111–120 of 262 posts
Unpopular opinion, but I don't think banks should be able to loan out money that's not theirs, and printing money is bad. Gold good, paper bad. But also, gold bad, because clipping. If only there was a solution.
Why not, as long as they have the consent of the owner? And all banks have the consent of the depositors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a take! The modern world would collapse in about a week if banks were not allowed to loan out deposits. The ability to satisfy needs now and pay for them in the future is why you can have a house, why governments can build infrastructure, etc. That’s the only reason that banks really exist. Keeping your deposit safe for you while providing convenient access via cards, checks and other rails is just a wonderful…
> The ability to satisfy needs now and pay for them in the future is why you can have a house The housing market has been greatly influenced by the ability to loan vast sums for housing, and without that we would have a very different housing market but we would still have one. I think banks should lend but it's probably fair that we have controls on lending, and I think we should probably tighten them up especially…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There already are some gold pegged stablecoins Which require blind faith in reserve numbers.
Hey, so does gold-backed currency! How do you know how much gold the government is holding? Ask them! How do you know the government isn't lying? Ask this question loudly enough and meet people with guns!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, so does gold-backed currency! How do you know how much gold the government is holding? Ask them! How do you know the government isn't lying? Ask this question loudly enough and meet people with guns!
That's why you should bank with private counterparties, not the government. If you buy eg a gold ETF, you can ask all these questions without any guns coming out. You can also go and exchange them for physical gold whenever you feel like it. Without any guns coming out. If they break their promises, you can sue them. Without any guns coming out.
Providing you and they are in a country who is prepared to use 'guns coming out' to enforce the outcome of said suing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alas, yes. One of the perils of giving the relevant authorities too much discretion.
in retrospect i should have said "any entity who has GS as a counterparty will be saved"...
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archegos_Capital_Management which had Goldman Sachs as a counterparty and was not bailed out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are fixating on one tiny point which isn't really that important within OP's ... errm "opus". Why not critique the entire work? Anyway: I borrow 100 from someone. I am now in debt and they are in credit - to balance, both are 100. However, they require a return on investment - usury: 10 for 100 (or a 10% margin - call it what you like). When I take out my loan, I am in debt for 110 and they are in credit for 100…
What gets on my tits more is people who are pretty bright in one field (hacking) thinking that entitles them to just brute force their way through reasoning about some other field (finance) that in their arrogance they think is simpler.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What gets on my tits more is people who are pretty bright in one field (hacking) thinking that entitles them to just brute force their way through reasoning about some other field (finance) that in their arrogance they think is simpler.
It bothers me that finance people think they’re smarter than everyone when all their jargon bullshit boils down to SQL statements any senior DB person would understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, at the time of the initial transaction the borrower would not have a liability on their balance sheet that included the interest due. Over the course of the borrowing period the borrower would accrue interest expense commensurate with the passage of time that would increase the borrowers total liabilities. The author misunderstands the fundamental accounting definitions of liabilities (and also assets). Liabilit…
Most of the really stupid stuff written is written in good faith. It's not an excuse. There are many good books written about the financial system, accounting, etc. Rather than writing just another (incorrect) blog post, why not point to the good sources of information?
> In practice, buybacks can be used to create what is effectively a shareholder dividend in a more tax-advantaged way. Whereas with dividends, they are taxed as income, and this is realized immediately. With buybacks, they are taxed as capital gains, but crucially the gains are not realized until the asset is sold. This could be indefinitely far in the future, so it's more capital efficient. It has the added benefit…