Category: Economics, Finance, and Political Economy

  • (lame critics) FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING RE: Silicon

    (lame critics)
    FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM
    FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING
    RE: Silicon Valley Bank

    Now, look at the parade of me-too’s blaming the president, administration, treasury, and fed for another massive failure. I think this is the second or third worst administration in our history. But lay blame where it’s due, not where it isn’t.

    Let me clue you in.
    Banks are in a market.
    The government creates rules of that market – the rules of the ‘game’.
    The rules of the game force competitors to the limits of the rules.
    The government can’t act in opposition to the rules it creates – unless the do it equally to all.
    They can’t do it equally to all. Why?
    The compound debt system does not work.
    Fixing the compound debt system is disruptive.
    The transparency necessary by fixing that system would handcuff politicians and terrify the public.
    So no one is going to fix this until it’s so bad that there are no alternatives. (that’s gonna happen)
    But (a) we absolutely positively know how to fix it. And (b) it’ll be disruptive. So we can only fix it during a crisis where we’re curing that disruption by fixing it with another.
    Economics and finance is not complicated if you’re measuring instead of gambling.
    Our system of world credit is based on gambling not measuring.
    FIxing it’s possible.
    And it’s eventually necessary.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:16:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302164230127620

  • (lame critics) FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING RE: Silicon

    (lame critics)
    FIXING THE BANKING PROBLEM
    FROM GAMBLING TO MEASURING
    RE: Silicon Valley Bank

    Now, look at the parade of me-too’s blaming the president, administration, treasury, and fed for another massive failure. I think this is the second or third worst administration in our history. But lay blame where it’s due, not where it isn’t.

    Let me clue you in.
    Banks are in a market.
    The government creates rules of that market – the rules of the ‘game’.
    The rules of the game force competitors to the limits of the rules.
    The government can’t act in opposition to the rules it creates – unless the do it equally to all.
    They can’t do it equally to all. Why?
    The compound debt system does not work.
    Fixing the compound debt system is disruptive.
    The transparency necessary by fixing that system would handcuff politicians and terrify the public.
    So no one is going to fix this until it’s so bad that there are no alternatives. (that’s gonna happen)
    But (a) we absolutely positively know how to fix it. And (b) it’ll be disruptive. So we can only fix it during a crisis where we’re curing that disruption by fixing it with another.
    Economics and finance is not complicated if you’re measuring instead of gambling.
    Our system of world credit is based on gambling not measuring.
    FIxing it’s possible.
    And it’s eventually necessary.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Natural Law Institute


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 21:16:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634302164058120193

  • (mathiness in econ) WHY ISN’T BANK REGULATION WORKING? (The short, or sorta-shor

    (mathiness in econ)
    WHY ISN’T BANK REGULATION WORKING?
    (The short, or sorta-short answer, and what it would require to fix it.)

    It’s obvious really. But you know, they promised the vox populi never-ending growth, ever-increasing irresponsibility, and democracy requires… https://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/1634284552276398088


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:13:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634286337498009631

  • The depth of changes that would be required to regulate banks would take years t

    The depth of changes that would be required to regulate banks would take years to ripple through the economy, and force the treasury to operate on Chinese levels of debt – but with pragmatic transparency.

    Why? The fundamental problem is not so much fractional reserve (which we can handle) but that debt is leverage for more debt and more debt. So imagine banking every cent was allocated to a specific debt, AND, debt issuers couldn’t resell a debt, only shares of the income from that debt.

    That is the only what we call ‘mechanical’ or empirical means of running a banking system. In other words PROBABILITY is improbable (impossible) under the current tolerance for compound debt.

    What would happen if we did that, the treasury would rapidly expand debt, making credit money expansion VISIBLE. And as a consequence providing the information we can’t produce in the current economic structure.

    Furthermore, it would drastically increase friction in the lending system, because it would end the illusion of risklessness.

    Cheers


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:06:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634284552276398088

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634281113735647243

  • The depth of changes that would be required to regulate banks would take years t

    The depth of changes that would be required to regulate banks would take years to ripple through the economy, and force the treasury to operate on Chinese levels of debt – but with pragmatic transparency.

    Why? The fundamental problem is not so much fractional reserve (which we can handle) but that debt is leverage for more debt and more debt. So imagine banking every cent was allocated to a specific debt, AND, debt issuers couldn’t resell a debt, only shares of the income from that debt.

    That is the only what we call ‘mechanical’ or empirical means of running a banking system. In other words PROBABILITY is improbable (impossible) under the current tolerance for compound debt.

    What would happen if we did that, the treasury would rapidly expand debt, making credit money expansion VISIBLE. And as a consequence providing the information we can’t produce in the current economic structure.

    Furthermore, it would drastically increase friction in the lending system, because it would end the illusion of risklessness.

    Cheers

    Reply addressees: @hambonesmyname @amuse


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 20:06:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634284552062488598

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634281113735647243

  • ARE WE HAVING A REMAKE? RE: Silicon Valley Bank Seized by the Feds (sorry. I’m g

    ARE WE HAVING A REMAKE?
    RE: Silicon Valley Bank Seized by the Feds
    (sorry. I’m gloating. I know. It’s … not good manners) https://t.co/SNiTvQnGPm


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 19:57:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634282361020993537

  • (contagion) (ridicule) Re: Silicon Valley Bank Ready? Nah Nah Naaaah Nah! Nah Na

    (contagion) (ridicule)
    Re: Silicon Valley Bank

    Ready?
    Nah Nah Naaaah Nah!
    Nah Nah Naaaah Nah!
    Guuuh – uuuhd bye!

    WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BANK IS SEIZED?
    You know when my (our) bank failed (Evergreen) the feds seized the bank, transferred it (sold) it to another bank, and guaranteed… https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1634236441080283139


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 19:54:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634281623116972032

  • Hmmm… well, like we say in econ, if you don’t remember the last correction you

    Hmmm… well, like we say in econ, if you don’t remember the last correction you can’t imagine the one that’s coming. Thankfully, because as a nerd I’m aware of these things, I remember a lot of them. Beginning with 69, but particularly the oil crisis in 73, and by 77 only 40% of college gads were getting jobs.

    The vox populi doesn’t grasp that Reagan’s use of credit to defeat the soviets wasn’t ever reeled in, because productivity had collapsed (partly due to misallocation of IQ points to financialization in my generation and later. So for most of these nitwits, living memory is the equivalent of spending down their inheritance.

    So the sort trifecta of geoeconomic-strategic, demographic, and capital cycles are just having a frat party, and I think it’s gonna be fascinating to watch.

    Reply addressees: @JaredAberach


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 18:55:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634266747833405447

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634258803838566401

  • Hmmm… well, like we say in econ, if you don’t remember the last correction you

    Hmmm… well, like we say in econ, if you don’t remember the last correction you can’t imagine the one that’s coming. Thankfully, because as a nerd I’m aware of these things, I remember a lot of them. Beginning with 69, but particularly the oil crisis in 73, and by 77 only 40% of college gads were getting jobs.

    The vox populi doesn’t grasp that Reagan’s use of credit to defeat the soviets wasn’t ever reeled in, because productivity had collapsed (partly due to misallocation of IQ points to financialization in my generation and later. So for most of these nitwits, living memory is the equivalent of spending down their inheritance.

    So the sort trifecta of geoeconomic-strategic, demographic, and capital cycles are just having a frat party, and I think it’s gonna be fascinating to watch.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-03-10 18:55:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634266747946651672

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1634258803838566401

  • (dark humor) I’ve seen every bubble since the seventies and I still can’t get ov

    (dark humor)
    I’ve seen every bubble since the seventies and I still can’t get over the feeling of satisfaction (joy) when they burst. Becuase they’re obvious but so many people think they’re a surprise. .. “this time it’s different.” (sigh) https://twitter.com/Larryjamieson_/status/1634075367731507200