5 ms·

0) Make narrow banking illegal 1) Hold interest rates near zero, inflating the fuck out of the economy 2) Use government to destroy market value of distant ma

0) Make narrow banking illegal 1) Hold interest rates near zero, inflating the fuck out of the economy 2) Use government to destroy market value of distant maturing bonds by holding real interest rates deeply negative and then rapidly inverting it. Force people to seek ever more risky investments and long term low interest MBS securities just to barely not even break even. 3) Suck all the liquidity out of the market by using fed to raise interest rates sharply 4) Banks fail 5) "There wasn't enough government intervention, we need more!"

SmoothBrain12 4y ago
[flagged]
Karunamon 4y ago
A bank failed, and then only because they were doing unwise things with their holdings. Where are all the other failed banks as a result of the long-standing fiscal policy?
- notch898a 4y ago
  If the bar you're setting is looking for failed banks exacerbated by fed policies, look no further than the great depression. Now we could move the goal posts to something else, but the question you ask is not hard to find examples of. > doing unwise things In retrospect anything that causes a failure is going to be characterized as "unwise." You could say the wisest thing would be to create a 100% reserve ratio by passing through deposits to the central bank, yet it's impossible to get a banking license to do that. We're left with various shades of unwise.
  - Karunamon 4y ago
    The problem with blaming the government for this failure is that only one bank seems to have been affected. Since we are talking about sector wide regulations and policies rather than anything that targeted this specific institution, it is evidence strongly in favor of the problem being with the bank, not with the environment. Were this is a problem with law or interest rates or something like that, we would expect to see a lot more collateral damage. Instead, the only thing we see is a single bank that failed due to voluntarily tying up too much of their capital in instruments that cannot be easily liquidated.
    - notch898a 4y ago
      1000 people are forced to roll a 10,000 sided dice. They roll a '1' and they die. At the end one person is dead. Clearly since that one person followed the sector wide regulation and polices rather than anything that targeted that specific person, it is evidence strongly in favor of the problem being with that person, not the dice game. Were this a problem with the game or the dice or something like that, we would expect to see a lot more damage. Instead, the only thing we see is one person who lost the dice game voluntarily rolling the dice at the improper starting position and velocity that cannot be easily rolled to the correct number. Clearly this isn't the same, but the logic you've used doesn't parse and in any case the full fault is unlikely to be fully the fault of government nor the bank. And it remains to be seen if the dice game is over...
      - Karunamon 4y ago
        Yes, it clearly isn't the same. In the first place, we are not talking about randomness. Your example is facile and your copy and paste sarcasm is both unwelcome and against the rules. I'm done here.
        notch898a 4y ago
        I see so we're yet again moving the goalposts you set and now moving on to additional criteria like whether chance was involved. On the contrary, I would say quite a bit of uncertainty was involved, especially since a lowest uncertainty option was outlawed.

SmoothBrain12 4y ago

[flagged]

Karunamon 4y ago

A bank failed, and then only because they were doing unwise things with their holdings. Where are all the other failed banks as a result of the long-standing fiscal policy?

notch898a 4y ago
If the bar you're setting is looking for failed banks exacerbated by fed policies, look no further than the great depression. Now we could move the goal posts to something else, but the question you ask is not hard to find examples of. > doing unwise things In retrospect anything that causes a failure is going to be characterized as "unwise." You could say the wisest thing would be to create a 100% reserve ratio by passing through deposits to the central bank, yet it's impossible to get a banking license to do that. We're left with various shades of unwise.
- Karunamon 4y ago
  The problem with blaming the government for this failure is that only one bank seems to have been affected. Since we are talking about sector wide regulations and policies rather than anything that targeted this specific institution, it is evidence strongly in favor of the problem being with the bank, not with the environment. Were this is a problem with law or interest rates or something like that, we would expect to see a lot more collateral damage. Instead, the only thing we see is a single bank that failed due to voluntarily tying up too much of their capital in instruments that cannot be easily liquidated.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    1000 people are forced to roll a 10,000 sided dice. They roll a '1' and they die. At the end one person is dead. Clearly since that one person followed the sector wide regulation and polices rather than anything that targeted that specific person, it is evidence strongly in favor of the problem being with that person, not the dice game. Were this a problem with the game or the dice or something like that, we would expect to see a lot more damage. Instead, the only thing we see is one person who lost the dice game voluntarily rolling the dice at the improper starting position and velocity that cannot be easily rolled to the correct number. Clearly this isn't the same, but the logic you've used doesn't parse and in any case the full fault is unlikely to be fully the fault of government nor the bank. And it remains to be seen if the dice game is over...
    - Karunamon 4y ago
      Yes, it clearly isn't the same. In the first place, we are not talking about randomness. Your example is facile and your copy and paste sarcasm is both unwelcome and against the rules. I'm done here.
      - notch898a 4y ago
        I see so we're yet again moving the goalposts you set and now moving on to additional criteria like whether chance was involved. On the contrary, I would say quite a bit of uncertainty was involved, especially since a lowest uncertainty option was outlawed.