N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 1 This Is The Government: Your Legal Right To Redeem Your Money Market Account
Has Been Denied
Great article on the dirty work government is cranking up.
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/government-your-legal-right-redeem-your-money-market-account-has-been-denied
Conclusion
At this point it is without doubt that even the government understands that
when things turn sour, and they will, the run on the bank will be
unavoidable: their solution - prevent money from being dispensed, when that
moment co |
m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 2 Could you tell me why it is a bad idea to preventing a bank run? It is a
good idea to prevent systematic failure. It is impossible to liquidate a
large amount of even the safest assets like AAA+ rated treasury in a short
period of time. The money market will break a dollar if you want to sold 100
billions of treasury in a day. |
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 3 Bank run is a good thing b/c it puts risk and fear in the market that
will form a natural guard against insane risk taking. Systemic failure
occurs when FDIC comes in to insure what is beyond its capability to
insure and thus creates a false confidence encouraging irresponsible
risk taking. FDIC / SEC / FED are the ultimate failures. Fractional
reserve system doesn't help either but that's another topic. |
m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 4 so you are for getting rid of FDIC and let the market force run freely
without government regulation. But this concepts have broken. We need more
government regulation of financial market not less. Reinstate the Steagal
act.
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
: Bank run is a good thing b/c it puts risk and fear in the market that
: will form a natural guard against insane risk taking. Systemic failure
: occurs when FDIC comes in to insure what is beyond its capability to
: insure and thus creates a false confidence encouraging irresponsible
: risk taking. FDIC / SEC / FED are the ultimate failures. Fractional
: reserve system doesn't help either but that's another topic.
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 5
How is the concept broken? Do you need government to regulate Las Vegas?
Do you need a policy saying that you should not gamble all your assets
in a casino? No. People have that fear in their mind that they'd risk
losing everything should they do that. People in their sane mind don't
gamble like that. There's no need for government policies.
If there's no FDIC, then people will behave much more prudently. They
will not just save money in any bank. Banks craving for their deposits
will have to c
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: so you are for getting rid of FDIC and let the market force run freely
: without government regulation. But this concepts have broken. We need more
: government regulation of financial market not less. Reinstate the Steagal
: act.
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 6 Capitalism has developed for hundreds of years, and the market has evolved
from relatively free towards more regulation for some reason. Regulations
may be set wrong for five or ten years, but history, on a time scale of a
century, never got itself wrong.
If there's no FDIC, banking will be closer to gambling. Bank customers can't
"behave much more prudently" by carefully selecting "the sound bank"
because there's no way for them to tell. Which bank is sound is an extremely
difficult question ev
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: How is the concept broken? Do you need government to regulate Las Vegas?
: Do you need a policy saying that you should not gamble all your assets
: in a casino? No. People have that fear in their mind that they'd risk
: losing everything should they do that. People in their sane mind don't
: gamble like that. There's no need for government policies.
: If there's no FDIC, then people will behave much more prudently. They
: will not just save money in any bank. Banks craving for their deposits
: will have to c
|
z***y
发帖数: 79 | 7
't
extremely
can'
but how does FDIC solve the problems above? With FDIC (like now) they can
and are doing excatly that (fool the rating agent/goverment/stock market...)
confused by your argument....
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Capitalism has developed for hundreds of years, and the market has evolved
: from relatively free towards more regulation for some reason. Regulations
: may be set wrong for five or ten years, but history, on a time scale of a
: century, never got itself wrong.
: If there's no FDIC, banking will be closer to gambling. Bank customers can't
: "behave much more prudently" by carefully selecting "the sound bank"
: because there's no way for them to tell. Which bank is sound is an extremely
: difficult question ev
|
m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 8 Broken means not working as intended. Capitalism with loose regulation
sounds good on paper. But market
never corrects itself and always overshoots, causing depression. Freerer the
market runs, deeper the hole it
will dig. In 1929, we had great depression with a very free market. After
the wosrt bank run in history, we had
FDIC. When we loosed regulation on 1999 by appealing 1937 Steagal act
brokered by wall street, we had two
consecutive recession, unseen in history of mankind. How do you concl
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: How is the concept broken? Do you need government to regulate Las Vegas?
: Do you need a policy saying that you should not gamble all your assets
: in a casino? No. People have that fear in their mind that they'd risk
: losing everything should they do that. People in their sane mind don't
: gamble like that. There's no need for government policies.
: If there's no FDIC, then people will behave much more prudently. They
: will not just save money in any bank. Banks craving for their deposits
: will have to c
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 9 I'm not saying FDIC solves the problem of excessive risking taking. What I'm
saying is that the existence of FDIC does not by itself encourage excessive
risk taking.
.)
【在 z***y 的大作中提到】
:
: 't
: extremely
: can'
: but how does FDIC solve the problems above? With FDIC (like now) they can
: and are doing excatly that (fool the rating agent/goverment/stock market...)
: confused by your argument....
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 10
Capitalism is Darwinism in a social form. It works if you leave it run
its natural course. You mess w/ it, you'll be punished.
What if there's no FDIC? Well, look at the auto market. Before buying a
car, people will do their due diligence. They will check online forums
& consumer report and test drive the car. After that they will make a
decision to buy or not. Why do they do that? B/c they understand there
is a risk the car might not be safe or carry low quality requiring lot
of maintenance co
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Capitalism has developed for hundreds of years, and the market has evolved
: from relatively free towards more regulation for some reason. Regulations
: may be set wrong for five or ten years, but history, on a time scale of a
: century, never got itself wrong.
: If there's no FDIC, banking will be closer to gambling. Bank customers can't
: "behave much more prudently" by carefully selecting "the sound bank"
: because there's no way for them to tell. Which bank is sound is an extremely
: difficult question ev
|
|
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 11
You make a very strong statement here, which looks like a religion to me. It
's never proved, so it's useless in backing your argument. On the contrary,
history of capitalism has plotted a trajectory of increasing regulations,
which hints your statement is more likely false than true.
I agree that people will (try to) run more due diligence in selecting banks
if there's no FDIC. But the problem is that their effort will end in vain.
It seems that you don't quite understand the difference betwe
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: Capitalism is Darwinism in a social form. It works if you leave it run
: its natural course. You mess w/ it, you'll be punished.
: What if there's no FDIC? Well, look at the auto market. Before buying a
: car, people will do their due diligence. They will check online forums
: & consumer report and test drive the car. After that they will make a
: decision to buy or not. Why do they do that? B/c they understand there
: is a risk the car might not be safe or carry low quality requiring lot
: of maintenance co
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 12
Market corrects itself by letting losers go bankrupt and then restart,
which is a key element you interventionists don't understand.
1930's depression was caused by Fed (your beloved big government agency)
keeping money supply too loose in 1920's that created an asset bubble,
exactly the same reason causing the current depression.
After the bubble went off in 1929, Hoover refused to liquidate failure
business. He ran his own propping up programs, launched a tariff war and
started big government
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: Broken means not working as intended. Capitalism with loose regulation
: sounds good on paper. But market
: never corrects itself and always overshoots, causing depression. Freerer the
: market runs, deeper the hole it
: will dig. In 1929, we had great depression with a very free market. After
: the wosrt bank run in history, we had
: FDIC. When we loosed regulation on 1999 by appealing 1937 Steagal act
: brokered by wall street, we had two
: consecutive recession, unseen in history of mankind. How do you concl
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 13 Letting only losers go bankrupt is certainly good. However, in today's
financial market, once bank runs hit with no interventions, everybody goes
under, and there are absolutely no winners.
Well, if you keep your money in your mattress, you win. Oh yes, market kills
losers and rewards winners, and the only winners are those who don't
participate in the market.
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: Market corrects itself by letting losers go bankrupt and then restart,
: which is a key element you interventionists don't understand.
: 1930's depression was caused by Fed (your beloved big government agency)
: keeping money supply too loose in 1920's that created an asset bubble,
: exactly the same reason causing the current depression.
: After the bubble went off in 1929, Hoover refused to liquidate failure
: business. He ran his own propping up programs, launched a tariff war and
: started big government
|
m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 14 All your said are facts but I disagree your conclusion. Bubble is not
created by regulation. Precrisis, it was the market (greed, aka) that drove
leverage up to make more money. If there is no regulation, why not stop
leverage at 10/1. They wanted 100/1, 1000/1. As in last bubble, house price
never went down, why not using 10000/1 leverage to make more money. In great
depression, it was not the pubic work proposed by President Hoover and
later Roosevelt that caused the depression. It was the lev |
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 15 Well, I agree with you that we are keeping too many failed business, which
is certainly not a good thing. The reason why we didn't let them fail is
because they are so big that they will drag all the innocent successful
businesses to fail together. A change of regulation is indeed targeted at
preventing "too big to fail".
Don't tell me too-big-to-fail monsters are the product of regulation. Free
market certainly encourages upsizing for financial institutions since it can
absorb more risk. By the
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: Market corrects itself by letting losers go bankrupt and then restart,
: which is a key element you interventionists don't understand.
: 1930's depression was caused by Fed (your beloved big government agency)
: keeping money supply too loose in 1920's that created an asset bubble,
: exactly the same reason causing the current depression.
: After the bubble went off in 1929, Hoover refused to liquidate failure
: business. He ran his own propping up programs, launched a tariff war and
: started big government
|
m*********a
发帖数: 3299 | 16 what will you do if the losers become so significant that killing them cause
collapse of the whole society? It is like a cancer, when it is small, it
can be removed. However, when the cancer becomes serious, remove them cause
the death of the host. Then the only way to do is using a support treatment.
Darwinism is not always working if US are the dinosaurs and China is the
winner. Do you want the market kill US industial and give all the market to
China, because it is more efficient so capitalis
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: Market corrects itself by letting losers go bankrupt and then restart,
: which is a key element you interventionists don't understand.
: 1930's depression was caused by Fed (your beloved big government agency)
: keeping money supply too loose in 1920's that created an asset bubble,
: exactly the same reason causing the current depression.
: After the bubble went off in 1929, Hoover refused to liquidate failure
: business. He ran his own propping up programs, launched a tariff war and
: started big government
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 17
You are assuming that people have to put money in the bank one way or
another. What I've been saying is that it's not the case. If people
find out these banking terms are all tricky and confusing, they'd
rather put the money inside mattress than a bank. That mechanism is not
fool proof but it will force banks to discipline themselves a lot more.
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Well, I agree with you that we are keeping too many failed business, which
: is certainly not a good thing. The reason why we didn't let them fail is
: because they are so big that they will drag all the innocent successful
: businesses to fail together. A change of regulation is indeed targeted at
: preventing "too big to fail".
: Don't tell me too-big-to-fail monsters are the product of regulation. Free
: market certainly encourages upsizing for financial institutions since it can
: absorb more risk. By the
|
z***y
发帖数: 79 | 18
cause
cause
treatment.
to
I like the cancer analogy. Right now the Gov is giving all the too-big-to-
fails aka cancer-like institutes more resources. I am not sure if the
support treatment is working well.. It certainly *postponed* the death of
the host. Saving the host? I don't know but we will see.. hehe
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: what will you do if the losers become so significant that killing them cause
: collapse of the whole society? It is like a cancer, when it is small, it
: can be removed. However, when the cancer becomes serious, remove them cause
: the death of the host. Then the only way to do is using a support treatment.
: Darwinism is not always working if US are the dinosaurs and China is the
: winner. Do you want the market kill US industial and give all the market to
: China, because it is more efficient so capitalis
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 19 Yes, they can put the money inside mattress, or buy treasuries, or "value
the risk and deposit in a bank" (aka. buy corporate bond or prefered stock
of that bank). You are basically advocating to remove the whole commercial
banking industry and all the commercial banks have to choose:
1) go with the previous investment bank model;
2) close door, and we don't need the banking industry.
That way I guess the world's civilization would be in the 70's right now.
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: You are assuming that people have to put money in the bank one way or
: another. What I've been saying is that it's not the case. If people
: find out these banking terms are all tricky and confusing, they'd
: rather put the money inside mattress than a bank. That mechanism is not
: fool proof but it will force banks to discipline themselves a lot more.
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 20
Deflation is not a bad thing. It's only bad for those who make the wrong
investment and then have to go bankrupt. To bail them out, you have to
take money away from people who did the right thing. That's wrong from
both moral standard and business standard.
It's wrong morally b/c it basically says that you can gamble all you
want. If you make a profit, keep it. If you fail, then we force other
people to cover your loss. It's not fair or legal.
It's wrong from a business point of view b/c those
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: what will you do if the losers become so significant that killing them cause
: collapse of the whole society? It is like a cancer, when it is small, it
: can be removed. However, when the cancer becomes serious, remove them cause
: the death of the host. Then the only way to do is using a support treatment.
: Darwinism is not always working if US are the dinosaurs and China is the
: winner. Do you want the market kill US industial and give all the market to
: China, because it is more efficient so capitalis
|
|
|
z***y
发帖数: 79 | 21
No politician will take 2-3 year short term pain.. hehe.. that will cost
their re-election..
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: Deflation is not a bad thing. It's only bad for those who make the wrong
: investment and then have to go bankrupt. To bail them out, you have to
: take money away from people who did the right thing. That's wrong from
: both moral standard and business standard.
: It's wrong morally b/c it basically says that you can gamble all you
: want. If you make a profit, keep it. If you fail, then we force other
: people to cover your loss. It's not fair or legal.
: It's wrong from a business point of view b/c those
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 22 This is exactly how people argue against history and explain how history can
be so wrong for so long and ends up with so many regulations.
Politics can certainly mess up a lot of things, but personally I don't think
regulation itself is a wrong product of politics.
【在 z***y 的大作中提到】
:
: No politician will take 2-3 year short term pain.. hehe.. that will cost
: their re-election..
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 23
There would have certainly been lots of pain if Bush had let the Wall St
be run to death, but saving them hasn't made it better. Bailing them out
was essentially sentencing Dollar to death. The hole is so big that b/t
Wall St and Dollar one has to die.
【在 m*********a 的大作中提到】
: what will you do if the losers become so significant that killing them cause
: collapse of the whole society? It is like a cancer, when it is small, it
: can be removed. However, when the cancer becomes serious, remove them cause
: the death of the host. Then the only way to do is using a support treatment.
: Darwinism is not always working if US are the dinosaurs and China is the
: winner. Do you want the market kill US industial and give all the market to
: China, because it is more efficient so capitalis
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 24 Could you please estimate the degree of "pain" the whole country will suffer
? I'm serious and very curious. Thanks.
I think we may differ a lot on this imagination.
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: There would have certainly been lots of pain if Bush had let the Wall St
: be run to death, but saving them hasn't made it better. Bailing them out
: was essentially sentencing Dollar to death. The hole is so big that b/t
: Wall St and Dollar one has to die.
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 25
There you go. That's the problem. They don't want short term deflation
pain but a long term currency collapse down the road.
【在 z***y 的大作中提到】
:
: No politician will take 2-3 year short term pain.. hehe.. that will cost
: their re-election..
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 26 Let me put my version here.
If there was NO interference and let them fail, all the interconnected bank
will fail immediately. Bank run ensue, credit market collapse. Most
companies relying on credit go under, good loans become bad loans, even the
strongest bank will not survive in that case. There will absolutely no loans
in the economy, all the companies with negative net cash go under.
Economies worsen, unumployment>50%, strong companies go under...
This whole spiril will eventually stop at t
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Could you please estimate the degree of "pain" the whole country will suffer
: ? I'm serious and very curious. Thanks.
: I think we may differ a lot on this imagination.
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 27
Well look at all the debt government has accumulated and the new ones
they took on b/c of this crisis. Social Security + Medicare/Medicaid
is estimated to be 45 Trillion and growing. National debt is at 13T now.
Budget office estimates another 9T. Just this pile of mess is close to
70T - 5 times of 2008 GDP.
We still don't know how much more money Bernanke has promised to Wall
St to clean their mess. There's a reason he refuses to be audited. We
do know there's a 300-500 trillion derivative bla
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Could you please estimate the degree of "pain" the whole country will suffer
: ? I'm serious and very curious. Thanks.
: I think we may differ a lot on this imagination.
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 28
I think yours is fine. There could have been a few vulture investors
to take over certain banks, but they are going to be real vultures that
only take the good asset and leave everything else to bankruptcy court.
It would have been ugly and painful but better than a currency collapse.
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Let me put my version here.
: If there was NO interference and let them fail, all the interconnected bank
: will fail immediately. Bank run ensue, credit market collapse. Most
: companies relying on credit go under, good loans become bad loans, even the
: strongest bank will not survive in that case. There will absolutely no loans
: in the economy, all the companies with negative net cash go under.
: Economies worsen, unumployment>50%, strong companies go under...
: This whole spiril will eventually stop at t
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 29 Sorry, I should have used the word "would" rather than "will". I was asking
about how severe the deleveraging would be were there not government
bailouts.
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: I think yours is fine. There could have been a few vulture investors
: to take over certain banks, but they are going to be real vultures that
: only take the good asset and leave everything else to bankruptcy court.
: It would have been ugly and painful but better than a currency collapse.
|
s**********n
发帖数: 868 | 30 But the problem is there will not be any "good assets" at all in a totally
destructive deflation, at least in the early stage. Good assets turn bad
when deleveraging continues so that no one dare to vulture anything, except
the government.
The problem is till what point the deleveraging can stop, and real vulture
investors can come in. It may not be at the final natural point (almost no
leverage at all), but given the massive leveraged nature of our economy, I
do think a
factor of 10 is not mere
【在 N********n 的大作中提到】
:
: I think yours is fine. There could have been a few vulture investors
: to take over certain banks, but they are going to be real vultures that
: only take the good asset and leave everything else to bankruptcy court.
: It would have been ugly and painful but better than a currency collapse.
|
|
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 31
In addition to what you've said, I think FDIC would have gone bust since
they definitely wouldn't have had money to cover that many bank deposits.
Dow would have hit 1000 or below. US government would have had to beg
for loan modification on TBonds b/c they had absolutely no way to honor
it under that situation.
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: Sorry, I should have used the word "would" rather than "will". I was asking
: about how severe the deleveraging would be were there not government
: bailouts.
|
N********n
发帖数: 8363 | 32
Deleveraging always overshoots its fair price, which is what happens
when the asset gets bubbled up too much.
Government intervention doesn't really stop deleveraging b/c it only
makes it as if stable when measured in Dollar. If you measure it in
gold which is true money that cannot be depreciated, it still deflates.
What government does is depreciating the current and then spreading the
pain onto responsible people.
【在 s**********n 的大作中提到】
: But the problem is there will not be any "good assets" at all in a totally
: destructive deflation, at least in the early stage. Good assets turn bad
: when deleveraging continues so that no one dare to vulture anything, except
: the government.
: The problem is till what point the deleveraging can stop, and real vulture
: investors can come in. It may not be at the final natural point (almost no
: leverage at all), but given the massive leveraged nature of our economy, I
: do think a
: factor of 10 is not mere
|
