[patientrenter]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

….This article was pretty much jaw-dropping to me. This guy is suggesting we openly punish people who save instead of running out and squandering every penny on things they don’t feel they need. (They already punish saving to an extent, but this takes it to a whole new level in terms of both openness and extent). As if the long-term prosperity of society is optimized by maximizing short-term consumption rather than saving wealth. This type of thinking is every bit as backwards as the housing bubble boosterism we heard in 2005, imho.

Mankiw is the author of one of the most widely used economics text, iirc, in addition to having been a presidential economic adviser to the last administration. So this is beyond a mainstream guy — he is one of the authorities in the field of economics.

This just goes to show how short-sighted and misguided mainstream economics is. And, by extension, economic policy, since it is informed by mainstream economics.

Rich
[/quote]

I too was surprised at how open Mankiw is about this “war on savers”. But you have all seen the evidence that this is our political and economic establishment’s position on saving for many, many decades now. Don’t waste too much energy on resisting or complaining. Just plan your personal life and investments accordingly.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

….This article was pretty much jaw-dropping to me. This guy is suggesting we openly punish people who save instead of running out and squandering every penny on things they don’t feel they need. (They already punish saving to an extent, but this takes it to a whole new level in terms of both openness and extent). As if the long-term prosperity of society is optimized by maximizing short-term consumption rather than saving wealth. This type of thinking is every bit as backwards as the housing bubble boosterism we heard in 2005, imho.

Mankiw is the author of one of the most widely used economics text, iirc, in addition to having been a presidential economic adviser to the last administration. So this is beyond a mainstream guy — he is one of the authorities in the field of economics.

This just goes to show how short-sighted and misguided mainstream economics is. And, by extension, economic policy, since it is informed by mainstream economics.

Rich
[/quote]

I too was surprised at how open Mankiw is about this “war on savers”. But you have all seen the evidence that this is our political and economic establishment’s position on saving for many, many decades now. Don’t waste too much energy on resisting or complaining. Just plan your personal life and investments accordingly.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

….This article was pretty much jaw-dropping to me. This guy is suggesting we openly punish people who save instead of running out and squandering every penny on things they don’t feel they need. (They already punish saving to an extent, but this takes it to a whole new level in terms of both openness and extent). As if the long-term prosperity of society is optimized by maximizing short-term consumption rather than saving wealth. This type of thinking is every bit as backwards as the housing bubble boosterism we heard in 2005, imho.

Mankiw is the author of one of the most widely used economics text, iirc, in addition to having been a presidential economic adviser to the last administration. So this is beyond a mainstream guy — he is one of the authorities in the field of economics.

This just goes to show how short-sighted and misguided mainstream economics is. And, by extension, economic policy, since it is informed by mainstream economics.

Rich
[/quote]

I too was surprised at how open Mankiw is about this “war on savers”. But you have all seen the evidence that this is our political and economic establishment’s position on saving for many, many decades now. Don’t waste too much energy on resisting or complaining. Just plan your personal life and investments accordingly.

[patientrenter]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

….This article was pretty much jaw-dropping to me. This guy is suggesting we openly punish people who save instead of running out and squandering every penny on things they don’t feel they need. (They already punish saving to an extent, but this takes it to a whole new level in terms of both openness and extent). As if the long-term prosperity of society is optimized by maximizing short-term consumption rather than saving wealth. This type of thinking is every bit as backwards as the housing bubble boosterism we heard in 2005, imho.

Mankiw is the author of one of the most widely used economics text, iirc, in addition to having been a presidential economic adviser to the last administration. So this is beyond a mainstream guy — he is one of the authorities in the field of economics.

This just goes to show how short-sighted and misguided mainstream economics is. And, by extension, economic policy, since it is informed by mainstream economics.

Rich
[/quote]

I too was surprised at how open Mankiw is about this “war on savers”. But you have all seen the evidence that this is our political and economic establishment’s position on saving for many, many decades now. Don’t waste too much energy on resisting or complaining. Just plan your personal life and investments accordingly.

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]I hardly think the gangs will quietly leave the US and go home to places that are far worse. Legalizing pot will probably raise the level of violent crime in the US as these guys will have to turn to alternative methods to make up for the revenue short fall it will create.
Got ammo?[/quote]

Like those violent Italians in Chicago?

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]I hardly think the gangs will quietly leave the US and go home to places that are far worse. Legalizing pot will probably raise the level of violent crime in the US as these guys will have to turn to alternative methods to make up for the revenue short fall it will create.
Got ammo?[/quote]

Like those violent Italians in Chicago?

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]I hardly think the gangs will quietly leave the US and go home to places that are far worse. Legalizing pot will probably raise the level of violent crime in the US as these guys will have to turn to alternative methods to make up for the revenue short fall it will create.
Got ammo?[/quote]

Like those violent Italians in Chicago?

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]I hardly think the gangs will quietly leave the US and go home to places that are far worse. Legalizing pot will probably raise the level of violent crime in the US as these guys will have to turn to alternative methods to make up for the revenue short fall it will create.
Got ammo?[/quote]

Like those violent Italians in Chicago?

[patientrenter]

[quote=peterb]I hardly think the gangs will quietly leave the US and go home to places that are far worse. Legalizing pot will probably raise the level of violent crime in the US as these guys will have to turn to alternative methods to make up for the revenue short fall it will create.
Got ammo?[/quote]

Like those violent Italians in Chicago?

[patientrenter]

And Hoenig has my vote too, but what’s really odd is how few of our most eminent economic and financial leaders are in this camp.

Recently, I was very surprised when I watched the KCRW broadcast of a presentation by Alex Blumberg and Adam Davidson, hosts of an excellent series of shows on this crisis. They understand all the fraud, and the overindebtedness, and all that, but yet they sounded convinced of the “too big to fail” mantra.

When asked why, they lapsed into “end of the world” cliches. I still don’t understand why you can’t announce a failure with full guarantees of all depositors and counterparties. That would avoid a run. You’d have to identify up front all the banks that would be saved, to avoid them collapsing in a bank run. But that’s not so hard. Just identify the weakest 6 of the top 19 banks, and announce all at once that they will be wound down over some time, and the others will survive. It’s the big bang method, but sometimes that’s the right way.

And then legislate that “if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist” for the long-term future.

I think some very smart and interested people have convinced some slightly less smart and less interested people of TBTF, and they in turn are convincing not very smart and not so interested people. It’s been a very successful strategy, but we, the dumb public, can ask directly what alternatives to TBTF have been pursued, and what exactly they are, and what the killer problems are. It wouldn’t shock me if that would show us all that the killer problems could be solved. Some people don’t want them solved.

[patientrenter]

And Hoenig has my vote too, but what’s really odd is how few of our most eminent economic and financial leaders are in this camp.

Recently, I was very surprised when I watched the KCRW broadcast of a presentation by Alex Blumberg and Adam Davidson, hosts of an excellent series of shows on this crisis. They understand all the fraud, and the overindebtedness, and all that, but yet they sounded convinced of the “too big to fail” mantra.

When asked why, they lapsed into “end of the world” cliches. I still don’t understand why you can’t announce a failure with full guarantees of all depositors and counterparties. That would avoid a run. You’d have to identify up front all the banks that would be saved, to avoid them collapsing in a bank run. But that’s not so hard. Just identify the weakest 6 of the top 19 banks, and announce all at once that they will be wound down over some time, and the others will survive. It’s the big bang method, but sometimes that’s the right way.

And then legislate that “if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist” for the long-term future.

I think some very smart and interested people have convinced some slightly less smart and less interested people of TBTF, and they in turn are convincing not very smart and not so interested people. It’s been a very successful strategy, but we, the dumb public, can ask directly what alternatives to TBTF have been pursued, and what exactly they are, and what the killer problems are. It wouldn’t shock me if that would show us all that the killer problems could be solved. Some people don’t want them solved.

[patientrenter]

And Hoenig has my vote too, but what’s really odd is how few of our most eminent economic and financial leaders are in this camp.

Recently, I was very surprised when I watched the KCRW broadcast of a presentation by Alex Blumberg and Adam Davidson, hosts of an excellent series of shows on this crisis. They understand all the fraud, and the overindebtedness, and all that, but yet they sounded convinced of the “too big to fail” mantra.

When asked why, they lapsed into “end of the world” cliches. I still don’t understand why you can’t announce a failure with full guarantees of all depositors and counterparties. That would avoid a run. You’d have to identify up front all the banks that would be saved, to avoid them collapsing in a bank run. But that’s not so hard. Just identify the weakest 6 of the top 19 banks, and announce all at once that they will be wound down over some time, and the others will survive. It’s the big bang method, but sometimes that’s the right way.

And then legislate that “if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist” for the long-term future.

I think some very smart and interested people have convinced some slightly less smart and less interested people of TBTF, and they in turn are convincing not very smart and not so interested people. It’s been a very successful strategy, but we, the dumb public, can ask directly what alternatives to TBTF have been pursued, and what exactly they are, and what the killer problems are. It wouldn’t shock me if that would show us all that the killer problems could be solved. Some people don’t want them solved.

[patientrenter]

And Hoenig has my vote too, but what’s really odd is how few of our most eminent economic and financial leaders are in this camp.

Recently, I was very surprised when I watched the KCRW broadcast of a presentation by Alex Blumberg and Adam Davidson, hosts of an excellent series of shows on this crisis. They understand all the fraud, and the overindebtedness, and all that, but yet they sounded convinced of the “too big to fail” mantra.

When asked why, they lapsed into “end of the world” cliches. I still don’t understand why you can’t announce a failure with full guarantees of all depositors and counterparties. That would avoid a run. You’d have to identify up front all the banks that would be saved, to avoid them collapsing in a bank run. But that’s not so hard. Just identify the weakest 6 of the top 19 banks, and announce all at once that they will be wound down over some time, and the others will survive. It’s the big bang method, but sometimes that’s the right way.

And then legislate that “if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist” for the long-term future.

I think some very smart and interested people have convinced some slightly less smart and less interested people of TBTF, and they in turn are convincing not very smart and not so interested people. It’s been a very successful strategy, but we, the dumb public, can ask directly what alternatives to TBTF have been pursued, and what exactly they are, and what the killer problems are. It wouldn’t shock me if that would show us all that the killer problems could be solved. Some people don’t want them solved.

[patientrenter]

And Hoenig has my vote too, but what’s really odd is how few of our most eminent economic and financial leaders are in this camp.

Recently, I was very surprised when I watched the KCRW broadcast of a presentation by Alex Blumberg and Adam Davidson, hosts of an excellent series of shows on this crisis. They understand all the fraud, and the overindebtedness, and all that, but yet they sounded convinced of the “too big to fail” mantra.

When asked why, they lapsed into “end of the world” cliches. I still don’t understand why you can’t announce a failure with full guarantees of all depositors and counterparties. That would avoid a run. You’d have to identify up front all the banks that would be saved, to avoid them collapsing in a bank run. But that’s not so hard. Just identify the weakest 6 of the top 19 banks, and announce all at once that they will be wound down over some time, and the others will survive. It’s the big bang method, but sometimes that’s the right way.

And then legislate that “if you’re too big to fail, you’re too big to exist” for the long-term future.

I think some very smart and interested people have convinced some slightly less smart and less interested people of TBTF, and they in turn are convincing not very smart and not so interested people. It’s been a very successful strategy, but we, the dumb public, can ask directly what alternatives to TBTF have been pursued, and what exactly they are, and what the killer problems are. It wouldn’t shock me if that would show us all that the killer problems could be solved. Some people don’t want them solved.

[patientrenter]

[quote=CA renter]This is the same thing we were discussing here, among other places:

http://piggington.com/who_would_you_report_shady_deals_to

BTW, the FBI did get back to me back in November/December and said that they were not pursuing that particular kind of fraud because they didn’t think it was widespread enough. Seriously. 🙁

If law enforcement ever wanted to get ahead of crime, they would read these blogs and get on the ball BEFORE all the damage was done. It’s very frustrating.

People (myself included) were trying to warn them years ago about fraudulent deals that were pushing prices up during the boom. They couldn’t have cared less. Then, when “the world is coming to an end,” and they want our tax money, the govt claims that “NOBODY could have seen this coming.” Lying maggots…

FBI: Are you listening now????[/quote]

FBI will only get on it if Congress wants them to. It’s probably worth trying to get your Congressman involved, if you can.

Of course, many key members of Congress are trying to ensure there are no speed bumps for the govt money pouring into housing. So your Congressman may not be interested in pushing the FBI into something that’s still happening. (My C-critter is Barney Frank, for example, and I know he has no interest in depriving the housing market of any really large flow of money, fraudulent or not.) Better to have the FBI go after the stuff that’s already stopped of its own accord. Or your Congressman may not have much power to go against the real barons – Barney, Dodd, Schumer, Pelosi etc. (Bipartisan complaint here – it’s just that most power to do damage or otherwise lies with Dems now, and the Repubs are almost irrelevant, except as a way to deflect attention.)

[Author]

Posts