On MTM, insolvency, and market over-corrections

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]drunkle-Dave lives in a smoke and mirrors filled byzantine labyrinth of virtual money, theoretical valuations and ever morphing rules to make it all work out in the end. That kind of thinking does not work when applied to the real world and hashing life out in a cooperative and fair manner. The money men that are running this country have lost their minds and dave is caught in the same rapacious consensus trance of keeping the system afloat at all costs.

It’ll be an interesting show and they are guaranteed to fail by any rational measure of success, which they will surely try and define in their morphological world of definitions. haha

[/quote]

Arraya, you must be right. I mean, given the level of pedantic sophistry that your posts display – worded carefully as vague, non-quantitative observations that can’t be challenged – how could there be any other result?

And it’s rare that I see words like “morphological” used… in the proper context. Well done!

Now, I would reply further but I’m starting to get engulfed by all the smoke… and confused amongst the many mirrors… *coughing and confused*… Must. Find. Way. Out. Of. Labyrinth…

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: I’d refine your point as follows: I think more than a few of the people in charge really don’t fully understand the complexity of the operations they are running and at both the micro (individual deals and projects) and macro (enterprise wide) levels.

[/quote]

Agree 100%. I was discussing this very issue with the CFO of a local bank recently and I said (I’m paraphrasing), “No one at these Big Banks has the intellectual capacity to understand certain important parts of their businesses. I was a math minor as an undergrad and fairly numerate relative to the average person. But I could no more understand many of the products being constructed in the bowels of these Big Banks than fly to the moon. These PhDs could sit down and try to explain to me what they’re doing for a week and I still wouldn’t understand most of it. So why do we think that even generic “smart guys” like Ken Lewis (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of argument) understand what’s going on in their enterprises? Few humans on the planet can understand all of this crap and, at the same time, manage it properly. I would feel sorry for these dumb schmucks if it weren’t for the fact that their egos won’t allow them to say, ‘What the hell are you guys doing down here? I don’t understand it!!’ ”

Which is why it needs to be simplified, shrunk and backed by more capital.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: I’d refine your point as follows: I think more than a few of the people in charge really don’t fully understand the complexity of the operations they are running and at both the micro (individual deals and projects) and macro (enterprise wide) levels.

[/quote]

Agree 100%. I was discussing this very issue with the CFO of a local bank recently and I said (I’m paraphrasing), “No one at these Big Banks has the intellectual capacity to understand certain important parts of their businesses. I was a math minor as an undergrad and fairly numerate relative to the average person. But I could no more understand many of the products being constructed in the bowels of these Big Banks than fly to the moon. These PhDs could sit down and try to explain to me what they’re doing for a week and I still wouldn’t understand most of it. So why do we think that even generic “smart guys” like Ken Lewis (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of argument) understand what’s going on in their enterprises? Few humans on the planet can understand all of this crap and, at the same time, manage it properly. I would feel sorry for these dumb schmucks if it weren’t for the fact that their egos won’t allow them to say, ‘What the hell are you guys doing down here? I don’t understand it!!’ ”

Which is why it needs to be simplified, shrunk and backed by more capital.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: I’d refine your point as follows: I think more than a few of the people in charge really don’t fully understand the complexity of the operations they are running and at both the micro (individual deals and projects) and macro (enterprise wide) levels.

[/quote]

Agree 100%. I was discussing this very issue with the CFO of a local bank recently and I said (I’m paraphrasing), “No one at these Big Banks has the intellectual capacity to understand certain important parts of their businesses. I was a math minor as an undergrad and fairly numerate relative to the average person. But I could no more understand many of the products being constructed in the bowels of these Big Banks than fly to the moon. These PhDs could sit down and try to explain to me what they’re doing for a week and I still wouldn’t understand most of it. So why do we think that even generic “smart guys” like Ken Lewis (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of argument) understand what’s going on in their enterprises? Few humans on the planet can understand all of this crap and, at the same time, manage it properly. I would feel sorry for these dumb schmucks if it weren’t for the fact that their egos won’t allow them to say, ‘What the hell are you guys doing down here? I don’t understand it!!’ ”

Which is why it needs to be simplified, shrunk and backed by more capital.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: I’d refine your point as follows: I think more than a few of the people in charge really don’t fully understand the complexity of the operations they are running and at both the micro (individual deals and projects) and macro (enterprise wide) levels.

[/quote]

Agree 100%. I was discussing this very issue with the CFO of a local bank recently and I said (I’m paraphrasing), “No one at these Big Banks has the intellectual capacity to understand certain important parts of their businesses. I was a math minor as an undergrad and fairly numerate relative to the average person. But I could no more understand many of the products being constructed in the bowels of these Big Banks than fly to the moon. These PhDs could sit down and try to explain to me what they’re doing for a week and I still wouldn’t understand most of it. So why do we think that even generic “smart guys” like Ken Lewis (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of argument) understand what’s going on in their enterprises? Few humans on the planet can understand all of this crap and, at the same time, manage it properly. I would feel sorry for these dumb schmucks if it weren’t for the fact that their egos won’t allow them to say, ‘What the hell are you guys doing down here? I don’t understand it!!’ ”

Which is why it needs to be simplified, shrunk and backed by more capital.

[davelj]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Dave: I’d refine your point as follows: I think more than a few of the people in charge really don’t fully understand the complexity of the operations they are running and at both the micro (individual deals and projects) and macro (enterprise wide) levels.

[/quote]

Agree 100%. I was discussing this very issue with the CFO of a local bank recently and I said (I’m paraphrasing), “No one at these Big Banks has the intellectual capacity to understand certain important parts of their businesses. I was a math minor as an undergrad and fairly numerate relative to the average person. But I could no more understand many of the products being constructed in the bowels of these Big Banks than fly to the moon. These PhDs could sit down and try to explain to me what they’re doing for a week and I still wouldn’t understand most of it. So why do we think that even generic “smart guys” like Ken Lewis (I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt just for the sake of argument) understand what’s going on in their enterprises? Few humans on the planet can understand all of this crap and, at the same time, manage it properly. I would feel sorry for these dumb schmucks if it weren’t for the fact that their egos won’t allow them to say, ‘What the hell are you guys doing down here? I don’t understand it!!’ ”

Which is why it needs to be simplified, shrunk and backed by more capital.

[Arraya]

Yes, Dave, an over inflated sense of self-importance is very much part of the problem and they are going to have a hard time printing legitimacy and oil which will be needed to put things back to normal as they say they are trying to do. Resume “growth” hahahaha Really I can see it in 2010 and we can always change statistical methodology because that is just as good. Perception is reality, ya know?

It’s still not to late to repent and find your way out of the labyrinth, Dave. Go to the light… haha

I give Geithner till January. Krugman is triangulating as we speak. By that time the global dollar dump will be in swing and some big scapegoats will be needed. Obama will be forced to sacrifice Geithner to the peasantry outside the castle gates. Ya, think the IMF would lend us a helping hand?

http://www.chrismartenson.com/

The assumption by the G20 that money printed out of thin air is both necessary and sufficient to return us to a renewed path of global economic growth is deeply flawed. Trillions of dollars in new stimulus money will soon “find their mark” and stampede off looking for something to do. The energy to support all this money does not exist, at least if the independent efforts of three diverse institutions that have studied the data are to be trusted (and I do because their conclusions are so similar).

The combination of rapid declines in existing fields and a collapse in oil field investment means that it is extremely unlikely that we’ll have enough oil to return the globe to robust growth.

While it is possible that we’ll close some of the energy gap with efficiency measures, a decade or more of lead-time sits between the development of more efficient technologies and their full market penetration, which means that efficiency is unlikely to play anything other than a bit part in this developing drama.

Any plan to stimulate growth that does not take this energy reality into account is highly suspect and is probably flawed. Why this most obvious of all connections is not being openly discussed will be for future historians to dissect. For now, it is up to each of us to define for ourselves how much importance we place in this line of thinking.

Tick tock, tick tock

[Arraya]

Yes, Dave, an over inflated sense of self-importance is very much part of the problem and they are going to have a hard time printing legitimacy and oil which will be needed to put things back to normal as they say they are trying to do. Resume “growth” hahahaha Really I can see it in 2010 and we can always change statistical methodology because that is just as good. Perception is reality, ya know?

It’s still not to late to repent and find your way out of the labyrinth, Dave. Go to the light… haha

I give Geithner till January. Krugman is triangulating as we speak. By that time the global dollar dump will be in swing and some big scapegoats will be needed. Obama will be forced to sacrifice Geithner to the peasantry outside the castle gates. Ya, think the IMF would lend us a helping hand?

http://www.chrismartenson.com/

The assumption by the G20 that money printed out of thin air is both necessary and sufficient to return us to a renewed path of global economic growth is deeply flawed. Trillions of dollars in new stimulus money will soon “find their mark” and stampede off looking for something to do. The energy to support all this money does not exist, at least if the independent efforts of three diverse institutions that have studied the data are to be trusted (and I do because their conclusions are so similar).

The combination of rapid declines in existing fields and a collapse in oil field investment means that it is extremely unlikely that we’ll have enough oil to return the globe to robust growth.

While it is possible that we’ll close some of the energy gap with efficiency measures, a decade or more of lead-time sits between the development of more efficient technologies and their full market penetration, which means that efficiency is unlikely to play anything other than a bit part in this developing drama.

Any plan to stimulate growth that does not take this energy reality into account is highly suspect and is probably flawed. Why this most obvious of all connections is not being openly discussed will be for future historians to dissect. For now, it is up to each of us to define for ourselves how much importance we place in this line of thinking.

Tick tock, tick tock

[Arraya]

Yes, Dave, an over inflated sense of self-importance is very much part of the problem and they are going to have a hard time printing legitimacy and oil which will be needed to put things back to normal as they say they are trying to do. Resume “growth” hahahaha Really I can see it in 2010 and we can always change statistical methodology because that is just as good. Perception is reality, ya know?

It’s still not to late to repent and find your way out of the labyrinth, Dave. Go to the light… haha

I give Geithner till January. Krugman is triangulating as we speak. By that time the global dollar dump will be in swing and some big scapegoats will be needed. Obama will be forced to sacrifice Geithner to the peasantry outside the castle gates. Ya, think the IMF would lend us a helping hand?

http://www.chrismartenson.com/

The assumption by the G20 that money printed out of thin air is both necessary and sufficient to return us to a renewed path of global economic growth is deeply flawed. Trillions of dollars in new stimulus money will soon “find their mark” and stampede off looking for something to do. The energy to support all this money does not exist, at least if the independent efforts of three diverse institutions that have studied the data are to be trusted (and I do because their conclusions are so similar).

The combination of rapid declines in existing fields and a collapse in oil field investment means that it is extremely unlikely that we’ll have enough oil to return the globe to robust growth.

While it is possible that we’ll close some of the energy gap with efficiency measures, a decade or more of lead-time sits between the development of more efficient technologies and their full market penetration, which means that efficiency is unlikely to play anything other than a bit part in this developing drama.

Any plan to stimulate growth that does not take this energy reality into account is highly suspect and is probably flawed. Why this most obvious of all connections is not being openly discussed will be for future historians to dissect. For now, it is up to each of us to define for ourselves how much importance we place in this line of thinking.

Tick tock, tick tock

[Arraya]

Yes, Dave, an over inflated sense of self-importance is very much part of the problem and they are going to have a hard time printing legitimacy and oil which will be needed to put things back to normal as they say they are trying to do. Resume “growth” hahahaha Really I can see it in 2010 and we can always change statistical methodology because that is just as good. Perception is reality, ya know?

It’s still not to late to repent and find your way out of the labyrinth, Dave. Go to the light… haha

I give Geithner till January. Krugman is triangulating as we speak. By that time the global dollar dump will be in swing and some big scapegoats will be needed. Obama will be forced to sacrifice Geithner to the peasantry outside the castle gates. Ya, think the IMF would lend us a helping hand?

http://www.chrismartenson.com/

The assumption by the G20 that money printed out of thin air is both necessary and sufficient to return us to a renewed path of global economic growth is deeply flawed. Trillions of dollars in new stimulus money will soon “find their mark” and stampede off looking for something to do. The energy to support all this money does not exist, at least if the independent efforts of three diverse institutions that have studied the data are to be trusted (and I do because their conclusions are so similar).

The combination of rapid declines in existing fields and a collapse in oil field investment means that it is extremely unlikely that we’ll have enough oil to return the globe to robust growth.

While it is possible that we’ll close some of the energy gap with efficiency measures, a decade or more of lead-time sits between the development of more efficient technologies and their full market penetration, which means that efficiency is unlikely to play anything other than a bit part in this developing drama.

Any plan to stimulate growth that does not take this energy reality into account is highly suspect and is probably flawed. Why this most obvious of all connections is not being openly discussed will be for future historians to dissect. For now, it is up to each of us to define for ourselves how much importance we place in this line of thinking.

Tick tock, tick tock

[Arraya]

Yes, Dave, an over inflated sense of self-importance is very much part of the problem and they are going to have a hard time printing legitimacy and oil which will be needed to put things back to normal as they say they are trying to do. Resume “growth” hahahaha Really I can see it in 2010 and we can always change statistical methodology because that is just as good. Perception is reality, ya know?

It’s still not to late to repent and find your way out of the labyrinth, Dave. Go to the light… haha

I give Geithner till January. Krugman is triangulating as we speak. By that time the global dollar dump will be in swing and some big scapegoats will be needed. Obama will be forced to sacrifice Geithner to the peasantry outside the castle gates. Ya, think the IMF would lend us a helping hand?

http://www.chrismartenson.com/

The assumption by the G20 that money printed out of thin air is both necessary and sufficient to return us to a renewed path of global economic growth is deeply flawed. Trillions of dollars in new stimulus money will soon “find their mark” and stampede off looking for something to do. The energy to support all this money does not exist, at least if the independent efforts of three diverse institutions that have studied the data are to be trusted (and I do because their conclusions are so similar).

The combination of rapid declines in existing fields and a collapse in oil field investment means that it is extremely unlikely that we’ll have enough oil to return the globe to robust growth.

While it is possible that we’ll close some of the energy gap with efficiency measures, a decade or more of lead-time sits between the development of more efficient technologies and their full market penetration, which means that efficiency is unlikely to play anything other than a bit part in this developing drama.

Any plan to stimulate growth that does not take this energy reality into account is highly suspect and is probably flawed. Why this most obvious of all connections is not being openly discussed will be for future historians to dissect. For now, it is up to each of us to define for ourselves how much importance we place in this line of thinking.

Tick tock, tick tock

[Author]

Posts