SFrandsen

Pirate Economics: 'The Invisible Hook' by Peter T. Leeson

On Dec 05 10:09 AM Bill S. Friend wrote:

"... they werent aided and abetted by the government."

Ever hear of Privateers? Not all were pirates, but many were, and they had a "letter of Marque" authorizing them to attack foreign shipping. They were cheaper than the Navy.

The same can't be said of our sanctioned Pirate/Banksters - They are pretty expensive.

Pirate Economics: 'The Invisible Hook' by Peter T. Leeson

Econtalk has a podcast about this book if anyone is interested. Russ Roberts interviews Peter Leeson.
www.econtalk.org/archi...

Confidence Games and Ponzi Schemes: No Way to Run the World's Largest Economy

Thank you for showing that saving is actually a GOOD thing. I find the whole "paradox of thrift" theory insulting! They act as if this saved money is stuffed in mattesses, not doing anything. We need to have something as a base of lending, not just printed or cyber credit out of thin air.

And yes, when everyone does it at the same time, it has a strong effect on the economy as a whole, but I think we have to bite the bullet and take it. The damage was already done, we need to deleverage to fix it.

Newspapers: Can We Please Stop Talking About What's Fair?

Whenever there has been some new technology that creates upheaval to the established order, very rarely is the old order able to come out on top. All they see is the threat to their dominant position, and they blow all their resources fighting the inevitable.

Mr Young, that is the beauty of the (true) free market - we don't know what will replace the old model, but *something* will. I'm not smart enough to do it myself, and obviously neither are you, but there are all kinds of people on the web right now trying to figure it out, and the one(s) that catch on will succeed.

Radio was supposed to be the end of music, TV was supposed to be the end of movies, as was the VCR... Have a little faith.

PPIP Watch: Banks as Bidders and Sellers...Hmm, Remember Enron?

I guess bankers looked at Enron (not to mention LTCM at 30x leverage) and said "Hmmm..... A good idea is a good idea!

There were already a lot of similarities to Enron before this new government sanctioned shell game - off balance sheet entities, exotic derivatives, mark-to-market (great on the upside, not so good on the downside).

Looking back, I'm surprised Enron was allowed to go bankrupt and its principals prosecuted. If it happened now, Skilling would be counting his big bonus and bailout money. Poor Enron, they were just before their time!

Why It's Better to Bail Out Borrowers than Banks

Painfully Aware-

You are right, bailing out anybody just encourages them to go and do it again, but bigger. That's the real reason we got into this, not regulation, greed, Bush, pick your poison... If Chrysler had gone into Bankruptcy in '80... if City had in '90... if LTCM wasn't bailed out in '98... and on it goes.

Why It's Better to Bail Out Borrowers than Banks

It would still be cheaper than the never-ending bail out of the banks! So everyone in America would actually OWN their own home. That would be terrible.

(still against bailouts in principle, there would still be massive moral hazart here, but preferable to the current rip-off!)

On Apr 11 03:18 PM battman wrote:

> If they were to bail out the borrowers and not the banks, then everyone
> would stop paying their debts. Those who could afford to would stop
> paying and become one of the people who would then get government
> help. Why not? Why should they be punished for being responsible
> and prudent (or just having a good paying job). Besides, and unfortunately,
> give a borrower a government cheque for two thousand dollars and
> I'd bet you anything that most of them would suddenly have a brand
> new 50 inch plasma tv and and a blu ray player. Oh, and still the
> same debt they had before they got the cheque.
> While the banks may be the low life scum bag big evil in this game,
> saving the banks is the lesser of the two evils in trying to resolve
> it.

Are the Big Banks Gaming the Taxpayer?

Ah, but the smaller (and healthier) regional banks don't sit on the Federal Reserve's Board!

Some banks are more equal than others, I guess.


On Mar 27 09:17 PM William Cowie wrote:

> All in the name that disaster will befall us if we don't keep shoveling our dollars into the pockets of these big banks.
>
> Why not just break them up?
>
> Or give the same money to regional banks, who are already healthy, and will actually be able to lend (assuming of course there are still people out there who want to borrow money)?