611–620 of 889 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone should have explained it to him … as if he were a small child … or a golden retriever…
You could have been digging ditches all these years Sam!
It’s on par with the Big Short in terms of telling a great story about the economic crisis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt Levine is fond of this highly relevant quote by Bagehot: “Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone.” It seems that CEOs of banks haven't learned anything since 1873 when this was observed.
> “Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone.” Is that terribly worded or is it just me? I figure it’s supposed to be poetic but I find it tedious. I think it could be simplified like this: “A banker who argues his creditworthiness has none.” I realize it’s a quote but holy shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% true ! They are already gone. However, not to defend the guy, but as a CEO of this bank he ... has to say something. And whatever he says it will be bad anyway.
Exactly people would be here saying that the CEO hasn't said anything in the past 10 days or whatnot. Damned if you do and damned if you don't
I never thought much of public relations until i had to work with the team.
It’s really an art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could they issue loans? 10 x 10$ deposits means you can loan 100$? Where as the modern way is more like 100$ in deposits means you can lend out 1000$ because chances are everyone won’t not pay it back? And then can’t you say that since you’ve lent out 1000$ and chances are you’ll get paid back, you’ve basically got 1104.56$ and so can lend out 10k$? And then you bundle those together and sell them to each other d…
Especially in contemporary times banks make money in an immense amount of ways that don't involve touching customer funds: debit transaction fees, international exchange rate "adjustments", ATM fees, the million 'special processing fee' type fees, and so on. In other countries I've even had to pay a fee when depositing, which was quite odd. Of course this all is going to pale in comparison to the amount that banks ma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Citation needed. Also, I’m all ears for a viable replacement that doesn’t devolve into autocracy or government-endorsed corruption, and still allows for taking risk and forward progress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession Here's some citation for ya. As for viable replacements that allow for forward progress: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_self-management (Also, for that matter, it's not like capitalism doesn't tend to devolve into autocracy and corruption)
The "alternative" you envision is premised on shifting power back to the masses, but I think it's also important to mention guardrails to prevent excessive capital accumulation. There would still be an economy, but it would be driven by a more egalitarian aggregate demand and less likely to suffer the shocks of boom bust cycles associated with financial malarkey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt Levine is fond of this highly relevant quote by Bagehot: “Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone.” It seems that CEOs of banks haven't learned anything since 1873 when this was observed.
> “Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone.” Is that terribly worded or is it just me? I figure it’s supposed to be poetic but I find it tedious. I think it could be simplified like this: “A banker who argues his creditworthiness has none.” I realize it’s a quote but holy shit.
It's just you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt Levine is fond of this highly relevant quote by Bagehot: “Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone.” It seems that CEOs of banks haven't learned anything since 1873 when this was observed.
> “Every banker knows that if he has to prove that he is worthy of credit, however good may be his arguments, in fact his credit is gone.” Is that terribly worded or is it just me? I figure it’s supposed to be poetic but I find it tedious. I think it could be simplified like this: “A banker who argues his creditworthiness has none.” I realize it’s a quote but holy shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Savings. Those savings are gonna grow at a pretty slow rate if you can't lend with interest.
Savings don't grow, not in real terms and on a societal scale. A miniscule fraction of real goods and services in the economy can get buried in the basement and saved for thirty years.
one of the things in the house is a nearly complete collection of national geographic magazines, going back before he was born; a treasury of knowledge about how people lived all over the world during that century-plus, as well as how they were seen from the point of view of the usa, ready to be perused and enjoyed at any moment without tracking cookies, broken links, images scanned at the wrong settings, or javascript incompatibilities. the images are mostly "retina display" resolution and famous for their beauty. preserving them for this century-plus has consumed very little resources
right now i'm listening to a song by rush recorded 40 years ago; every year there is a wider variety of recorded music available for me to listen to and compositions for me to sing, as long as we don't start losing it faster than it is recorded
last night i washed a shirt i got as a gift 17 years ago; if i can keep it from getting eaten by moths or sour sweat, it will surely last another 13 years
— ⁂ —
but these are mostly consumer goods, not capital goods like lathes and motorcycles; having more shirts, national geographics, or rush songs won't increase my economic productivity, which is what is needed for such savings to grow rather than shrink more slowly (though plausibly you can be more economically productive if you have a house big enough to set aside a space for sewing or grinding telescope mirrors or enlarging negatives). and for that it isn't necessary for the actual material good itself to survive for decades; it is only necessary for it to augment economic production by more than its own value during its lifetime, however short that lifetime may be
a car may have a lifetime of 10 years and, by enabling an uber driver to provide higher-value services than they otherwise could have, produce twice as much value as its inflation-adjusted cost of manufacture over that lifetime, 20% of the cost of manufacturing it every year. multiply that by the number of uber drivers in a society, and you have savings growing, in real terms, on a societal scale. and there are a thousand kinds of capital goods like this which continue to produce real value over a period of time once savings have been invested in them: house insulation, refrigerators, washing machines, olive trees, engine lathes, kitchen knives, electric drills, laptops, and so on. even factors of production that are consumed within a few months or a year can qualify, like knitting yarn
(however, a drill you buy, use once, and then leave in the garage and never use again does not; it may not be decaying very fast but it's not growing)
this is how a society can grow its savings in real terms on a societal scale, through accumulating capital goods and knowledge so that its productivity can increase over time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand that a C corp is its own legal entity, but from a risk management perspective, the bank’s approach makes perfect sense.
Which bank? There are two different banks here with very different risk management approaches.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So did Louisiana banks issue loans?
How could they issue loans? 10 x 10$ deposits means you can loan 100$? Where as the modern way is more like 100$ in deposits means you can lend out 1000$ because chances are everyone won’t not pay it back? And then can’t you say that since you’ve lent out 1000$ and chances are you’ll get paid back, you’ve basically got 1104.56$ and so can lend out 10k$? And then you bundle those together and sell them to each other d…