Capitalism in Its Purest Form (I Do Like How This Works)
Over at Jeffrey P. Snyder's missive...
Tack:"we can never run out of ways to utilize it (money) "provided" -- big word there! -- that adequate incentives are provided for those that would employ capital to see the possibility to make an adequate economic return, given all risks considered... Economic growth potential is limited by nothing except attitudes and the policies and behaviors that result from them. Right now, we're getting exactly what we deserve. "
Spot on. Tack's sharp, no pun intended.
Tack: "You have suggested that there be business "Darwinism." Then, you raise questions about the consequences of such freedom, i.e., Walmart puts small vendors out of business. So, which policy do you favor?"
Our answer: If darwinism is to be heeded...
Tack: "It's capitalism in its purest form. It's not justified or beneficial to impose protectionist measures"
...then you and I agree. And let the Nattering commence... By the same token, we should not have massive bailouts and TBTF measures such as QE and ZIRP. We have previously commented in that regard:
A slice of that comment which should sound familiar: "After the last crisis, when it was all said and done, the Fed had bailed out the banking, insurance, Wall Street, Fannie, Freddie, FDIC and entire financial system. Not just domestic, but globally. Subsequently, Congress curbed the Fed's ability to rescue a bank in trouble and justifiably so.
The FED should have let nature take its course by allowing the market forces to act out, rather than intervening. The failures and ensuing death would have resulted in a fresh rebirth and stronger system, rather than the countless QE efforts and all of its heinous side effects, and the resulting reanimated zombie of a system and economy we now have."
Tack: "In just a few minutes, we could list numerous worthwhile investments of need and benefit (e.g., infrastructure, etc.) that would consume capital, resources and employees, all of which are available. But, it's not happening; why?
Well, from my vantage point it's not occurring because Government has taken no policy lead in direct spending, tax legislation, subsidies or any other form to incentivize companies and individuals to grow new investments in needed areas."
Again, spot on.
Tack: "In fact, it's worse than that, as recent Government has even been very antagonistic to existing business (and banking) operations, so as to make businesses reluctant even to reinvest in their existing business or adopt any program with other than an immediate or short-term payoff.... It's simply that business is responding to the messages it's being sent, which have mostly been that Government doesn't much like them, respect them, think they are the source of prosperity in the country, etc. Worst of all, the electorate has started to believe this pap in majority numbers that suggest that things may not get any better for businesses in the future."
Sorry Tack, at this point we diverge as Homey don't play that. Our broke or should I say bankrupt government, which other than run up record debt and deficit, and has done next to nothing with its divisive polarized gridlock by design, since Bush Jr. took office, somehow found $700bn to front the initial bailouts. Yet all along, kept cutting necessary social programs, social security, medicaid, etc. Trim the fat while propping up the banksters, country club and yacht club set. I do like how this works, how's bout a San Pellegrino after our tennis match, ol chum?
Since those bailouts we now have a concentration of five banks which comprise 45% of the total US market. We do not speak to the GSE's, insurance, broker dealers, foreign market consolidations, etc. This means the ubiquitous "they" are now even much "too bigger to fail". Hence the dismantling of the 2010 Dodd-Frank act, and the public being placed on hook through FDIC insurance for the banksters off balance sheet derivative bets, all at their lobbyists behest. From Zerohedge... US Deposits In Perspective: $25 Billion In Insurance, $9,283 Billion In Deposits; $297,514 Billion In Derivatives.
Rather than robbing the public blind of its tax dollars, these bailouts have made John Q. a shrewd investor. Right? Yet, much like the building of Halliburton's pipeline, for which we will have paid $4 to $6 trillion vis a vis multiple war efforts, and an inestimable total in human lives, fighting for freedom and democracy all the while, we have yet to see a single dime from a barrel of oil or the banksters profits, nor will we ever. I do like how this works, a glass of Pinot or some bubbly Chardonnay at the stables after our polo match, ol buddy, ol buddy, ol pal?
IMO, this is an example of the sequestering and redistribution of capital resources that has been going on, in broad daylight, on the public dime. Sounds like a wonderful utilization of capital and resources as some of this misallocated capital could have been spent in many other socially beneficial ways as discussed at length here... and in this series of missives.
The American public which are on the hook for $16.9 trillion in guarantees on outlays of $3.3 trillion is painted as winners in these bailouts, with the cost amounting to a "pittance" according to some. To rub salt in the wound, QE and ZIRP allow the banks to borrow trillions at low rates and make boucoup bank on it in carry trades involving a rigged bond market that more resembles a pawn shop run by The Sopranos. Don't disrespect da Bing, or da Thing,you know, da Thing you fraid-a?
But wait that's not all you get, if you act now... the weaker banks get to borrow at a even lower rate. Isn't that called a government subsidy? Not a tax (as Obamacare was ruled by SCOTUS.) Kudos to Kramer, when your on, "your on". (Not to be confused with the Kramer of "Mad Money" or "Seinfeld" fame.) So the banks profit from tax payer subsidy (as calculated by the IMF and Bloomberg) to the tune of $83 billion per year. And they use that profit, just as they use most of their profit, financing speculative trading. More big floaty things for management, you just gotta love it. How bout some beluga on the aft starboard deck? Don't tell the Skipper or Gilligan, Mum's the word, eh?
Yet, this bunch of bilious bailed out bastards are reticent to lend to medium or small business and homeowners in general. Many of very businesses and homeowners that "failed" due to they or others; losing their jobs and or losing their over inflated asset (the home which was being used like at ATM) during the crisis. Who bailed them out as they lost their homes and businesses to the very banks that were getting bailed out? Which then held the properties as ghost inventory in off book trusts for years, and sold them en masse to... not the public, but their hedge fund friends for pennies on the dollar. It doesn't get any better, does it?
Its just one big horn-o-plenty for the corporations to sponsor buybacks and dividents, while the banksters and rich engage in speculative financialism, and business as usual, squat for the decimated remainder of the real economy and John Q Public. These socialism programs for the corporations and rich, at the expense of the public, yes, this is capitalism in its purest form. I do like how this works and am sure there are many others who feel the same way.
So much so that I quote Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx) from Duck Soup: "I've got a good mind to go out and join a club and beat you over the head with it." So here's a holla out to all those country club, polo grounds and yacht club types, along with their bankster friends and John Q Public, for one big soire to end them all. We could all get together and quaff a beer at the 19th hole, and see what ensues?"They" might not like how that works. I'd wager... a real clubbing, baby harp seal style.
IMF calculations can be found here in "Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions "; Bloomberg editors oped cached here.
Tack:"we can never run out of ways to utilize it (money) "provided" -- big word there! -- that adequate incentives are provided for those that would employ capital to see the possibility to make an adequate economic return, given all risks considered... Economic growth potential is limited by nothing except attitudes and the policies and behaviors that result from them. Right now, we're getting exactly what we deserve. "
Spot on. Tack's sharp, no pun intended.
Tack: "You have suggested that there be business "Darwinism." Then, you raise questions about the consequences of such freedom, i.e., Walmart puts small vendors out of business. So, which policy do you favor?"
Our answer: If darwinism is to be heeded...
Tack: "It's capitalism in its purest form. It's not justified or beneficial to impose protectionist measures"
...then you and I agree. And let the Nattering commence... By the same token, we should not have massive bailouts and TBTF measures such as QE and ZIRP. We have previously commented in that regard:
A slice of that comment which should sound familiar: "After the last crisis, when it was all said and done, the Fed had bailed out the banking, insurance, Wall Street, Fannie, Freddie, FDIC and entire financial system. Not just domestic, but globally. Subsequently, Congress curbed the Fed's ability to rescue a bank in trouble and justifiably so.
The FED should have let nature take its course by allowing the market forces to act out, rather than intervening. The failures and ensuing death would have resulted in a fresh rebirth and stronger system, rather than the countless QE efforts and all of its heinous side effects, and the resulting reanimated zombie of a system and economy we now have."
Tack: "In just a few minutes, we could list numerous worthwhile investments of need and benefit (e.g., infrastructure, etc.) that would consume capital, resources and employees, all of which are available. But, it's not happening; why?
Well, from my vantage point it's not occurring because Government has taken no policy lead in direct spending, tax legislation, subsidies or any other form to incentivize companies and individuals to grow new investments in needed areas."
Again, spot on.
Tack: "In fact, it's worse than that, as recent Government has even been very antagonistic to existing business (and banking) operations, so as to make businesses reluctant even to reinvest in their existing business or adopt any program with other than an immediate or short-term payoff.... It's simply that business is responding to the messages it's being sent, which have mostly been that Government doesn't much like them, respect them, think they are the source of prosperity in the country, etc. Worst of all, the electorate has started to believe this pap in majority numbers that suggest that things may not get any better for businesses in the future."
Sorry Tack, at this point we diverge as Homey don't play that. Our broke or should I say bankrupt government, which other than run up record debt and deficit, and has done next to nothing with its divisive polarized gridlock by design, since Bush Jr. took office, somehow found $700bn to front the initial bailouts. Yet all along, kept cutting necessary social programs, social security, medicaid, etc. Trim the fat while propping up the banksters, country club and yacht club set. I do like how this works, how's bout a San Pellegrino after our tennis match, ol chum?
Since those bailouts we now have a concentration of five banks which comprise 45% of the total US market. We do not speak to the GSE's, insurance, broker dealers, foreign market consolidations, etc. This means the ubiquitous "they" are now even much "too bigger to fail". Hence the dismantling of the 2010 Dodd-Frank act, and the public being placed on hook through FDIC insurance for the banksters off balance sheet derivative bets, all at their lobbyists behest. From Zerohedge... US Deposits In Perspective: $25 Billion In Insurance, $9,283 Billion In Deposits; $297,514 Billion In Derivatives.
Rather than robbing the public blind of its tax dollars, these bailouts have made John Q. a shrewd investor. Right? Yet, much like the building of Halliburton's pipeline, for which we will have paid $4 to $6 trillion vis a vis multiple war efforts, and an inestimable total in human lives, fighting for freedom and democracy all the while, we have yet to see a single dime from a barrel of oil or the banksters profits, nor will we ever. I do like how this works, a glass of Pinot or some bubbly Chardonnay at the stables after our polo match, ol buddy, ol buddy, ol pal?
IMO, this is an example of the sequestering and redistribution of capital resources that has been going on, in broad daylight, on the public dime. Sounds like a wonderful utilization of capital and resources as some of this misallocated capital could have been spent in many other socially beneficial ways as discussed at length here... and in this series of missives.
The American public which are on the hook for $16.9 trillion in guarantees on outlays of $3.3 trillion is painted as winners in these bailouts, with the cost amounting to a "pittance" according to some. To rub salt in the wound, QE and ZIRP allow the banks to borrow trillions at low rates and make boucoup bank on it in carry trades involving a rigged bond market that more resembles a pawn shop run by The Sopranos. Don't disrespect da Bing, or da Thing,you know, da Thing you fraid-a?
But wait that's not all you get, if you act now... the weaker banks get to borrow at a even lower rate. Isn't that called a government subsidy? Not a tax (as Obamacare was ruled by SCOTUS.) Kudos to Kramer, when your on, "your on". (Not to be confused with the Kramer of "Mad Money" or "Seinfeld" fame.) So the banks profit from tax payer subsidy (as calculated by the IMF and Bloomberg) to the tune of $83 billion per year. And they use that profit, just as they use most of their profit, financing speculative trading. More big floaty things for management, you just gotta love it. How bout some beluga on the aft starboard deck? Don't tell the Skipper or Gilligan, Mum's the word, eh?
Yet, this bunch of bilious bailed out bastards are reticent to lend to medium or small business and homeowners in general. Many of very businesses and homeowners that "failed" due to they or others; losing their jobs and or losing their over inflated asset (the home which was being used like at ATM) during the crisis. Who bailed them out as they lost their homes and businesses to the very banks that were getting bailed out? Which then held the properties as ghost inventory in off book trusts for years, and sold them en masse to... not the public, but their hedge fund friends for pennies on the dollar. It doesn't get any better, does it?
Its just one big horn-o-plenty for the corporations to sponsor buybacks and dividents, while the banksters and rich engage in speculative financialism, and business as usual, squat for the decimated remainder of the real economy and John Q Public. These socialism programs for the corporations and rich, at the expense of the public, yes, this is capitalism in its purest form. I do like how this works and am sure there are many others who feel the same way.
So much so that I quote Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho Marx) from Duck Soup: "I've got a good mind to go out and join a club and beat you over the head with it." So here's a holla out to all those country club, polo grounds and yacht club types, along with their bankster friends and John Q Public, for one big soire to end them all. We could all get together and quaff a beer at the 19th hole, and see what ensues?"They" might not like how that works. I'd wager... a real clubbing, baby harp seal style.
IMF calculations can be found here in "Quantifying Structural Subsidy Values for Systemically Important Financial Institutions "; Bloomberg editors oped cached here.
Comments