Puts the lie to any "neo-liberal conspiracy!" theories of "a return to feudalism!" or "banksters!" I'd say...
These bankers are stupid for sure we can see that illustrated pretty well via the chart here.... but what also does this say about the capabilities of the prominent people opposing them to no effect?
$DB #DeutscheBank in BIG trouble. Chart suggests going to ZERO if we take out the line. pic.twitter.com/zVmRp6D27a— GainsPains&Capital (@GainsPainsCapit) February 11, 2016
21 comments:
"Puts the lie to any "neo-liberal conspiracy!" theories of "a return to feudalism!" or "banksters!" I'd say..."
I don't think that's true.
Oh ok so they are conspiring to wipe themselves out?
They really want prices to go down so they say they want them to go up?
they really want lower interest rates so they say they want to raise them?
btw Warren predicted this years ago via his "10th plague" analogy... apparently his analogy fell on moron ears...
Feudalism is already a reality for a huge part of human population on earth. No conspiracy there.
Feudalism is not the product of any conspiracy, but of system dynamics and governance and institutional failure.
When you see the 'wealthy ghettos' isolating themselves from the environment you will know it's happening where you live, you can visit Central and South America, parts of Asia or Africa to know how it works.
Funny thing is more people live under those systems where western influence helped big deal, big deal, shaping the broken social networks. Amongst others the scum at DB.
Credit where credit due:
http://moslereconomics.com/2014/10/07/the-10th-plague-2/
Well this is managerial capitalism in a nutshell: you manage other people money, as long as you get to eat the cake who cares if you destroy the company.
Happens in many corporations which are driven by short term goals instead of solid business models. Banking and financial services just happens to attract more psychopaths because it was fast/easy money last decade.
An other reason why institutional failure is producing the current outcomes...
There's a very basic assumption in your argument that, if you examine in isolation, doesn't stand up well.
Matt,
Take the most extreme example: the industrialists and the other elites who backed the Nazis. Did they conspire to destroy their country, their economy and their own industries? Japan has made decades of bad economic decisions. Is it a conspiracy? More relevant to the chart you put up is what happened in 2008? Did Lehman, AIG and the rest conspire to destroy themselves?
There are thousands of similar but less extreme historical, political and economic examples. Did the record company that turned down The Beatles conspire to make less money? Was IBM's decision to turn down buying Microsoft for a pittance a conspiracy against itself? Did the Republicans conspire to loose an election by choosing a cartoon character (Sarah Palin) as VP running mate? Did the US conspire to shoot itself in the face in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc?
The moral of the story is that what seems like a rational decision is either a bad decision but seems like a good one at the time or sometimes a terrible idea made to look otherwise pushed by powerful vested interests.
Only if charts can "predict" anything and I say, they cannot. "Head and Shoulders." What's next? Selsun Blue? LOL.
Mike I used to use the MACD.... that's the one where if one uses it, one loses so much that one can only go to MacD's.... :o
Matt, you could easily have also chosen a chart that showed the exact opposite, "proving" a neo-feudal "conspiracy". After all, the markets have been going along very nicely since 2008. Is that a conspiracy or simply massive coordinated action taken by many countries to keep their economies from falling off a cliff.
In any case, it seems what you're saying is that any dip in any market is proof that powerful economic interest groups do not run the country.
Matt, this is the same guy who appears to be fond of metals?
GainsPains&Capital @GainsPainsCapit Feb 17
...the purpose of the Convention [was] to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals. ~Andrew Jackson
Very good. Conspiracy does not require competence; it only requires sufficient influence to change the behaviors of others.
Well John I dont disagree with what you write but we are getting caught up in figures of speech like "neo-liberals!" and "money!" and not spending enough effort on empiricism...
Hudson writes like the problem is some sort of corruption or capture of the system or wtf to the advantage of these people we identify AMONG OURSELVES via the figure of speech 'neo-liberals!" when they are manifestly incompetent morons who constantly LOSE munnie via their impossible business plans, which he cannot EMPIRICALLY deal with, so he is left to blame it on corruption/capture/fraud and then his audience is left short...
Meanwhile Warren predicted this a couple of years ago not because of any "conspiracy!" but based on some empirical insight he provided at the time... he at some level knew the fiscal drag would decrease EUR flows and eventually the banks/banking system would run into problems...
So Hudson sure he'll go on Bonnie Faulkner's show (I'm sure Bonnie is a good person but she is hardly qualified to lead a discussion about any issue relating to a complex system...) or Amy Goodman's show or wtf but blew off Mike's invitation of course because Mike would press him....
No Roger that was Alexander Hamilton himself back in the Federalist Papers # 12:
"By multipying the means of gratification, by promoting the introduction and circulation of the precious metals, those darling objects of human avarice and enterprise, it serves to vivify and invigorate the channels of industry, and to make them flow with greater activity and copiousness. "
WEIRD-O-RAMA!!!!!!
Conspiracies are a numerical impossibility. The so-called conspiracies have a sizable support of part of the population always.
In the West around 20%-30% of the population are enablers because they are favored by the current status quo. Not excusing the rest tho, they would do likely the same if they were in the position to do so. Doomed species.
Anyway Matt, I disagree with you on something, is not 'incompetency', is just not giving a fuck to what happens in the future, many people in banks knew what they were doing and that it was not sustainable. Blaming it on incompetency doesn't tell the whole story. The people who ripped off the bank is now rich as fuck who cares if the banks go down in the process, the stockholders are a bunch of suckers anyway. This sort of thinking is what goes in financial circles nowadays so go figure you get those outcomes...
We have too many """managers""" or wannabe managers is this economy of ours, I bet it was similar in previous history when societies decayed, too many idiots trying to scam each other , coming with business models of dubious sustainability or trying to extract rents from others while consuming the produce generated by the supporter classes. It does not matter if it's legal or not, it just destroys the institutions upon which society is built.
The irony.
We're still urged to "save for retirement?"
Using IRAs, which offer reduced taxes in return for non-consumption.
When will we try "negative taxes?" :)
We have negative interest rates, so why NOT try negative taxes on fiat currency use.
Has everyone forgotten what "fiat" means?
I can even picture a Congressional committee grilling the Treasury Secretary on the wisdom or folly of negative taxes ... as a precedent :)
Or the Scotus, asking Congress for an explanation of this thing called "negative taxes"
LOL!
"An Appropriation, by any other name, would confuse as much."
Smells like Team Spirit :)
Wake me up when this electorate gets an education. And is once again able to think.
Matt, Tom you may well be interested in this:
http://www.npr.org/2015/01/16/377517810/world-with-no-fear
"Conspiracy does not require competence; it only requires sufficient influence to change the behaviors of others."
Bingo!!
I think one of the issues is that many of the people we are talking about here have so much "money" or "wealth" they can afford to lose short term, buy more when things are heading down and simply end up controlling more even though their nominal wealth may have taken a hit. Their goals aren't always about rising stock prices for the stocks they own, often its about getting more for a better price.
Now for certain no one has perfect control of the things they wish to influence, there are always guys with money looking at it contrary to you but when it comes to the idea of making govts look incompetent and broke there are plenty of guys trying to work that angle. The IGBC and all the supply side bullshit is simply a plan to sap spending power from the public purse. For these guys govt/public spending is always a zero sum game. Does the whole supply side/Chicago school mantra count as a conspiracy? I think so. These are guys who set out with an agenda of breaking Keynesian econ simply because they hated the idea of govts spending to solve social/inequality issues. Their whole paradigm is designed for that.
Greg if they were in effective control of things I can assure you they would be making more munnie... they LOSE munnie....
The "Chicago School" isnt a conspiracy it is a moron-fest...
Matt, even when they lose munnie they often gain "control" because they have so much munnie that the other losers end up selling cheap to them. This gives them more munnie in the future. Control is really what is desired of many.
Now sometimes this doesn't work, but when it doesn't it still hurts others worse than them in real terms.
Post a Comment