ECONOMICS: Why is the taxpayer the “bank” for the Bankers?

Saturday, March 16, 2013

Why We Should Rip the Banks in Two

Equity-capital ratios in the range of 20 percent to 30 percent would make banks safer, so you’d expect the return on bank equity to fall. That’s a feature not a bug. Bankers who have been feasting on profits from excessive risk-taking will see their pay fall too. Count that as a further benefit. It might do a little something to slow the 30-year trend toward greater income inequality.

Bankers might call these proposals radical, but in fact they’re moderate. The structure of the banking system wouldn’t change. Banks would still operate two essentially different businesses: selling short-term debt and making loans. The potential for a mismatch would remain. More capital would certainly help, and taxpayers would be less on the hook, but the risk of bank failure wouldn’t disappear. The same goes for making banks smaller, so that more of them could be left to fail on their own. It would help, but it doesn’t address the underlying problem.

There’s a way to do that. Divide the banking business in two. Deposit-takers don’t have to be credit-creators — they can be told to hold entirely safe assets. Credit-creators don’t need to take deposits — they can fund their operations by borrowing in financial markets. As renowned Yale economist James Tobin once said, “The linking of deposit money and commercial banking is an accident of history.” He and other thoughtful scholars have been discussing how to correct this “accident” for many years.

*** end quote ***

Why does the taxpayer get stiffed?

That’s not supposed to be the way it works.

You fail; you go bankrupt.

I understand that we don’t want the poorest saving their pennies to be wiped out.

But they are being wiped out by inflation. Even the middle class is being screwed royally.

So why can’t we figure out a compromise?

“Crony capitalism”!

It’s the illusion of a “free market”. But it’s one where the politicians, lobbyists, and the “rich” can’t lose.

Kill the Federal Reserve. Andrew Jackson was ABSOLUTELY correct.

Restore GOLD as the basis for the monetary unit. (OK, if you don’t like gold, how about a loaf of bread, gallon of milk, barrel of oil? Or a basket of them?)

Economists are fond of mental experiments. Let’s try this one: “If money grew on trees, then it wouldn’t be very valuable.”

What is a dollar anyway?

Dammed if I know.

I know what it used to be.

Then Govenrments like Abe lincoln and FDR and … wanted to spend more than they dare take in in taxes.


I’d deny them the printing press and the debt window.’

Yeah, a road may need to be financed over it life. But our congress critters can’t be trusts.

Privatize everything!


# – # – # – # – #   


PRODUCTIVITY: Intergenerational war

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Turning the Generational Dial: A Plea to Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y By Carol Orsborn, PhD

*** begin quote ***

Carol Orsborn argues that instead of participating in a complicated generational tug-of-war of who is more relevant, Gen X and Gen Y must learn from Boomers because these following generations will also face the same elongated lifespans and increased vitality…and buying power.

*** end quote ***

Interesting that today’s Gooferment fiscal stupidity is a direct assault on the future generations’ pocketbooks and wallets.

And they don’t see it.

Or they don’t understand.



POLITICAL: Lessig’s One Way Forward

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Lessig’s One Way Forward
by Cory Doctorow at 6:41 am Tuesday, Feb 21

*** begin quote ***

Lawrence Lessig’s new ebook One Way Forward is one of the most exciting documents I’ve read since I first found The Federalist Papers. One Way Forward is more of a long pamphlet than a book. It’s tempting to call it a “manifesto,” except that it’s so darned reasonable, and that’s not a word that comes readily to mind when one hears “manifesto.”

At the core of Lessig’s reasonable manifesto is the corrupting influence of money in politics, a corruption that predates the notorious Citizens United Supreme Court case. Lessig ascribes to this corruption the outrage that mobilizes both Occupy and the Tea Party, and he believes that the corruption can’t be ended until both the left and right realize that though they don’t have a common goal, they do share a common enemy, and unite to defeat it.

To this end, Lessig has a series of extremely practical suggestions, legislative proposals that, individually, strike at the root of the corruption, and, collectively, could kill it. Most of these don’t require any kind of constitutional amendment. All are designed to be passed through the nonpartisan action of activists of all political stripes, working together on ideals that neither should find fundamentally objectionable.

*** end quote ***

Lessig is a known forward thinker.

Cory Doctorow is another thought leader.

So why can’t us little people drain the swamp?

# – # – # – # – #

%d bloggers like this: