative. and no one is going to call you an idiot,

why do i have the funny feeling that i'm an idiot? reason: i have no bloody idea what Abrak meant to say

One of the inherent problems with an ignore function is that it is difficult to ignore a users comments if someone else quotes them.

TV's ignore function is particularly irritating. It requires quite a lot of effort to make the thread mask someone's posts. Obviously everyone has already the option of reading or ignoring someone's posts. The whole point of an ignore function is that you have made a judgment that you do not even want to be offered the option of even reading those posts. So to have a whole page littered with masked posts including the options to 'view the post' and 'unignore user' which is questioning that judgment roughly 6x a page is almost as irritating as the user himself.

That Jazzbo doesnt understand my comment is partly because of a typo which turned 'non' into 'no'. However, if the US$ goes to zero any asset be it US$ based or not (as in a house or an SL AMG 500) will by definition have infinite returns. And if he thinks I am the idiot in thinking this rather than him, can he please hand over all his assets to me and I will give him 'zero' in return. (This might also help him reconciling what is the very difficult relationship between infinity and zero - I mean afterwards he can come back to TV and post that his loss was finite (given his fixed number of assets) without having to admit my gains are infinite, at which point I would feel morally compelled to unignore him.)

But ultimately, it comes down to this. I place him on ignore because I think he is a moron with nothing to contribute to the thread. (I also have made myself look stupid by arguing with an idiot.)

So whatever he means if a) he considers TV Podunk then by posting here, by definition, he is the idiot and if he thinks I am an idiot then reading my posts and responding to them also makes him an idiot. I do realize that this argument is circular, by responding to one of his posts, but I blame this on Naam (who has quoted him twice) and who is now making headway in my eyes to his goal of becoming the most hated TV poster, an ambition that he once held and failed miserably to achieve.