Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
davelj
ParticipantI have a catastrophic policy with a $10K deductible that I locked in last year at $165/year for three years. So that’s locked in through the end of next year. I may very well just buy health insurance in Mexico beginning in 2012 since I only use their health care services. If so, although I haven’t checked yet, I’m betting a similar policy will be maybe $50/month. The only risk is that I’m in a life-threatening accident of some kind here in the US and can’t make it across the border. So, I need to figure out if there’s a way to add onto the Mexican policy to hedge against that kind of outlier.
ParticipantI have a catastrophic policy with a $10K deductible that I locked in last year at $165/year for three years. So that’s locked in through the end of next year. I may very well just buy health insurance in Mexico beginning in 2012 since I only use their health care services. If so, although I haven’t checked yet, I’m betting a similar policy will be maybe $50/month. The only risk is that I’m in a life-threatening accident of some kind here in the US and can’t make it across the border. So, I need to figure out if there’s a way to add onto the Mexican policy to hedge against that kind of outlier.
ParticipantI have a catastrophic policy with a $10K deductible that I locked in last year at $165/year for three years. So that’s locked in through the end of next year. I may very well just buy health insurance in Mexico beginning in 2012 since I only use their health care services. If so, although I haven’t checked yet, I’m betting a similar policy will be maybe $50/month. The only risk is that I’m in a life-threatening accident of some kind here in the US and can’t make it across the border. So, I need to figure out if there’s a way to add onto the Mexican policy to hedge against that kind of outlier.
Participant[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]
You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.
Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.
Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.
[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]
[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.
[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.
Participant[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]
You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.
Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.
Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.
[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]
[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.
[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.
Participant[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]
You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.
Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.
Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.
[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]
[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.
[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.
Participant[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]
You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.
Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.
Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.
[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]
[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.
[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.
Participant[quote=patb]
All this started with the rise of movement conserrvatism. Friedman, Reagan and Cato.between 1935 and 1985, the US had an amazing period of financial stability. Then the Banks got Jake Garn and Ferdinand St Germain to et them engage in interstate banking, and the rise of giant national markets.
within a few years the S&Ls collapsed and then after that we had crisis after crisis.[/quote]
You’ve muddled both your history and your banking acts considerably.
Garn-St. Germain (1982) had nothing to do with interstate banking although it did contribute to the S&L Crisis. Its sponsors were Garn (a Democrat) and St. Germain (a Republican). Its co-sponsors were Chuck Schumer (Democrat) and Steny Hoyer (Democrat). Three Democrats and one Republican. This does not fit well with your thesis.
Interstate banking was allowed through the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking Act of 1994, which was passed well after the S&L Crisis. Interstate banking had nothing to do with the S&L Crisis. And, coincidentally, Riegle and Neal were Democrats. Consider your premise.
[Personally I have no issues with National Banks, per se. I just think they should have much higher capital requirements and their banking activities should be restricted – that is, they should be viewed much like utilities, with (modest) returns on capital to match.]
[quote=patb]
it’s a false equivalence to say both parties…[/quote]Notwithstanding the above, the Senate Banking Committee, which is where all of the action is, has historically been roughly equally split between Republicans and Democrats. Right now, there are 13 Democrats and 10 Republicans on the committee. Again, check your premise.
[quote=patb]
One party screwed the pooch fiscally.[/quote]Both parties have done plenty of pooch screwing on the fiscal front. I hesitate to blame one more than the other, frankly. The only real argument between the two – outside of the predictable rhetoric, that is – is where the money goes – that is, whose ox is being gored.
ParticipantTrying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
Now we have to figure out ways to ensure that it doesn’t happen again until after we’re all dead. Because it WILL happen again. No doubt about that. (Recall that knowledge in science and engineering may be cumulative, but in finance it’s cyclical.) All we’re doing now is hoping to push it off so far into the future that we’re not affected (again). But, again, trying to pin the blame on one administration or party is just ridiculous. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
ParticipantTrying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
Now we have to figure out ways to ensure that it doesn’t happen again until after we’re all dead. Because it WILL happen again. No doubt about that. (Recall that knowledge in science and engineering may be cumulative, but in finance it’s cyclical.) All we’re doing now is hoping to push it off so far into the future that we’re not affected (again). But, again, trying to pin the blame on one administration or party is just ridiculous. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
ParticipantTrying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
Now we have to figure out ways to ensure that it doesn’t happen again until after we’re all dead. Because it WILL happen again. No doubt about that. (Recall that knowledge in science and engineering may be cumulative, but in finance it’s cyclical.) All we’re doing now is hoping to push it off so far into the future that we’re not affected (again). But, again, trying to pin the blame on one administration or party is just ridiculous. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
ParticipantTrying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
Now we have to figure out ways to ensure that it doesn’t happen again until after we’re all dead. Because it WILL happen again. No doubt about that. (Recall that knowledge in science and engineering may be cumulative, but in finance it’s cyclical.) All we’re doing now is hoping to push it off so far into the future that we’re not affected (again). But, again, trying to pin the blame on one administration or party is just ridiculous. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
ParticipantTrying to pin the blame on one particular party or administration is a fool’s errand. Arguably, this crisis was set in motion with the formation of the FDIC (and, no, I’m not blaming Roosevelt – just making a point).
Here’s the problem. Eventually our financial system was going to blow up. It was just a matter of “when”. Each party and administration over the last many decades has played some small role and the cumulative errors finally produced the straws that broke the camel’s back.
It’s not unlike the Peter Principle that, “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence”. Folks keep rising up the ladder until they finally fail, such that in time, every position tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties.
In our financial system, folks kept arguing for less regulation and more “freedom” (and more leverage) until things finally blew up. Because prior to the blow up, they would all point to the system’s “success” and say, “See, no problems… so, why don’t you just let us do just a *smidge* more of [insert systemically dangerous activity here]”. And finally the straw broke the camel’s back.
Now we have to figure out ways to ensure that it doesn’t happen again until after we’re all dead. Because it WILL happen again. No doubt about that. (Recall that knowledge in science and engineering may be cumulative, but in finance it’s cyclical.) All we’re doing now is hoping to push it off so far into the future that we’re not affected (again). But, again, trying to pin the blame on one administration or party is just ridiculous. There’s plenty of blame to go around.
Participant[quote=bubba99]OK genius, why might it be right for the wrong reasons? [/quote]
As I said, you may end up being right. But not for the reason you purport. That’s self-explanatory. I might predict the right outcome for every football game this weekend. But it won’t be because I’m some football guru – it will be due to blind luck.
[quote=bubba99]
Here is an article from blumberg about bank treasury purchases – more than nothinghttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aFJpn5iE_vVc [/quote]
Aside from the fact that the article is almost a year old, did you bother to actually read it? Here’s the money quote:
“Even after banks including Bank of America Corp. and Capital One Financial Corp. increased such investments 26 percent to $125 billion in the 12 months through June, they have only about 1 percent of their assets in Treasuries, Fed data show. That’s down from the 8.5 percent average for the year after the past five recessions. Banks would have to buy $1 trillion more to reach past levels, so demand ‘could remain quite high for some time,’ Barclays Plc said.”
Yes, banks have for the last year been buying SHORT-TERM treasuries, which they – no, make that no one – needs to dump. There’s very little duration – and thus interest-rate risk – in holding short-term treasuries.
[quote=bubba99]
Here is another an interesting article about the banks being the first wave in the calapse of the Treasury market.At least I am not alone in “my lack of understanding of the subject”
The applicable text being “So the TBTF banks, on seeing this run on Treasuries, will add to the panic by acting in their own best interests: They will be among the first to step off Treasuries. They will be the bleeding edge of the wave. Here the panic phase of the event begins: Asset managers—on seeing this massive Fed buy of Treasuries, and the American Zombies selling Treasuries, all of this happening within days of a largish Treasury auction—will dump their own Treasuries en masse.”[/quote]
You’re right. You’re not alone. You AND this “Writer, Filmmaker” don’t understand the relationship between the Fed, the TBTF banks and treasuries.
If FOREIGNERS start selling long-term US Treasuries (or not buying them “when issued”), THEN we have a problem. The same applies to other LARGE buyers of LONG-TERM Treasuries. But banks don’t hold much in the way of Treasuries (and, again, what they do hold are short-term) in the whole scheme of things as the graph in my prior post makes abundantly clear. You’re chasing a red herring. Because, like your “Writer, Filmmaker” friend above, you don’t know any better.
-
AuthorPosts
