tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post6409272084843379603..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The Dubious ParallelsDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-87741034131753345892009-03-09T22:55:00.000-07:002009-03-09T22:55:00.000-07:00Yes, I happen to like that particular song.Both th...Yes, I happen to like that particular song.<BR/><BR/>Both the lyric and the rythem of the song expresses what I feel inside.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-62020552918906967792009-03-05T08:55:00.000-08:002009-03-05T08:55:00.000-08:00Red,You like the Offspring? Noticed the kids aren'...Red,<BR/><BR/>You like the Offspring? Noticed the kids aren't alright in your music list.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-91572681238705460092009-03-05T07:01:00.000-08:002009-03-05T07:01:00.000-08:00___________________________________A note about Re...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>A note about Red Grant. I stopped replying to this obnoxious, logic-challenged smear artist. A few minutes ago I clicked on his name and then "my web page" -- which shows he is a liar -- and "audio clip", both of which prominantly display some of the most evil men in history. If Red likes communism, as these links suggest, then by his own standard he is a crook and a fraud by not living in Cuba or North Korea.<BR/><BR/>Here are the URL's if he changes the links:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSw0DBT8SkU&feature=related<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MS2vZLW9Xk&feature=PlayList&p=BB941FBB97C689DB&index=22 - anon who defends that fraud/crook Yaron<BR/><BR/>3/05/2009 04:33:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Ha! Is this the best/worst you can do?<BR/><BR/>anon who defends Yaron?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Those web sites are basically for facetious purpose!<BR/><BR/>People who have been reading my posts already know that!<BR/><BR/>Instead take a look at the books that I like:<BR/><BR/>Doesn't contain any refernce to Das Kapital, is there?<BR/><BR/>In fact, the books and the authors I admire the most as Greg knows,<BR/><BR/>are Vilfredo Pareto, and Oswald Spengler, hardly friends of Communism!<BR/><BR/>In fact, as much as I despise Ayn Rand,<BR/><BR/>I do like the character of Howard Roark and have said so.<BR/><BR/>In fact, if Ayn Rand and those who claim to follow her 'philosophy' had had half as much courage and integrity (as I see) as Howard Roark were portrayed to have possessed,<BR/><BR/>I would have had far more respect for Ayn Rand and the 'Objectivists'.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Please everyone, go to my blog and look at the books that I like, and see for yourself how shallow fellow this anon who defends that fraud/crook Yaron is.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Just to make sure that I'm not a smear artist,<BR/><BR/>I'll provide my evidence why Yaron is a crook and a fraud.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't have anything to do with Objectivism,<BR/><BR/>It has everything to do with his false faith in Objectivism and the standard of Ayn Rand as claimed by anon who defends Yaron.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Here's what this anon who likes Yaron had to say about Ayn Rand:<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>The existing banking system is one of fiat money, and banks have a license to create money "out of thin air." <BR/><BR/>If you believe Ayn Rand advocated fiat money and <BR/><BR/>deregulation<BR/><BR/> to give even greater license to <BR/><BR/>the exploiters of fiat money,<BR/><BR/> then you need to reread Atlas. - anon who defends Yaron on 2/25/2009 07:50:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>and here's what that crook/fraud Yaron had to say about banking deregulation:<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>The Gains from <BR/><BR/>Takeover Deregulation: Evidence from the End of Interstate Banking Restrictions<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yaron Brook,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Robert Hendershott and Darrell Lee <BR/>Additional contact information <BR/>Yaron Brook: Santa Clara University, <BR/>Robert Hendershott: Santa Clara University, <BR/>Darrell Lee: Kennesaw State University <BR/><BR/>Journal of Finance, 1998, vol. 53, issue 6, pages 2185-2204 <BR/><BR/>Abstract: This paper uses <BR/><BR/>interstate banking deregulation to explore the benefits of takeover deregulation and how these benefits are distributed across different firms.<BR/><BR/><BR/>We find large and significant abnormal returns around the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 which imply <BR/><BR/><BR/>it created $85 billion of value in the banking industry.<BR/><BR/>Consistent with an active market for corporate control allowing beneficial consolidation and providing needed discipline, there is a strong negative relationship between banks' abnormal returns and their prior performance. Consistent with managerial entrenchment limiting takeover discipline, banks with higher insider ownership, lower outside block ownership, and/or less independent boards have lower abnormal returns. Copyright The American Finance Association 1998. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://econpapers.repec.org/article/blajfinan/v_3A53_3Ay_3A1998_3Ai_3A6_3Ap_3A2185-2204.htm<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>and here's what Yaron had to say about FDIC:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Further promoting a sense of security, every major financial institution in America--both commercial banks and investment banks--was implicitly protected by the quasi-official policy of "too big to fail." The "too big to fail" doctrine holds that, when they risk insolvency, large financial institutions (like Countrywide or Bear Stearns) must be bailed out through a network of government bodies including the <BR/><BR/>Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,<BR/><BR/>the Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Reserve. - Yaron Brooks<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>and here's an exploiter of fiat money that Yaron has invested $2.25 million of the company he co-founded and manages:<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Heritage Bank's $60 million-plus capital raise will represent a<BR/>record for stand-alone start-up bank in the State of New York, where<BR/>the bank is to be headquartered.<BR/><BR/><BR/>A key component in the bank's<BR/>successful capital raise strategy was securing investments from<BR/>multiple institutions, including asset management firm FrontPoint<BR/>Partners LLC, a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley:<BR/><BR/><BR/>An additional commitment of $2.25 million was received from<BR/>private equity firm <BR/><BR/>BH Equity Research<BR/><BR/>http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS105425+16-Sep-2008+BW20080916<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Yaron is a founder and Managing Partner at BH.<BR/><BR/>He frequently lectures at major corporations on the topics of finance, investments, and <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>ethics.<BR/><BR/>http://www.bhequity.com/team_YaronBrook.htm<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>and here's what this exploiter of fiat money that Yaron had invested $2.25 million from the company he manages had to say about FDIC and other subsidy program from Federal government:<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>https://www.hbnysecure.com/press_release/detail/id/30<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Herald National Bank to Participate in FDIC’s Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Herald National Bank, <BR/><BR/>formerly Heritage Bank,<BR/><BR/>N.A., (NYSE Alternext US: HNB) announced today that is has elected to participate in the <BR/><BR/>Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP).<BR/><BR/><BR/>01/16/2009<BR/>Download a PDF <BR/>NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) — Herald National Bank, formerly Heritage Bank, N.A., (NYSE Alternext US: HNB) announced today that is has elected to participate in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP). <BR/><BR/>Under the program, all non-interest-bearing transaction accounts are fully <BR/><BR/>guaranteed by the FDIC for the entirety of the account. This additional coverage will be extended by the FDIC through December 31, 2009, and is separate from the coverage currently available under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules.<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Even worse, and shameless fact is this exploiter of fiat money claims to already have strong capital base and clean balance sheet, <BR/><BR/>another word, no troubled assets,<BR/><BR/>yet still partakes in Federal subsidy program <BR/><BR/>for greater profit.<BR/><BR/>Another word, this is worse than welfare/subsidy,<BR/><BR/>this is really a welfare fraud by financially sound company.<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________ <BR/>“Through our participation in the <BR/><BR/>Transaction Account Guarantee Program <BR/><BR/>and <BR/><BR/>recent increases to basic FDIC insurance limits,<BR/><BR/> our banking teams are able to put <BR/><BR/>Herald’s <BR/><BR/>strong capital base and <BR/><BR/>clean balance sheet <BR/><BR/>to work for clients by delivering a broader scale of products and services,” comments David S. Bagatelle, President and CEO of Herald National Bank.<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The evidences are overwhelming and explicit and concrete.<BR/><BR/>This anon who defends Yaron the crook/fraud <BR/><BR/>had no rebuttals to my evidences<BR/><BR/>except calling me abusive names without the shredd of proof.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I rest my case.Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13005949287731573282009-03-05T04:33:00.000-08:002009-03-05T04:33:00.000-08:00Barnes: Good posts all, esp Wells and Red Grant's ...Barnes: <I>Good posts all, esp Wells and Red Grant's intriguing point.</I> <BR/><BR/>I very much agree about Wells' post and the opposite for Red Grant's.<BR/><BR/>Wells: <I>You should only be able to sell a CDS if you have cash to cover losses.</I><BR/><BR/>Of course, the big problem is what might happen <B>after</B> the seller enters the contract. He may appear to have adequate cash at the start, but later on be overwhelmed by growing losses. If CDS were exchange traded, the problem would be alleviated. The exchange could require the seller add enough collateral to cover the growing losses or have his position closed. <BR/><BR/>A note about Red Grant. I stopped replying to this obnoxious, logic-challenged smear artist. A few minutes ago I clicked on his name and then "my web page" -- which shows he is a liar -- and "audio clip", both of which prominantly display some of the most evil men in history. If Red likes communism, as these links suggest, then by his own standard he is a crook and a fraud by not living in Cuba or North Korea.<BR/><BR/>Here are the URL's if he changes the links:<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSw0DBT8SkU&feature=related<BR/>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MS2vZLW9Xk&feature=PlayList&p=BB941FBB97C689DB&index=22Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24044879672653596222009-03-04T23:24:00.000-08:002009-03-04T23:24:00.000-08:00Good posts all, esp Wells and Red Grant's intrigui...Good posts all, esp Wells and Red Grant's intriguing point. Would love to comment more but am a bit short of time.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82461284181902742552009-03-02T23:20:00.000-08:002009-03-02T23:20:00.000-08:00___________________________________I wrote: Red Gr...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>I wrote: Red Grant, are you a crook and a fraud simply because you live in a country with fiat money? <BR/><BR/>Red Grant replied: Ah!, but the difference is I never claimed to be an Objectivist! Yaron did.<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>That difference is irrelevant. - anon on 3/02/2009 07:36:00 PM<BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So you believe the difference attributed to whether a person who never claimed to be an Objectivist not following Ayn Rand's 'philosophy'<BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>a person who not only claims to be an Objectivist, but also the head of Ayn Rand Institute, not following Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' <BR/><BR/>is <BR/><BR/>irrelevant<BR/><BR/>when it comes to deciding whether a person is a fraud or not?<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Yaron has no control over what kind of money system the U.S. has, just like you. - anon<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/><BR/>Did I call him a fraud because he has no control over what kind of money system the U.S.?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yaron did have control over how to, where to invest the money entrusted to him in BH Equity.<BR/><BR/>He did not have to invest the money in an exploiter of fiat money system.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red Grant: Is that what an Objectivist does, trying to profit from investing in an exploiter of fiat money and preaching for deregulation for the purpose of giving greater license to the exploiters of fiat money?<BR/><BR/>He is not doing so and your claim that he is is simply a smear. And farewell to your obnoxiousness. - anon on 3/02/2009 07:36:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Yaron is a founder and Managing Partner at BH.<BR/><BR/>He frequently lectures at major corporations on the topics of finance, investments, and <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>ethics.<BR/><BR/>http://www.bhequity.com/team_YaronBrook.htm<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Heritage Bank's $60 million-plus capital raise will represent a<BR/>record for stand-alone start-up bank in the State of New York, where<BR/>the bank is to be headquartered.<BR/><BR/><BR/>A key component in the bank's<BR/>successful capital raise strategy was securing investments from<BR/>multiple institutions, including asset management firm FrontPoint<BR/>Partners LLC, a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley:<BR/><BR/><BR/>An additional commitment of $2.25 million was received from<BR/>private equity firm <BR/><BR/>BH Equity Research<BR/><BR/>http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS105425+16-Sep-2008+BW20080916<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>https://www.hbnysecure.com/press_release/detail/id/30<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Herald National Bank to Participate in FDIC’s Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Herald National Bank, <BR/><BR/>formerly Heritage Bank,<BR/><BR/>N.A., (NYSE Alternext US: HNB) announced today that is has elected to participate in the <BR/><BR/>Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP).<BR/><BR/><BR/>01/16/2009<BR/>Download a PDF <BR/>NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) — Herald National Bank, formerly Heritage Bank, N.A., (NYSE Alternext US: HNB) announced today that is has elected to participate in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP). <BR/><BR/>Under the program, all non-interest-bearing transaction accounts are fully <BR/><BR/>guaranteed by the FDIC for the entirety of the account. This additional coverage will be extended by the FDIC through December 31, 2009, and is separate from the coverage currently available under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules.<BR/><BR/>“Through our participation in the Transaction Account Guarantee Program and recent increases to basic FDIC insurance limits, our banking teams are able to put Herald’s strong capital base and clean balance sheet to work for clients by delivering a broader scale of products and services,” comments David S. Bagatelle, President and CEO of Herald National Bank.<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Further promoting a sense of security, every major financial institution in America--both commercial banks and investment banks--was implicitly protected by the quasi-official policy of "too big to fail." The "too big to fail" doctrine holds that, when they risk insolvency, large financial institutions (like Countrywide or Bear Stearns) must be bailed out through a network of government bodies including the <BR/><BR/>Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,<BR/><BR/>the Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Reserve. - Yaron Brooks<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>The Gains from <BR/><BR/>Takeover Deregulation: Evidence from the End of Interstate Banking Restrictions<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yaron Brook,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Robert Hendershott and Darrell Lee <BR/>Additional contact information <BR/>Yaron Brook: Santa Clara University, <BR/>Robert Hendershott: Santa Clara University, <BR/>Darrell Lee: Kennesaw State University <BR/><BR/>Journal of Finance, 1998, vol. 53, issue 6, pages 2185-2204 <BR/><BR/>Abstract: This paper uses <BR/><BR/>interstate banking deregulation to explore the benefits of takeover deregulation and how these benefits are distributed across different firms.<BR/><BR/><BR/>We find large and significant abnormal returns around the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 which imply <BR/><BR/><BR/>it created $85 billion of value in the banking industry.<BR/><BR/>Consistent with an active market for corporate control allowing beneficial consolidation and providing needed discipline, there is a strong negative relationship between banks' abnormal returns and their prior performance. Consistent with managerial entrenchment limiting takeover discipline, banks with higher insider ownership, lower outside block ownership, and/or less independent boards have lower abnormal returns. Copyright The American Finance Association 1998. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://econpapers.repec.org/article/blajfinan/v_3A53_3Ay_3A1998_3Ai_3A6_3Ap_3A2185-2204.htm<BR/>___________________________________Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85713299970349617682009-03-02T21:23:00.000-08:002009-03-02T21:23:00.000-08:00What happened to the American Financial Markets in...What happened to the American Financial Markets in 2008,2009,and probably a few more years after that.<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you all know the story about how subprime mortgages crashed, and how giant banking entities like Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, IndyMac, and others have fallen.<BR/>If you come to Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, you probably even have an opinion about what caused it, sometimes it is summed up as 'To much regulation' or 'Not enough regulation'.<BR/><BR/>Here's my opinion;<BR/><BR/>The problems of the American Financial System are caused several things.<BR/><BR/>(1) Banks have divorced the risk in lending someone money from the decision to lend. <BR/>Back in the olden days, before debt securitization, if you failed to pay a bank back money borrowed, the bank lost money. This actually caused an interesting behavior amongst borrowers. Essentially, if a bank would loan you money, you could assume that it was a safe to borrow said money.<BR/>However, with debt securitization, this is no longer the case. The bank's risk is divorced from your probability to pay, so they will loan money regardless. Consumer behavior has not yet caught up. This is crazy to me since financial planning books have said that banks will lend you more money than it is prudent to borrow since the mid 90's. This is also the reason why people get pre-approved credit card offers in the mail.<BR/><BR/>(2) Banks have figured out that you can 'mine' low credit worthy persons for cash. This is actually closely related to point (1) above. Basically the name of this game is to give someone as much credit as possible then make them pay interest forever. Sumerians invented this, they also invented words like 'slavery'. The point is to target people with low credit, so such laws as the Community Reinvestment Act really do not come into play, banks would lend predatorly to people covered by the CRA if that act existed or not. The operations that did this rate in regulatedness from the largest financial institutions on Wall Street to fly-by-nite ops with no appreciable regulation that are ending up on ml-implode.com.<BR/><BR/>(3) The United State's Federal Government Has borrowed entirely too much cash. Ronald Reagen Screwed us, George H.W. Bush tried to put sanity back into the budget when he raised new taxes, Bill Clinton succeeded, W. Broke what Clinton fixed, Baruak Obama seems to be doing what G-dubs did before him. My evidence is <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt" REL="nofollow">here</A>. This is making it harder to respond to current or future crises. The feeling that the government is having is similar to the feeling a man has with no savings, maxxed out lines of credit, and then their refrigerator breaks.<BR/><BR/>(4) Credit Default Swaps. There is no such thing as mortgage insurance. Insurance implies several things, it implies that the insurer has the money to cover the losses if they are on the losing end of an insurance contract. It implies that the insurance contract owner has an interest in the underlying asset and that being on the winning end of an insurance contract is a suboptimal condition. <BR/>None of this is true. You can buy Credit Default Swaps for any bond on Earth, whether you own it or not, you can sell a Credit Default Swap right now if you can convince people that you have any cash at all. Your average ARCHN reader probably doesn't have friends with a hedge fund. However there are consultants that can get you into the world of high-finance. Bernard L. Madoff is going to need a job one day. Perhaps you can retain his services. This used to be illegal. There was a law against Bucket Shops that applied to this type of trade. It was actually repealed. The problem with these things is that one security could have bunches of CDS attached to it, so the default of $1 billion in bonds could cause the loss of $60 billion in CDS. Causing more pain in the markets than the original default should.<BR/><BR/>(5) Government Guarantees for private debt. In the past, the government guaranteed the debt of Fannie Mae, Feddie Mac, and Salle Mae. This was stupid. It allowed these entities to borrow at a lower cost than they otherwise should have been able to. It also allowed them to rack up more leverage than similar private firms would have. It probably killed the market for similar private firms. Now the government also guarantees the debt of Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan Chase, American Insurance Group, and General Motors. Next we will probably see the State of California, and American Express added to this list. This increases the 'shadow' debt of the Government (see point (3)), and causes sick firms to have an advantage against healthy firms.<BR/><BR/>(6) Leverage Baby. People borrowed too much money in service to the greed for yet more cash. See also points (1) and (2), this is the flip side of those coins. <BR/>But First how leverage works. Let's say that you have an asset worth $1 million. You can borrow say $900,000 to buy it. Or you can bay cash. Hopefully the asset increases in value. Let's say 10% ROI is the return as a percentage of the original cash investment.<BR/>(a) Conservative Cash<BR/>Asset = $1,000,000<BR/>Loan = $0<BR/>Investment = $1,000,000<BR/>--time passes--<BR/>Asset = $1,100,000<BR/>Loan = $0<BR/>ROI = 10%<BR/>(b) Leverage Baby!<BR/>Asset = $1,000,000<BR/>Loan = $900,000<BR/>Investment = $100,000<BR/>--time passes--<BR/>Asset = $1,100,000<BR/>Loan = $900,000<BR/>ROI = 100%!!!<BR/>Yes, Leverage is a beautiful thing on the way up. Suppose you are on the way down.<BR/>(a) Cash<BR/>Asset = $1,000,000<BR/>Cash = $1,000,000<BR/>--Time--<BR/>Asset = $800,000<BR/>losses = 20%<BR/>(b) Leverage<BR/>Asset = $1,000,000<BR/>Loans = $900,000<BR/>Cash = $100,000<BR/>--Time--<BR/>Asset=$800,000<BR/>Loans=$900,000<BR/>losses=200%!?!?! <--That number is more than 100%<BR/>Leverage Hurts on the way down. And guess what, we're on the way down. When you lose more than you have, you have this feeling as though you are drowning. That's why the financial situation is known as being Under Water. The government actually regulates how much leverage financial institutions have, it also indirectly regulates how much leverage you can have on a primary residence if you are getting a loan guaranteed by the government on account of being a poor person who wants to buy a house. Loopholes around both classes regulations are commonly used.<BR/><BR/>(7) The Foreign Trade Deficit is too high. Any country that imports more stuff than they export over the long term will end up broke. Trade deficits also are a harbinger of borrowed money, since that's the only kind of money that Americans can get to pay for all of this stuff without getting foreign exchange the old fashioned way which is by selling stuff to foreigners. There are regulations here, some of them are about National Security (Don't sell Crypto to the Iranians), some of them are more politically motivated (The tariff on foreign sugar is to benefit Florida Sugar makers and makers of High Fructose Corn Syrup). Lots of these regulations are stupid. <BR/><BR/>For those on the regulation argument that are keeping score.<BR/>(1) There's no reg that will fix this.<BR/>(2) There is too little regulation. Bankruptcy judges should be given absolute power over debt, even mortgages and especially student loans.<BR/>(3) Too much government in general, or at last more government then the taxpayers really feel like paying for.<BR/>(4) Not enough regulation of Credit Default Swaps. Maybe you should only be allowed to buy a CDS if you own the security being 'insured'. You should only be able to sell a CDS if you have cash to cover losses.<BR/>(5) Too much regulation with regards to guaranteeing private debt for no reason.<BR/>(6) Regulations concerning leverage would be fine if there were no bailouts or guarantees of private debt. This is something that the free market can regulate well. Over leveraged people end up broke when times are bad, that's not a bug, that's a feature. Poor people should rent, their housing costs will be lower, and they will become rich people sooner if they do that rather than carry an onerous mortgage.<BR/>(7) Not much can be done here, but maybe we can try to replace oil with something made in America.<BR/><BR/>What should you do?<BR/><BR/>Save your money, Max out your 401(k) if you have one, Update your resume maybe, Pay down debt if you have it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88228878688537497512009-03-02T19:36:00.000-08:002009-03-02T19:36:00.000-08:00I wrote: Red Grant, are you a crook and a fraud si...I wrote: Red Grant, are you a crook and a fraud simply because you live in a country with fiat money? <BR/><BR/>Red Grant replied: <I>Ah!, but the difference is I never claimed to be an Objectivist! Yaron did.</I><BR/><BR/>That difference is irrelevant. Yaron has no control over what kind of money system the U.S. has, just like you.<BR/><BR/>Red Grant: <I>Is that what an Objectivist does, trying to profit from investing in an exploiter of fiat money and preaching for deregulation for the purpose of giving greater license to the exploiters of fiat money?</I><BR/><BR/>He is not doing so, and your claim that he is is simply a smear. And farewell to your obnoxiousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-21413943544148107162009-03-02T16:56:00.000-08:002009-03-02T16:56:00.000-08:00___________________________________As Rogers knows...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>As Rogers knows well the cause of the current crisis is not a <BR/><BR/>free market, but government controls. - anon on 3/01/2009 05:52:00 AM<BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Who decides what is a free market? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 11:22:00 AM <BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Who decides what "is" means? :-) - anon on 3/01/2009 12:22:00 PM <BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/><BR/>Does the question of who decide(s) what "is" means has any funtional/topical relevance to the understanding of the question of<BR/><BR/>"Who decides what is a free market?"?<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>you do not know what "is" means? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 03:00:00 PM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Yes, I know, including multiple ways "is" is used.- anon on 3/02/2009 05:14:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>So does this mean you understand my question of "Who decide(s) what is a free market?"?<BR/><BR/>If so, <BR/><BR/>and you do not deny that question["Who decide(s) what is a free market?"] is topically relevant to the subject at hand[the nature of free market], then<BR/><BR/>why can you not answer the question of who decide(s) what is a free market?<BR/><BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/><BR/>you hiding something?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>I only rhetorically asked who decides what it["is"] means, which is far from saying I don't know what it means. - anon on 3/02/2009 05:14:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>If you had understood what "is" means, then what was your purpose of asking that rhetorical question, "Who decides what "is" means?"?<BR/><BR/><BR/>And how is your question, "who decides what it["is"] means" topically relevant to the subject at hand [the nature of free market]?<BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>As Rogers knows well the cause of the current crisis is not a <BR/><BR/>free market, but government controls. - anon<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>In fact, what is a free market? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 03:00:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red Grant: Anon, does this mean then Yaron Brook, the head of ARI is a fraud and a crook as far as his 'philosophical adherence' to Ayn Rand is concerned?<BR/><BR/>No. If you believe it does, then explain. - anon<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>The existing banking system is one of fiat money, and banks have a license to create money "out of thin air." <BR/><BR/>If you believe Ayn Rand advocated fiat money and deregulation to give even greater license to the exploiters of fiat money, then you need to reread Atlas. - anon<BR/><BR/>2/25/2009 07:50:00 AM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe someone who calls himself an <BR/><BR/>Objectivist is not being a fraud and a crook <BR/><BR/>while trying to profit from investing in an exploiter of fiat money<BR/><BR/>even though Ayn Rand herself (according to anon) was opposed to fiat money <BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>deregulation for the purpose of giving greater license to the exploiters of fiat money? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 03:00:00 PM <BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Red Grant, are you a crook and a fraud simply because you live in a country with fiat money? - anon on 3/01/2009 04:03:00 PM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Ah!, but the difference is I never claimed to be an Objectivist!<BR/><BR/>Yaron did.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Is that what an Objectivist does, trying to profit from investing in an exploiter of fiat money and preaching for deregulation for the purpose of giving greater license to the exploiters of fiat money?<BR/><BR/>while proclaiming to follow the Ayn Rand's 'philosophy'?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Please take a look at one of Yaron's articles below. - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 05:18:00 PM<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>The Gains from <BR/><BR/>Takeover Deregulation: Evidence from the End of Interstate Banking Restrictions<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yaron Brook,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Robert Hendershott and Darrell Lee <BR/>Additional contact information <BR/>Yaron Brook: Santa Clara University, <BR/>Robert Hendershott: Santa Clara University, <BR/>Darrell Lee: Kennesaw State University <BR/><BR/>Journal of Finance, 1998, vol. 53, issue 6, pages 2185-2204 <BR/><BR/>Abstract: This paper uses <BR/><BR/>interstate banking deregulation to explore the benefits of takeover deregulation and how these benefits are distributed across different firms.<BR/><BR/><BR/>We find large and significant abnormal returns around the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 which imply <BR/><BR/><BR/>it created $85 billion of value in the banking industry.<BR/><BR/>Consistent with an active market for corporate control allowing beneficial consolidation and providing needed discipline, there is a strong negative relationship between banks' abnormal returns and their prior performance. Consistent with managerial entrenchment limiting takeover discipline, banks with higher insider ownership, lower outside block ownership, and/or less independent boards have lower abnormal returns. Copyright The American Finance Association 1998. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://econpapers.repec.org/article/blajfinan/v_3A53_3Ay_3A1998_3Ai_3A6_3Ap_3A2185-2204.htm<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>And below is a post from anon within this thread, in fact, very first post.<BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>The existing banking system is one of fiat money, and banks have a license to create money "out of thin air." <BR/><BR/>If you believe <BR/><BR/>Ayn Rand advocated <BR/><BR/>fiat money and deregulation<BR/><BR/> to give even greater license to <BR/><BR/>the exploiters of fiat money,<BR/><BR/> then you need to reread Atlas. - anon on 2/25/2009 07:50:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>What do you say, anon? Your own words attributing to Ayn Rand, and Atlas shrugged!Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72232351467034133262009-03-02T12:16:00.000-08:002009-03-02T12:16:00.000-08:00Barnes: Gerard Jackson's argument seems odd, as he...Barnes: <I>Gerard Jackson's argument seems odd, as he and Soros are both attacking the same thing - modern economics - for the same reasons - the omission of fallibility.</I><BR/><BR/>I think it's more than that. They have quite different ideas about equilibrium, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34169645500939164522009-03-02T11:42:00.000-08:002009-03-02T11:42:00.000-08:00Anon:>More on Soros' economic ignorance and...Anon:<BR/>>More on Soros' economic ignorance and anti-free market philosophy are at the URL's below. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the links. Gerard Jackson's argument seems odd, as he and Soros are both attacking the same thing - modern economics - for the same reasons - the omission of fallibility. Jackson's vitriol (which comes as standard anyway) is probably more to do with the fact that Soros is a Popperian. This, to a Misean, is worse than even being an Objectivist...;-)<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the discussion.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-83497361945972931582009-03-02T07:45:00.000-08:002009-03-02T07:45:00.000-08:00More on Soros' economic ignorance and anti-free ma...More on Soros' economic ignorance and anti-free market philosophy are at the URL's below. Adding to the first one, even neoclassical economists recognized the flaws in the perfect competition model and wrote about "imperfect competition" and "monopolistic competition" decades ago.<BR/><BR/>http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article4422.html<BR/><BR/>http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/soros.htmAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-46578789318056282682009-03-02T05:14:00.000-08:002009-03-02T05:14:00.000-08:00Barnes: It's a sign of the times that billionaire ...Barnes: <I>It's a sign of the times that billionaire speculators can be nowadays called "leftists."</I><BR/><BR/>I called Soros 'leftist' due to his political views, period.<BR/><BR/>Barnes: <I>Rand was vehemently against all forms of government involvement in the market, unless to prevent force or fraud. But she never bothered her head as to what this would mean in practice.</I><BR/><BR/>Your 'unless' clause is very important. Your next sentence is overstated ("never) but essentially correct and may explain many knee-jerk reactions by many of her fans.<BR/><BR/>Barnes: <I>So now that we've fast-forwarded to the end of your line of argument, we can leave it there.</I><BR/><BR/>Fine, as I exit stage right. And thanks for the link on control fraud.<BR/><BR/>Red Grant: <I>you do not know what "is" means?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, I know, including multiple ways "is" is used. I only rhetorically asked who decides what it means, which is far from saying I don't know what it means.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27980311518273672092009-03-02T01:18:00.000-08:002009-03-02T01:18:00.000-08:00While we're on the topic of fraud, this is a must-...While we're on the topic of fraud, <A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-k-black/the-two-documents-everyon_b_169813.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> is a must-read from the excellent William Black.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-18961737608289627312009-03-01T17:18:00.000-08:002009-03-01T17:18:00.000-08:00___________________________________Red Grant: Anon...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red Grant: Anon, does this mean then Yaron Brook, the head of ARI is a fraud and a crook as far as his 'philosophical adherence' to Ayn Rand is concerned?<BR/><BR/>No. If you believe it does, then explain. - anon<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>The existing banking system is one of fiat money, and banks have a license to create money "out of thin air." <BR/><BR/>If you believe Ayn Rand advocated fiat money and deregulation to give even greater license to the exploiters of fiat money, then you need to reread Atlas. - anon<BR/><BR/>2/25/2009 07:50:00 AM<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe someone who calls himself an <BR/><BR/>Objectivist is not being a fraud and a crook <BR/><BR/>while trying to profit from investing in an exploiter of fiat money<BR/><BR/>even though Ayn Rand herself (according to anon) was opposed to fiat money <BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>deregulation for the purpose of giving greater license to the exploiters of fiat money? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 03:00:00 PM <BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Red Grant, are you a crook and a fraud simply because you live in a country with fiat money? - anon on 3/01/2009 04:03:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Ah!, but the difference is I never claimed to be an Objectivist!<BR/><BR/>Yaron did.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Is that what an Objectivist does, trying to profit from investing in an exploiter of fiat money and preaching for deregulation for the purpose of giving greater license to the exploiters of fiat money?<BR/><BR/>while proclaiming to follow the Ayn Rand's 'philosophy'?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Please take a look at one of Yaron's articles below.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>The Gains from <BR/><BR/>Takeover Deregulation: Evidence from the End of Interstate Banking Restrictions<BR/><BR/><BR/>Yaron Brook,<BR/><BR/><BR/> Robert Hendershott and Darrell Lee <BR/>Additional contact information <BR/>Yaron Brook: Santa Clara University, <BR/>Robert Hendershott: Santa Clara University, <BR/>Darrell Lee: Kennesaw State University <BR/><BR/>Journal of Finance, 1998, vol. 53, issue 6, pages 2185-2204 <BR/><BR/>Abstract: This paper uses <BR/><BR/>interstate banking deregulation to explore the benefits of takeover deregulation and how these benefits are distributed across different firms.<BR/><BR/><BR/> We find large and significant abnormal returns around the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 which imply <BR/><BR/><BR/>it created $85 billion of value in the banking industry.<BR/><BR/> Consistent with an active market for corporate control allowing beneficial consolidation and providing needed discipline, there is a strong negative relationship between banks' abnormal returns and their prior performance. Consistent with managerial entrenchment limiting takeover discipline, banks with higher insider ownership, lower outside block ownership, and/or less independent boards have lower abnormal returns. Copyright The American Finance Association 1998. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://econpapers.repec.org/article/blajfinan/v_3A53_3Ay_3A1998_3Ai_3A6_3Ap_3A2185-2204.htm<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>As Rogers knows well the cause of the current crisis is not a <BR/><BR/>free market, but government controls. - anon on 3/01/2009 05:52:00 AM<BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Who decides what is a free market? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 11:22:00 AM <BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Who decides what "is" means? :-) - anon on 3/01/2009 12:22:00 PM <BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/><BR/>Does the question of who decide(s) what "is" means has any funtional/topical relevance to the understanding of the question of<BR/><BR/>"Who decides what is a free market?"?<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>you do not know what "is" means? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 03:00:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>As Rogers knows well the cause of the current crisis is not a <BR/><BR/>free market, but government controls. - anon<BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>In fact, what is a free market? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 03:00:00 PM<BR/>___________________________________Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38944689042548969172009-03-01T16:17:00.000-08:002009-03-01T16:17:00.000-08:00Anon:>Holy cow! You can't see your blunder ...Anon:<BR/>>Holy cow! You can't see your blunder even after I cite the sentence.<BR/><BR/>Oh yeah, I see. I meant to write "non-fiat." Sorry, I thought you meant something a bit more major. Incidentally, don't know about you, but I always find it much harder to proof stuff on screen. Always easier in hardcopy for some reason? <BR/><BR/>>It's not unusual and typical from leftists, but <BR/>wrong.<BR/><BR/>It's a sign of the times that billionaire speculators can be nowadays called "leftists."Of course this is no different from the anarchists calling Objectivists paternalistic state-worshippers. (Heh...I remember Tibor Machan writing a whole essay about why they shouldn't do that, cos it hurts his feelings) But hey, that's essentialism for you...;-)<BR/><BR/>Of course, I don't think deregulation was soley to blame. There is a complex mix of government and private screwups, as well as some major theoretical problems they share, like their approach to risk management. But I'm a Popperian, I would say that.<BR/><BR/>Rand was vehemently against all forms of government involvement in the market, unless to prevent force or fraud. <I>But she never bothered her head as to what this would mean in practice. </I>. Because such big-talkin' rhetoric is always conveniently light on details of how it would actually work, as Greg has already pointed out. Rand never even worked out a way of credibly funding basic government functions like voting or the military without compulsory taxation, let alone the mechanisms for preventing and punishing the highly complex frauds of the world of finance. But then practical criticism like this is always answered by appeals to a hypothetical future in which the root of all problems has been removed, just as the Marxists promised once capitalism had been overthrown. Once the contradictions have been removed everything just solves itself! So now that we've fast-forwarded to the end of your line of argument, we can leave it there. Whether Rand would have agreed with this or that particular govt deregulation is certainly <I>not</I> clear, and will not be clarified by re-reading Atlas Shrugged. You might as well re-read some tea leaves.<BR/><BR/>As for Jim Rogers, I hope he's right. He's bullish on agriculture and I live in New Zealand...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37480287926886819332009-03-01T16:03:00.000-08:002009-03-01T16:03:00.000-08:00Red Grant, are you a crook and a fraud simply beca...Red Grant, are you a crook and a fraud simply because you live in a country with fiat money?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65586128262466364752009-03-01T15:00:00.000-08:002009-03-01T15:00:00.000-08:00___________________________________As Rogers knows...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>As Rogers knows well the cause of the current crisis is not a <BR/><BR/>free market, but government controls. - anon on 3/01/2009 05:52:00 AM<BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Who decides what is a free market? - Red Grant on 3/01/2009 11:22:00 AM <BR/><BR/>===================================<BR/><BR/>Who decides what "is" means? :-) - anon on 3/01/2009 12:22:00 PM <BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does the question of who decide(s) what "is" means has any funtional/topical relevance to the understanding of the question of<BR/><BR/>"Who decides what is a free market?"?<BR/><BR/>or<BR/><BR/>you do not know what "is" means?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>As Rogers knows well the cause of the current crisis is not a <BR/><BR/>free market, but government controls. - anon<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>In fact, what is a free market?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red Grant: Anon, does this mean then Yaron Brook, the head of ARI is a fraud and a crook as far as his 'philosophical adherence' to Ayn Rand is concerned?<BR/><BR/>No. If you believe it does, then explain. - anon<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>The existing banking system is one of fiat money, and banks have a license to create money "out of thin air." <BR/><BR/>If you believe Ayn Rand advocated fiat money and deregulation to give even greater license to the exploiters of fiat money, then you need to reread Atlas. - anon<BR/><BR/>2/25/2009 07:50:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe someone who calls himself an <BR/><BR/>Objectivist is not being a fraud and a crook <BR/><BR/>while trying to profit from investing in an exploiter of fiat money<BR/><BR/>even though Ayn Rand herself (according to anon) was opposed to fiat money <BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>deregulation for the purpose of giving greater license to the exploiters of fiat money?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4465595695515264182009-03-01T12:22:00.000-08:002009-03-01T12:22:00.000-08:00Red Grant: Who decides what is a free market?Wh...Red Grant: <I> Who decides what is a free market?</I><BR/><BR/>Who decides what "is" means? :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54298425477915408542009-03-01T11:22:00.000-08:002009-03-01T11:22:00.000-08:00___________________________________Red Grant: Anon...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Red Grant: Anon, does this mean then Yaron Brook, the head of ARI is a fraud and a crook as far as his 'philosophical adherence' to Ayn Rand is concerned?<BR/><BR/>No. If you believe it does, then explain. - anon<BR/>-----------------------------------<BR/>The existing banking system is one of fiat money, and banks have a license to create money "out of thin air." <BR/><BR/>If you believe Ayn Rand advocated fiat money and deregulation to give even greater license to the exploiters of fiat money, then you need to reread Atlas. - anon<BR/><BR/>2/25/2009 07:50:00 AM<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Does this mean then you believe someone who calls himself an <BR/><BR/>Objectivist is not being a fraud and a crook <BR/><BR/>while trying to profit from investing in an exploiter of fiat money<BR/><BR/>even though Ayn Rand herself (according to anon) was opposed to fiat money <BR/><BR/>and<BR/><BR/>deregulation for the purpose of giving greater license to the exploiters of fiat money?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>As Rogers knows well the cause of the current crisis is not a <BR/><BR/>free market, but government controls. - anon<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Who decides what is a free market?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-35611882050860841192009-03-01T05:52:00.000-08:002009-03-01T05:52:00.000-08:00Dubious Dan: What you need to come up with is, say...Dubious Dan: <I>What you need to come up with is, say, some government regulations of markets that she approved of.</I><BR/><BR/>How does that relate to parallels? Anyway, it's easy -- regulations against counterfeiting.<BR/><BR/>Dubious Dan: <I>Er...yes. Obviously. Not exactly an unusual assertion.</I><BR/><BR/>It's not unusual and typical from leftists, but wrong. I didn't know you thought like Nancy Pelosi. Soros is a great investor and a lousy economist. His Quantum Fund co-founder Jim Rogers puts him to shame. Soros is a political leftist. As Rogers knows well the cause of the current crisis is not a free market, but government controls. In your link Soros says regulators are to blame only because they didn't <B>control enough</B>. <BR/><BR/>When he gets to the real estate bubble, government gets no blame at all. He describes regulators as ignorant and therefore innocent.<BR/><BR/>Dubious Dan: <I>What blunder?</I><BR/><BR/>Holy cow! You can't see your blunder even after I cite the sentence. You said " . . . until we have a fiat money environment?" Meaning we don't have fiat money now?!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88972242260959480402009-02-28T21:37:00.000-08:002009-02-28T21:37:00.000-08:00Anon:>Ayn Rand knew the difference between a fi...Anon:<BR/>>Ayn Rand knew the difference between a fiat currency and a gold standard...Suppose she knew and a new law others labeled "deregulation" made it much easier for banks to create money "out of thin air".Do you believe she would have approved of such "deregulation"? I don't. <BR/><BR/>Well, on what evidence do you base this belief? Providing other examples of government deregulation of which she approved - such as airlines - hardly supports your claim. (And why do you think ATMs are a good example of deregulation??) They in fact support the thrust of my post. What you need to come up with is, say, some government <I>regulations</I> of markets that she approved of. Then you might have something more than your personal speculation.<BR/><BR/>>Why did he [Barnes] post it?...Was it to assert or suggest that "deregulation", which Rand generally approved, played a key role in the crisis, contra Atlas Shrugged?<BR/><BR/>Er...yes. Obviously. Not exactly an unusual <A HREF="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=a60APVwmz01g" REL="nofollow">assertion.</A><BR/><BR/>>I kindly overlook his blunder and suggest that his question is another cheap shot at Rand or me or both.<BR/><BR/>What blunder?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61802967628333878182009-02-28T08:05:00.000-08:002009-02-28T08:05:00.000-08:00Red Grant: Anon, does this mean then Yaron Brook, ...Red Grant: <I>Anon, does this mean then Yaron Brook, the head of ARI is a fraud and a crook as far as his 'philosophical adherence' to Ayn Rand is concerned?</I><BR/><BR/>No. If you believe it does, then explain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17004300108446343262009-02-28T07:17:00.000-08:002009-02-28T07:17:00.000-08:00___________________________________I took it as an...___________________________________<BR/><BR/>I took it as an innuendo that Rand, <BR/><BR/>or any of her fans, would have approved the "deregulation" celebrated by the bankers, without question, simply because it bore the label "deregulation." - anon<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>https://www.hbnysecure.com/press_release/detail/id/30<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Herald National Bank to Participate in FDIC’s Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP)<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Herald National Bank, <BR/><BR/>formerly Heritage Bank,<BR/><BR/>N.A., (NYSE Alternext US: HNB) announced today that is has elected to participate in the <BR/><BR/>Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP).<BR/><BR/><BR/>01/16/2009<BR/>Download a PDF <BR/>NEW YORK (BUSINESS WIRE) — Herald National Bank, formerly Heritage Bank, N.A., (NYSE Alternext US: HNB) announced today that is has elected to participate in the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) Transaction Account Guarantee Program (TAGP). <BR/><BR/>Under the program, all non-interest-bearing transaction accounts are fully <BR/><BR/>guaranteed by the FDIC for the entirety of the account. This additional coverage will be extended by the FDIC through December 31, 2009, and is separate from the coverage currently available under the FDIC's general deposit insurance rules.<BR/><BR/>“Through our participation in the Transaction Account Guarantee Program and recent increases to basic FDIC insurance limits, our banking teams are able to put Herald’s strong capital base and clean balance sheet to work for clients by delivering a broader scale of products and services,” comments David S. Bagatelle, President and CEO of Herald National Bank.<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/18/fannie-freddie-regulation-oped-cx_yb_0718brook.html<BR/><BR/><BR/>Further promoting a sense of security, every major financial institution in America--both commercial banks and investment banks--was implicitly protected by the quasi-official policy of "too big to fail." The "too big to fail" doctrine holds that, when they risk insolvency, large financial institutions (like Countrywide or Bear Stearns) must be bailed out through a network of government bodies including the <BR/><BR/>Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,<BR/><BR/>the Federal Home Loan Banks and the Federal Reserve. - Yaron Brooks<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21337<BR/><BR/>Stop the Bailouts <BR/>September 22, 2008<BR/><BR/>Washington, D.C.--“Over the last year,” said <BR/><BR/>Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute,<BR/><BR/>“the central planners at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department have pretended that by bailing out homeowners, then bailing out investment banks, then bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, they were wisely ‘steering’ the economy to protect us against some undefined ‘systemic risk.’ <BR/><BR/>“But the mounting financial problems reveal that Paulson and Bernanke are as clueless as any other central planners who try to control an entire economy. <BR/><BR/><BR/>They are not saving us from anything; they are delaying some of the pain that necessarily follows from a Fed-induced credit bubble, and <BR/><BR/>redistributing that pain to <BR/><BR/>innocent victims.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>They are punishing responsible individuals and rewarding <BR/><BR/><BR/>irresponsible individuals.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>“The bailouts must stop. The government must make clear that from now on, those who are in financial trouble must turn to the private market for help if they are to avoid failure; the government must no longer foist their failures on others, and invite another crisis in the future.” - Yaron Brooks<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>An additional commitment of $2.25 million was received [by Heritage Bank, later changed to Herald National Bank] from<BR/>private equity firm <BR/><BR/>BH Equity Research<BR/><BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/>Yaron is a founder and Managing Partner at BH.<BR/><BR/>He frequently lectures at major corporations on the topics of finance, investments, and <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>ethics.<BR/><BR/>http://www.bhequity.com/team_YaronBrook.htm<BR/>___________________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Anon, does this mean then Yaron Brook, the head of ARI is a fraud and a crook as far as his 'philosophical adherence' to Ayn Rand is concerned?Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-40890303559646107772009-02-28T04:55:00.000-08:002009-02-28T04:55:00.000-08:00Here is my point. Ayn Rand knew the difference bet...Here is my point. Ayn Rand knew the difference between a fiat currency and a gold standard. Whether or not she knew the mechanics of how commercial banks can create money "out of thin air", I don't know. (She clearly knew governments inflate by printing money.) Suppose she knew and a new law others labeled "deregulation" made it <B>much easier</B> for banks to create money "out of thin air". Do you believe she would have approved of such "deregulation"? I don't. On the other hand, she may have approved of deregulation that let banks operate more efficiently, such as allowing ATMs, despite banks being government fiefdoms in a fiat money system. I suspect she would have approved the deregulation of airline fares and routes that occurred about 30 years ago.<BR/><BR/>Barnes' starting post is about some bankers celebrating some "deregulation". The post was in response to higher sales of Atlas Shrugged, which portrays more and more government controls strangling the economy. Why did he post it? To assert or suggest that the parallels between Atlas Shrugged and the present economy are dubious because there has been a wee bit of "deregulation" that wasn't in Atlas Shrugged? If yes, it sweeps aside the massive amount of controls that has grown like weeds for decades. Atlas Shrugged does not depict a credit crunch or housing bubble either, but so what? Was it to assert or suggest that "deregulation", which Rand generally approved, played a key role in the crisis, contra Atlas Shrugged? Does Barnes even know why? If he clearly explains his purpose, then all readers might benefit. All he has supplied so far, to use his words, are "cryptic vagaries."<BR/><BR/>He gave no clue about the kind of "deregulation" the bankers celebrated. (What happened two months later is irrelevant.) Although Barnes' purpose is far from clear, I figured it fit his habit of cheap shots at Ayn Rand and her fans. I took it as an innuendo that Rand, or any of her fans, would have approved the "deregulation" celebrated by the bankers, without question, simply because it bore the label "deregulation."<BR/><BR/>Barnes: <I>Is it that Rand can't make any contribution to the debate over government regulation of the financial sector until we have a fiat money environment?</I> <BR/><BR/>I kindly overlook his blunder and suggest that his question is another cheap shot at Rand or me or both.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com