Chris Butler_'s Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/310824/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/162847-origin-of-u-s-dollar-as-legal-tender-and-its-link-to-depression?source=feed#comment-687615 687615
Thanks for the great read.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:56:39 -0400
Thanks for the great read.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159923-are-we-seeing-a-bogus-dip?source=feed#comment-661957 661957
His first point about how, historically, rallies do not end after 30 days is absurd. "Real estate never goes down on a national scale." Historicism is dangerous when applied to markets. The market does not care what happened in each of the last 20 recessions. You know what kind of rally ends after 30 days? A 30-day rally.

His second point is essentially don't count the March low because it was caused by a bank run. Absurd again. Since when have technicians assessed the cause of market bottoms and thrown some out because, well, that hardly ever happens. Please. Feel free to revise history if you'd like, but stay away from my money.

Finally, the whole notion of an "alternative bottom," aside from begging for a punchline, is pertinent only to those living in an "alternative reality." The reality in which I dwell and invest makes tops and bottoms that can be verified through the passage of time and they can bee seen with a naked eye on a chart.

For those of you that buy the "alternative bottom" thesis, perhaps you should have "alternatively sold" at the "alternative top" in the S&P 500 yesterday. What? You don't remember when the S&P 500 soared to 2,000? Oh. Maybe that was just *my* alternative reality. My bad.
]]> Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:31:21 -0400
His first point about how, historically, rallies do not end after 30 days is absurd. "Real estate never goes down on a national scale." Historicism is dangerous when applied to markets. The market does not care what happened in each of the last 20 recessions. You know what kind of rally ends after 30 days? A 30-day rally.

His second point is essentially don't count the March low because it was caused by a bank run. Absurd again. Since when have technicians assessed the cause of market bottoms and thrown some out because, well, that hardly ever happens. Please. Feel free to revise history if you'd like, but stay away from my money.

Finally, the whole notion of an "alternative bottom," aside from begging for a punchline, is pertinent only to those living in an "alternative reality." The reality in which I dwell and invest makes tops and bottoms that can be verified through the passage of time and they can bee seen with a naked eye on a chart.

For those of you that buy the "alternative bottom" thesis, perhaps you should have "alternatively sold" at the "alternative top" in the S&P 500 yesterday. What? You don't remember when the S&P 500 soared to 2,000? Oh. Maybe that was just *my* alternative reality. My bad.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158778-auditing-the-fed-is-economic-suicide?source=feed#comment-650816 650816 www.econlib.org/librar...

Regarding inflation, I'm pretty sure Friedman would disagree with the naive notion that knowing what the Fed is doing (per audit) "causes inflation." Instead, inflation "is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." See www.amazon.com/Monetar...

I'm not concerned with the prospects of "politicizing the Fed." It's already politicized. The Fed Chairman already testifies before Congress several times per year. I'm more concerned with increasing the powers of the most powerful institution in the world and allowing them to continue to operate in a completely opaque fashion. ]]> Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:33:58 -0400 www.econlib.org/librar...

Regarding inflation, I'm pretty sure Friedman would disagree with the naive notion that knowing what the Fed is doing (per audit) "causes inflation." Instead, inflation "is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." See www.amazon.com/Monetar...

I'm not concerned with the prospects of "politicizing the Fed." It's already politicized. The Fed Chairman already testifies before Congress several times per year. I'm more concerned with increasing the powers of the most powerful institution in the world and allowing them to continue to operate in a completely opaque fashion. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158839-81-bank-failures-so-far-in-2009-but-it-s-all-relative?source=feed#comment-650695 650695
1) How many more banks would have failed from the 2008 fiasco had we actually allowed them to fail like we did in the Great Depression? Due to the difference in political will in the two timeframes, we're comparing apples to oranges.
2) What do you say we wait until the "all clear" signal is given in this crisis before we start adding up the damage for comparisons with the Great Depression? We just found out that the FDIC's list of troubled banks has exploded. Presumably, some of those banks are on their way to shutting their doors. Unless, of course, we allow them to mark their troubled loans to fantasy or simply bail them out.]]> Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:51:16 -0400
1) How many more banks would have failed from the 2008 fiasco had we actually allowed them to fail like we did in the Great Depression? Due to the difference in political will in the two timeframes, we're comparing apples to oranges.
2) What do you say we wait until the "all clear" signal is given in this crisis before we start adding up the damage for comparisons with the Great Depression? We just found out that the FDIC's list of troubled banks has exploded. Presumably, some of those banks are on their way to shutting their doors. Unless, of course, we allow them to mark their troubled loans to fantasy or simply bail them out.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158211-investors-swarming-back-into-leveraged-finance-markets?source=feed#comment-649387 649387 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:02:35 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/156890-how-big-will-the-market-pullback-be?source=feed#comment-636585 636585
You have an inventory adjustment in the 2001 recession and the Great Depression of 1929 to 1933 still stirs debate over ultimate causes. At the very least, we can say leverage in the stock market played a significant role. Poor fiscal and monetary policy are viable culprits as well. This recession is the result of a crisis in the housing market, among other things (and exacerbated by an overleveraged consumer).

The government's response to this recession is without precedent. Fiscal and monetary stimulus, I think, have made historical comparisons irrelevent as a guide to the future. As a result, I'm willing to acknowledge that a decoupling between market and economy could persist for some time. Ultimately, though, fundamentals matter and if it ever appears as though the earnings forecasts are in need of revisions across the board, we'll see a significant retreat in stock prices.

At the moment, however, even though I believe that stimulus can take us only so far (with a commensurate amount of pain later), and that earnings estimates have completely disregarded the depth of the problem with consumer spending, a bearish tone seems to ring hollow in the current market environment. I think a more accurate view of investor sentiment will emerge once volume picks up post-summer.]]> Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:56:28 -0400
You have an inventory adjustment in the 2001 recession and the Great Depression of 1929 to 1933 still stirs debate over ultimate causes. At the very least, we can say leverage in the stock market played a significant role. Poor fiscal and monetary policy are viable culprits as well. This recession is the result of a crisis in the housing market, among other things (and exacerbated by an overleveraged consumer).

The government's response to this recession is without precedent. Fiscal and monetary stimulus, I think, have made historical comparisons irrelevent as a guide to the future. As a result, I'm willing to acknowledge that a decoupling between market and economy could persist for some time. Ultimately, though, fundamentals matter and if it ever appears as though the earnings forecasts are in need of revisions across the board, we'll see a significant retreat in stock prices.

At the moment, however, even though I believe that stimulus can take us only so far (with a commensurate amount of pain later), and that earnings estimates have completely disregarded the depth of the problem with consumer spending, a bearish tone seems to ring hollow in the current market environment. I think a more accurate view of investor sentiment will emerge once volume picks up post-summer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155130-credit-conditions-in-the-absence-of-consumer-protection?source=feed#comment-624548 624548
I also have a problem with your naive notion that "any changes in what banks did were a form of 'financial innovation' that must naturally benefit everyone. But this is exactly the attitude that brought us to subprime, Alt-A, and other 'exotic' (i.e., misleading rip-off) mortgages." Exactly how is a mortgage misleading? Or is it just exotic mortgages given to people with poor credit histories that are misleading? How are exotic mortgages misleading (I'm not saying they are not, but aside from a number of cases of fraud, I'm not sure the product itself misleads anyone).

Further, bank innovation is note solely responsible for the sub-prime mortgage mess. How about the societal notion, compounded by Federal legislation, that everyone ought to "participate in the American dream" of owning a house. Let's not forget that at least some of this mess is a result of actually wanting to do something beneficial for the have-nots. It's crazy to assume that the whole problem was borne out of malicious intent. This premise has no basis in fact.

I think it extremely naive, and a bit dangerous, to single out bankers as the sole culprit responsible for this mess. It was a complex problem, rife with enablers and compounded by horrendous errors in risk estimation.]]> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 08:35:14 -0400
I also have a problem with your naive notion that "any changes in what banks did were a form of 'financial innovation' that must naturally benefit everyone. But this is exactly the attitude that brought us to subprime, Alt-A, and other 'exotic' (i.e., misleading rip-off) mortgages." Exactly how is a mortgage misleading? Or is it just exotic mortgages given to people with poor credit histories that are misleading? How are exotic mortgages misleading (I'm not saying they are not, but aside from a number of cases of fraud, I'm not sure the product itself misleads anyone).

Further, bank innovation is note solely responsible for the sub-prime mortgage mess. How about the societal notion, compounded by Federal legislation, that everyone ought to "participate in the American dream" of owning a house. Let's not forget that at least some of this mess is a result of actually wanting to do something beneficial for the have-nots. It's crazy to assume that the whole problem was borne out of malicious intent. This premise has no basis in fact.

I think it extremely naive, and a bit dangerous, to single out bankers as the sole culprit responsible for this mess. It was a complex problem, rife with enablers and compounded by horrendous errors in risk estimation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153162-behind-the-income-tax-numbers-top-1-paid-40-of-total?source=feed#comment-616616 616616
It seems a little strange this has to be explained on a economics, finance and investment forum.

Having said all that, we will always disagree about who pays what in this country. Is 40% too low? Too high? I don't know, but taking capital from the productive class and giving it to the non-productive class - whatever the amount - seems like a waste of capital to me. I grew up middle class and can honestly say that I think having a healthy middle class is good for a country. However, I do not believe such a class ought to be artificially created at the expense of the rich simply for the sake of "evening things out a bit." That strategy has severe repurcussions.

On Aug 02 10:29 AM herbert hoover wrote:

> They may have paid 40% of the taxes but they made 70 percent of the
> income! Not a bad tradeoff in my book.]]> Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:46:10 -0400
It seems a little strange this has to be explained on a economics, finance and investment forum.

Having said all that, we will always disagree about who pays what in this country. Is 40% too low? Too high? I don't know, but taking capital from the productive class and giving it to the non-productive class - whatever the amount - seems like a waste of capital to me. I grew up middle class and can honestly say that I think having a healthy middle class is good for a country. However, I do not believe such a class ought to be artificially created at the expense of the rich simply for the sake of "evening things out a bit." That strategy has severe repurcussions.

On Aug 02 10:29 AM herbert hoover wrote:

> They may have paid 40% of the taxes but they made 70 percent of the
> income! Not a bad tradeoff in my book.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145412-treasury-auctions-more-misdirection?source=feed#comment-563749 563749 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:35:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/145341-china-pays-too-much-for-oil-in-iraq-at-16-a-barrel?source=feed#comment-563601 563601
Say what you want but I'll take freedom and all the errors and social malaise that comes with it ahead of any alternative. Many free people are intelligent, tuned in, and aware. Many made money off of the mistakes of other free people because they saw the consequences of these mistakes coming. After all, I'm free to short the S&P 500.

As far as oil is concerned, had we *more* freedom, we'd be drilling oil on our own land and we'd not be talking about how the Chinese are kicking butt with their acquisitions.


On Jun 26 04:34 AM fairguy wrote:

>
> Wrong. The chinese have been practicing capitalism for decades already.
> Hong Kong is quite free. China doesn't hate US, they afraid of what
> freedom can do to their people. It can turn them into vegetables.
>
>
> US is too occuppied with OJ Simpson, Britney Spears, American Idols,
> America's Got Talent (lol), Miley Cyrus, Madonna, Lindsay Lohan,
> Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, Christina Aguilera, Brad Pitt, Justin
> Timberlake and now Michael Jackson's death and Mark Sanford's sex
> scandal. It's not hard to out maneuver them when the whole population
> is only half awake. Look at what freedom had done to your nation's
> financial health.
>
> On Jun 26 01:48 AM User 357705 wrote:]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:07:01 -0400
Say what you want but I'll take freedom and all the errors and social malaise that comes with it ahead of any alternative. Many free people are intelligent, tuned in, and aware. Many made money off of the mistakes of other free people because they saw the consequences of these mistakes coming. After all, I'm free to short the S&P 500.

As far as oil is concerned, had we *more* freedom, we'd be drilling oil on our own land and we'd not be talking about how the Chinese are kicking butt with their acquisitions.


On Jun 26 04:34 AM fairguy wrote:

>
> Wrong. The chinese have been practicing capitalism for decades already.
> Hong Kong is quite free. China doesn't hate US, they afraid of what
> freedom can do to their people. It can turn them into vegetables.
>
>
> US is too occuppied with OJ Simpson, Britney Spears, American Idols,
> America's Got Talent (lol), Miley Cyrus, Madonna, Lindsay Lohan,
> Jennifer Lopez, Paris Hilton, Christina Aguilera, Brad Pitt, Justin
> Timberlake and now Michael Jackson's death and Mark Sanford's sex
> scandal. It's not hard to out maneuver them when the whole population
> is only half awake. Look at what freedom had done to your nation's
> financial health.
>
> On Jun 26 01:48 AM User 357705 wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145335-obama-s-dance-of-the-seven-veils?source=feed#comment-563558 563558
I don't even buy the argument that our model of capitalism stokes any global anger at all. Foreign governments sure do buy a lot of our government paper (despite their official proclamations and despite their "anger").

Foreign corporations sure do like selling the US consumer their goods. That must really enrage them.

Foreign countries aren't too "angry" to bend over backwards to offer their cheap labor to our manufacturers.

You're mixing up what foreign governments "say" and what their citizens "do."]]> Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:40:44 -0400
I don't even buy the argument that our model of capitalism stokes any global anger at all. Foreign governments sure do buy a lot of our government paper (despite their official proclamations and despite their "anger").

Foreign corporations sure do like selling the US consumer their goods. That must really enrage them.

Foreign countries aren't too "angry" to bend over backwards to offer their cheap labor to our manufacturers.

You're mixing up what foreign governments "say" and what their citizens "do."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144958-from-free-markets-to-absolute-power-the-warped-views-of-bank-speak?source=feed#comment-560363 560363
Your best point though is the quote you give to your clients that starts "Find me one histroy book..." which, in my opinion, is one of the best explanations of the cycle of "crisis thinking." Crises of every kind ultimately lead to an increased role for government to play.

Thank you for a great article.]]> Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:05:59 -0400
Your best point though is the quote you give to your clients that starts "Find me one histroy book..." which, in my opinion, is one of the best explanations of the cycle of "crisis thinking." Crises of every kind ultimately lead to an increased role for government to play.

Thank you for a great article.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144525-healthcare-proposals-should-change-market-incentives?source=feed#comment-559526 559526
More on point, however, the author of this post makes the argument that the capitalist system doesn't work in healthcare because patients cannot internalize expenses. Why? We're told the reason is that patients simply don't have the money. Actually, that's wrong. We don't know if they have the money. The problem is they never pay what the doctor would charge and uninsured person. I don't care to shop cost/benefit on doctors because all I'm worried about (as an insured person) is benefit. Insurance will charge me the same whether I see Doctor Good or Doctor Bad. Cost of service is no longer relevant to me. Only cost of insurance.

As far as benefit is concerned, we're told here that even smart people can't figure out if outcomes were worth the cost. We will only know in "the aggregate." There are so many problems with that statement, I hardly know where to start. Suffice it to say that if I have cancer, I don't want my doctor concerning herself with whether a treatment is worth the cost in the aggregate. Let me worry about the cost. And at that particular time, I can assure you I'm not going to care much about "the aggregate."]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:09:19 -0400
More on point, however, the author of this post makes the argument that the capitalist system doesn't work in healthcare because patients cannot internalize expenses. Why? We're told the reason is that patients simply don't have the money. Actually, that's wrong. We don't know if they have the money. The problem is they never pay what the doctor would charge and uninsured person. I don't care to shop cost/benefit on doctors because all I'm worried about (as an insured person) is benefit. Insurance will charge me the same whether I see Doctor Good or Doctor Bad. Cost of service is no longer relevant to me. Only cost of insurance.

As far as benefit is concerned, we're told here that even smart people can't figure out if outcomes were worth the cost. We will only know in "the aggregate." There are so many problems with that statement, I hardly know where to start. Suffice it to say that if I have cancer, I don't want my doctor concerning herself with whether a treatment is worth the cost in the aggregate. Let me worry about the cost. And at that particular time, I can assure you I'm not going to care much about "the aggregate."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144809-the-market-decline-was-expected-but-will-it-continue?source=feed#comment-559262 559262

On Jun 23 12:09 PM joes wrote:

> I went to financialaspirations.com, reads like a lot of the analysis
> that you read from one group that always elevates countries like
> Brazil, China and India as economic threats.
>
> This shows a poor understanding of Globalization and the opportunities
> that are available to the most innovative democracy on Earth, the
> US. But our "American" model of the future has to be a global strategy
> that keeps our friends close and our enemies closer.
>
> The idea that a gold standard would help is beyond funny, and indicative
> of an ancient approach to economics. It won't help create wealth,
> there isn't enough gold to pay our bills so we need to innovate and
> regulate at a feverish pace.
>
> Lucky for us we live in the best place on earth to pursue those goals.]]> Tue, 23 Jun 2009 14:24:06 -0400

On Jun 23 12:09 PM joes wrote:

> I went to financialaspirations.com, reads like a lot of the analysis
> that you read from one group that always elevates countries like
> Brazil, China and India as economic threats.
>
> This shows a poor understanding of Globalization and the opportunities
> that are available to the most innovative democracy on Earth, the
> US. But our "American" model of the future has to be a global strategy
> that keeps our friends close and our enemies closer.
>
> The idea that a gold standard would help is beyond funny, and indicative
> of an ancient approach to economics. It won't help create wealth,
> there isn't enough gold to pay our bills so we need to innovate and
> regulate at a feverish pace.
>
> Lucky for us we live in the best place on earth to pursue those goals.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144508-structural-shift-in-the-u-s-economy-is-really-in-supply?source=feed#comment-557222 557222 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:34:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/144194-a-new-productivity-revolution?source=feed#comment-553600 553600 Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:27:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/143656-tyler-cowen-s-thoughts-on-america-s-energy-policy?source=feed#comment-550116 550116 Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:24:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142999-the-economy-now-a-5-point-summary?source=feed#comment-546323 546323
Further I question what kind of "progress" we get by having the current administration "fix" any of our problems (like helathcare and other "reforms"). These are the same people that contibuted to our current problems. These are the same people that didn't see this crisis coming. No, I don't think we need their "fixes" or their "reforms."]]> Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:24:50 -0400
Further I question what kind of "progress" we get by having the current administration "fix" any of our problems (like helathcare and other "reforms"). These are the same people that contibuted to our current problems. These are the same people that didn't see this crisis coming. No, I don't think we need their "fixes" or their "reforms."]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142895-bond-auction-final-words-and-the-importance-of-macro-thinking?source=feed#comment-543543 543543 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:59:54 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/141497-why-wal-mart-hirings-do-not-help-u-s-economy?source=feed#comment-533444 533444 Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:38:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/140117-brazen-bank-tunneling-and-inflation?source=feed#comment-523008 523008
The problem is that only one institution can give it to them - the Feds. Why blame the bankers who are acting like bankers have acted since Midici? Blame the enablers! Blame the people who will not let the free market kick these guys to the curb. The free market wanted to give these guys their one-uppance and Paulson, Geithner, Bush, Obama and Bernanke wouldn't allow it. Too much economic pain, we were told.

Bankers need to be bashed - don't get me wrong. They made some epic bad decisions. But the absence of enabler bashing is really starting to bring me down. These bureaucrats are putting the clown suit on all of us. And we're helping them by whining about banker behavior. We might as well help them put the big floppy clown shoes on our feet and put the big red noses on for ourselves.]]> Fri, 29 May 2009 12:21:03 -0400
The problem is that only one institution can give it to them - the Feds. Why blame the bankers who are acting like bankers have acted since Midici? Blame the enablers! Blame the people who will not let the free market kick these guys to the curb. The free market wanted to give these guys their one-uppance and Paulson, Geithner, Bush, Obama and Bernanke wouldn't allow it. Too much economic pain, we were told.

Bankers need to be bashed - don't get me wrong. They made some epic bad decisions. But the absence of enabler bashing is really starting to bring me down. These bureaucrats are putting the clown suit on all of us. And we're helping them by whining about banker behavior. We might as well help them put the big floppy clown shoes on our feet and put the big red noses on for ourselves.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139827-recession-still-going-but-market-is-headed-north?source=feed#comment-519906 519906 Wed, 27 May 2009 14:02:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/138869-with-backwardation-higher-gas-prices-this-summer?source=feed#comment-512950 512950 Thu, 21 May 2009 11:39:38 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/137730-short-selling-hedge-funds-started-the-fire?source=feed#comment-505100 505100
Personally, I hope that the executives of each and every one of my stocks is greedy. I hope they make hay while the sun shines because tomorrow may be overcast. This isn't a game. Real companies making real goods to satisfy real consumer wants and needs compete every day for every last dollar of profit. If they stumble in any number of ways, they go bust (and get a taxpayer bailout - but that's a different beef). Again, what kind of game do people like you think this is where, like in a game of Monopoly, you decide to take it easy on your little brother because you've already got some choice properties? In the real world, missteps cost people jobs and money.

The day any one of the companies I own decides they've had enough profit for one day is the day I sell them short, move to Texas and hope for secession.]]> Fri, 15 May 2009 09:55:55 -0400
Personally, I hope that the executives of each and every one of my stocks is greedy. I hope they make hay while the sun shines because tomorrow may be overcast. This isn't a game. Real companies making real goods to satisfy real consumer wants and needs compete every day for every last dollar of profit. If they stumble in any number of ways, they go bust (and get a taxpayer bailout - but that's a different beef). Again, what kind of game do people like you think this is where, like in a game of Monopoly, you decide to take it easy on your little brother because you've already got some choice properties? In the real world, missteps cost people jobs and money.

The day any one of the companies I own decides they've had enough profit for one day is the day I sell them short, move to Texas and hope for secession.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128193-fed-treasury-propose-the-dissolution-of-capitalism?source=feed#comment-442270 442270
"Wall St. greed & fraud caused all this"? Really? How so? Bernie Madoff is one fraud I'm aware of. Are you holding out on us? What other frauds can you cite? And what's the total amount of loss/damage caused by each? I assume you're talking about investment banker fraud.

Greed? Nice one. That's such an amiguous term these days that all non-thinking people are swallowing it whole. Exactly what greed caused this? Profit-seeking? And exactly how has this decade's profit seeking been qualitatively different from the profit-seeking of generations before? Do you really want me to believe that people are greedier today than they were ten years ago? I don't even think profit-seeking *is* greed. Aren't profits good? If you've got a problem going after profit, you don't have a problem with wall street - you've got a problem with capitalism so just spit it out.

Come on man. Why is it so hard to believe that bankers made bad bets while going after profit? Isn't this the simplest answer? Oh, and dare I forget the bubbling up of our economy on credit? I wonder what greedy bastards caused that? Oh. Right. That was the consumer, which of course is us. And who was the enabler? Right. The Fed. Your government.

Get off the "wall street done us wrong bandwagon" unless you've got more ammo than "greed." Who gave you your talking points, anyway? Your Sunday school teacher?

Great article, Moon! Spot on, my friend.]]> Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:06:41 -0400
"Wall St. greed & fraud caused all this"? Really? How so? Bernie Madoff is one fraud I'm aware of. Are you holding out on us? What other frauds can you cite? And what's the total amount of loss/damage caused by each? I assume you're talking about investment banker fraud.

Greed? Nice one. That's such an amiguous term these days that all non-thinking people are swallowing it whole. Exactly what greed caused this? Profit-seeking? And exactly how has this decade's profit seeking been qualitatively different from the profit-seeking of generations before? Do you really want me to believe that people are greedier today than they were ten years ago? I don't even think profit-seeking *is* greed. Aren't profits good? If you've got a problem going after profit, you don't have a problem with wall street - you've got a problem with capitalism so just spit it out.

Come on man. Why is it so hard to believe that bankers made bad bets while going after profit? Isn't this the simplest answer? Oh, and dare I forget the bubbling up of our economy on credit? I wonder what greedy bastards caused that? Oh. Right. That was the consumer, which of course is us. And who was the enabler? Right. The Fed. Your government.

Get off the "wall street done us wrong bandwagon" unless you've got more ammo than "greed." Who gave you your talking points, anyway? Your Sunday school teacher?

Great article, Moon! Spot on, my friend.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126961-not-the-tax-clawback-i-had-in-mind?source=feed#comment-433274 433274 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 08:21:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126451-core-ppi-still-rising-a-positive-sign?source=feed#comment-430601 430601 Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:18:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/121858-cnbc-s-specious-reporting-on-the-housing-plan?source=feed#comment-399648 399648
You write that:

"The top 1% control 40% of all financial wealth in the U.S. The top 20% another 52%, leaving the rest of us (80%) America's financial wealth at a whopping 8%."

The point that well-meaning socialists like yourself fail to address when quoting this tired statistic is your (unexamined) first premise. I assume you think that it's wrong that so much wealth be controlled by so few people? If so, why is this distribution "unfair" or otherwise repugnant to you?

What makes wealth (if not inheritance, which you point out in your second point)? Could it be talent? Ingenuity? Luck? Risk-taking that others will not engage in?

Or are we to believe that it's because the top 1% of financial wealth owners stole it, or came to it by fraud? If this is your take, please provide some evidence to support your claim.

If the cause of wealth is any of the four possibilities mentioned above, then I think we have to conclude it was a "fair" distribution.

Don't get me wrong - I love soicalists/liberals. They make me laugh. They provide entertainment to issues otherwise deemed too "dark" to be entertaining. At the risk of losing that comedic element, I'd like to see them explain their first premises more often. It is not a foregone conclusion that a skewed wealth distribution is "unfair" or not desireable.]]> Mon, 23 Feb 2009 08:01:21 -0500
You write that:

"The top 1% control 40% of all financial wealth in the U.S. The top 20% another 52%, leaving the rest of us (80%) America's financial wealth at a whopping 8%."

The point that well-meaning socialists like yourself fail to address when quoting this tired statistic is your (unexamined) first premise. I assume you think that it's wrong that so much wealth be controlled by so few people? If so, why is this distribution "unfair" or otherwise repugnant to you?

What makes wealth (if not inheritance, which you point out in your second point)? Could it be talent? Ingenuity? Luck? Risk-taking that others will not engage in?

Or are we to believe that it's because the top 1% of financial wealth owners stole it, or came to it by fraud? If this is your take, please provide some evidence to support your claim.

If the cause of wealth is any of the four possibilities mentioned above, then I think we have to conclude it was a "fair" distribution.

Don't get me wrong - I love soicalists/liberals. They make me laugh. They provide entertainment to issues otherwise deemed too "dark" to be entertaining. At the risk of losing that comedic element, I'd like to see them explain their first premises more often. It is not a foregone conclusion that a skewed wealth distribution is "unfair" or not desireable.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/118447-why-capping-pay-is-likely-to-work?source=feed#comment-376818 376818
Yes, you will be able to find housewives, homeless people and 5th graders to be the CEO of a large, multi-national bank. But, no, experienced, talented executives will *not* choose that job if they're offered considerably more to work for any other industry or non-capped bank. What's a poor government to do in that case? Cap all pay everywhere?

Further Felix, define "work" when you say "Why Capping Pay Is Likely to Work." That's such an ambiguous title when precision is necessary. Work for who? Clients of the bank, the taxpayers, Congress, or the "Re-Elect Obama 2012 Campaign"?


Further, commenter Chris B notes that "If someone thinks they're too good to work for $500k, that in itself demonstrates an attitude of arrogance and hubris. How can we expect individuals with a messianic complex to make good decisions? The evidence says they don't." Are you high? Seriously. Are you stoned? Just for argument let's just go ahead and assume your bong-induced comment that good decision-making and arrogance are mutually exclusive.

You seriously want to assert that anyone shunning a $500,000 compensation package is hubristic? Good for you, sensei. It sounds to me like *you've* got the messianic complex. You know the exact nature of the problem and its precise cure-all, don't you, my msnmoney-quoting freind? Even though markets are complex multi-variable systems, capable of evolution and adaptation, you've been so endowed with wisdom to have placed your divine finger on what ails us. Thank God (for your presence in the midst of our ignorance)!

Go ahead Chris B (previous poster, not to be confused with me - Chris Butler) - tell free agents in the NFL that they're all arrogant. In fact, every professional athlete in the big three sports here in America are arrogant. They are all so hubristic to think they can make more for another team. And then they go out and confirm their arrogance by getting it. It seems that GMs are willing to pay more for more perceived talent. That same thinking is flawed in banking, apparently.

OK, so you say entertainers don't count. Fine. Heart surgeons? Egotistical b*st*rds! Who do they think they are earning more than half a million! Hell, I've heard a few of them actually killed patients! Sure, they perform a few menial tasks like curing the terminally ill, but they actually think they're deserving of hefty compensation packages! For killing people, no less! They must all think they're God or something.

Enough sarcasm. If you can't see that such an important policy intervention into the private sector would have unintended consequences (perhaps both good and bad), then in my opinion, you either cannot see at all, or refuse to. Either way, you'd be better off just admitting what you already know - people make mistakes. Investment and commercial banks made huge mistakes and had the governmnet let it go, the free market would have punished them severely. And yes, the real economy would have been punished. I dare say, however, we would have learned a hard lesson, adapted, and moved on.]]> Thu, 05 Feb 2009 10:16:25 -0500
Yes, you will be able to find housewives, homeless people and 5th graders to be the CEO of a large, multi-national bank. But, no, experienced, talented executives will *not* choose that job if they're offered considerably more to work for any other industry or non-capped bank. What's a poor government to do in that case? Cap all pay everywhere?

Further Felix, define "work" when you say "Why Capping Pay Is Likely to Work." That's such an ambiguous title when precision is necessary. Work for who? Clients of the bank, the taxpayers, Congress, or the "Re-Elect Obama 2012 Campaign"?


Further, commenter Chris B notes that "If someone thinks they're too good to work for $500k, that in itself demonstrates an attitude of arrogance and hubris. How can we expect individuals with a messianic complex to make good decisions? The evidence says they don't." Are you high? Seriously. Are you stoned? Just for argument let's just go ahead and assume your bong-induced comment that good decision-making and arrogance are mutually exclusive.

You seriously want to assert that anyone shunning a $500,000 compensation package is hubristic? Good for you, sensei. It sounds to me like *you've* got the messianic complex. You know the exact nature of the problem and its precise cure-all, don't you, my msnmoney-quoting freind? Even though markets are complex multi-variable systems, capable of evolution and adaptation, you've been so endowed with wisdom to have placed your divine finger on what ails us. Thank God (for your presence in the midst of our ignorance)!

Go ahead Chris B (previous poster, not to be confused with me - Chris Butler) - tell free agents in the NFL that they're all arrogant. In fact, every professional athlete in the big three sports here in America are arrogant. They are all so hubristic to think they can make more for another team. And then they go out and confirm their arrogance by getting it. It seems that GMs are willing to pay more for more perceived talent. That same thinking is flawed in banking, apparently.

OK, so you say entertainers don't count. Fine. Heart surgeons? Egotistical b*st*rds! Who do they think they are earning more than half a million! Hell, I've heard a few of them actually killed patients! Sure, they perform a few menial tasks like curing the terminally ill, but they actually think they're deserving of hefty compensation packages! For killing people, no less! They must all think they're God or something.

Enough sarcasm. If you can't see that such an important policy intervention into the private sector would have unintended consequences (perhaps both good and bad), then in my opinion, you either cannot see at all, or refuse to. Either way, you'd be better off just admitting what you already know - people make mistakes. Investment and commercial banks made huge mistakes and had the governmnet let it go, the free market would have punished them severely. And yes, the real economy would have been punished. I dare say, however, we would have learned a hard lesson, adapted, and moved on.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115351-banks-nationalize-cleanse-and-get-it-over-with?source=feed#comment-360743 360743
Number two, why is it so important to have a "comprehensive solution" at all? How about this comprehensive solution: bank that should fail, fail? What happens after that, happens. The system will rebuild and we will learn from previous mistakes.

Number three, if we're scared we'll lose trust in our banking system, the question should not be "how do we restore that trust in these poorly run banks?" but, rather, is the current lack of trust warranted? The answer is "yes." People learn, they move on. If they pull their money out of all banks, and all banks fail, perhaps there was a problem with the current banking model. I bet a better model would be borne from this collapse.

Finally, you state that "we risk a loss of confidence among the rank and file" if we don't go full-bore nationalization. I disagree. Complete nationalization of the banking industry would immediately result in a lack of confidence among the rank and file. Look at thow markets reacted from nationalization fears coming out of Europe yesterday.

Bottom line, if you think bureaucrats can run banks better than the free market, why not let these same bureaucrats run everything? The thing about free markets that people don't quite get is that "free" also means "free" to make mistakes. Either we retain the freedom and allow for the all-too-human propensity to err, and accept the pain that some of these mistakes lead to, or we allow our "mistake free" government to try their best to do a better job by usurping freedom and accept their mistakes that were never supposed to happen. How well do think a central planner can anticipate the next move in a complex adaptive system like our economy? We need only look to the success of economic forecasts in the past. Wethermen have better records.

Sorry, I'll take my mistakes with a heavy does of personal freedom, thank you very much.
]]> Tue, 20 Jan 2009 09:26:21 -0500
Number two, why is it so important to have a "comprehensive solution" at all? How about this comprehensive solution: bank that should fail, fail? What happens after that, happens. The system will rebuild and we will learn from previous mistakes.

Number three, if we're scared we'll lose trust in our banking system, the question should not be "how do we restore that trust in these poorly run banks?" but, rather, is the current lack of trust warranted? The answer is "yes." People learn, they move on. If they pull their money out of all banks, and all banks fail, perhaps there was a problem with the current banking model. I bet a better model would be borne from this collapse.

Finally, you state that "we risk a loss of confidence among the rank and file" if we don't go full-bore nationalization. I disagree. Complete nationalization of the banking industry would immediately result in a lack of confidence among the rank and file. Look at thow markets reacted from nationalization fears coming out of Europe yesterday.

Bottom line, if you think bureaucrats can run banks better than the free market, why not let these same bureaucrats run everything? The thing about free markets that people don't quite get is that "free" also means "free" to make mistakes. Either we retain the freedom and allow for the all-too-human propensity to err, and accept the pain that some of these mistakes lead to, or we allow our "mistake free" government to try their best to do a better job by usurping freedom and accept their mistakes that were never supposed to happen. How well do think a central planner can anticipate the next move in a complex adaptive system like our economy? We need only look to the success of economic forecasts in the past. Wethermen have better records.

Sorry, I'll take my mistakes with a heavy does of personal freedom, thank you very much.
]]>