OT: Goodbye to the American Dream

[Dave Platt]

In article <d096d65b-63bc-4083-bcd3-0c1165f14cb0@googlegroups.com>,
Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

I imagine that even small banks and S&Ls and credit unions will want
to keep enough cash on hand to satisfy any reasonable payout request
promptly, even if they fall within the 0%-reserve requirement limit.
Turning away customers who want their money, and "closing the doors"
for a few days, tends to trigger panics. Even a rumor that a bank is
going insolvent can trigger a rush of withdrawals, drain the cash
reserves on hand, and turn a rumor into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Here all the banks have a foundation that guarantee ~EURO 100000 per person
per bank, at the height of the crisis it was upped to unlimited

We have a similar guarantee here, via agencies set up by the Federal
government.

These guarantees kick in only if a bank actually becomes insolvent, or
is otherwise forced to close by the regulators. They don't play a
role in day-to-day operation of the bank, except to the extent that
they make people much less nervous about possible bank failures, and
thus less likely to trigger a run on a bank.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 03:58:50 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 12:01:53 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


Please tell me how leaving money in the bank keeps it from being borrowed and invested.

The bank would have had to lend it to somebody else before it could be invested.

That is pretty much what I asked about. Notice the word " borrewed " in my post.


Banks don't usually go around directly investing depositor's money - it's thought of as a bit too risky.

Never tried to imply that. Note I said " borrowed and invested ".

The problem wasn't that it couldn't be invested, but rather that the people who could - and probably should - have invested it had chosen to leave it in the bank.

But banks lend out money. There is no leaving money in the bank. Regardless of Larkin's post about mattresses., Banks do not leave money in the vault.

Sure but the rule is that to borrow money from a bank, you have to prove that you don't really need to borrow it. They want security that can be sold off if you default.

Banks aren't in the business of investing in start-ups, or any other kind of enterprise that might fail, which happens to be the kind of investment you need to expand an economy. Keynes was well aware of that, and so is pretty much everybody else who has written on the subject. You haven't done your homework.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 08:16:02 UTC+10, John Fields wrote:

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 06:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 22:07:59 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

Why use logic when you can slander.

Nothing slanderous about that. James Arthur admires Sarah Palin, even if I don't.

"even if I don't" smacks of the aura of haughtiness most narcissists
surround themselves with.

It's a recognition of individual difference. Quite a few people think that Sarah Palin is an air-head. I'd have to be disdainful of somebody rather further up-market to qualify as any kind of narcissist.

I can scarcely be blamed for exposing James Arthur to hatred,
ridicule and contempt when he's posting ridiculously contemptible nonsense,
designed to win him popularity with right-wing nitwits

Your _opinion_ that he's posting ridiculously contemptible nonsense
seems to be the basis for your fraudulent argument, and your efforts
to foment hatred, ridicule, and contempt directed at him certainly
come from your camp, so your abrogation of responsibility for your
actions is, in itself, contemptible.

Nothing fraudulent about pointing out that his citation

http://www.hoover.org/research/stimulus-and-depression-untold-story
"After the initial stock market crash of 1929 and subsequent economic plunge, a recovery began in the summer of 1932, well before the New Deal. The Federal Reserve Board's Index of Industrial production rose nearly 50% between the Depression's trough of July 1932 and June 1933."

was complete nonsense, and showing that industrial GDP didn't - in fact - rise by 50%, even if some bizarre "Federal Reserve Board Index" did.

Even the most elementary research - Wikipedia's "Great Depression" page - showed that this was making a mountain out of an unsustained molehill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression#/media/File:1930Industry.svg

The fraud was all his, and the fraudulent web-site he cited. If there's any contempt to be handed out, he deserves most of it - for posting such transparent nonsense - and you deserve the rest, for not realisng that you'd been had.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Larkin's post about mattresses., Banks do not leave money in the vault.

Sure but the rule is that to borrow money from a bank, you have to prove that you don't really need to borrow it. They want security that can be sold off if you default.

Wrong! The rule to borrow is that you need to show that you will put the money to good use. Banks are willing to loan money for houses. You just have to show that you have some skin in the game, and that the money will go to something of value.

Banks aren't in the business of investing in start-ups, or any other kind of enterprise that might fail, which happens to be the kind of investment you need to expand an economy. Keynes was well aware of that, and so is pretty much everybody else who has written on the subject. You haven't done your homework.

Wrong again. Investing in enterprises that might fail is not the sort of investment needed to expand an economy. Investing in enterprises that will succeed is what you need. You do not need to invest in companies like Solyndra.

It is you who has no idea of finance and economics.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 06:13:04 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 2 September 2015 22:07:59 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

Why use logic when you can slander.

Nothing slanderous about that. James Arthur admires Sarah Palin, even if I don't.

---
"even if I don't" smacks of the aura of haughtiness most narcissists
surround themselves with.
---

I can scarcely be blamed for exposing James Arthur to hatred,
ridicule and contempt when he's posting ridiculously contemptible nonsense,
designed to win him popularity with right-wing nitwits

---
Your _opinion_ that he's posting ridiculously contemptible nonsense
seems to be the basis for your fraudulent argument, and your efforts
to foment hatred, ridicule, and contempt directed at him certainly
come from your camp, so your abrogation of responsibility for your
actions is, in itself, contemptible.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 12:03:42 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 9:08:30 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
Larkin's post about mattresses., Banks do not leave money in the vault.

Sure but the rule is that to borrow money from a bank, you have to prove that you don't really need to borrow it. They want security that can be sold off if you default.

Wrong! The rule to borrow is that you need to show that you will put the money to good use. Banks are willing to loan money for houses. You just have to show that you have some skin in the game, and that the money will go to something of value.

Technically, the test is that whatever asset you are going to be acquiring can be sold for a sum that will more than cover what the bank is lending you.

Banks don't care how you are going to use the money - all they need to know is that they can get it back if you stop making the payments.

Banks aren't in the business of investing in start-ups, or any other kind of enterprise that might fail, which happens to be the kind of investment you need to expand an economy. Keynes was well aware of that, and so is pretty much everybody else who has written on the subject. You haven't done your homework.

Wrong again. Investing in enterprises that might fail is not the sort of investment needed to expand an economy. Investing in enterprises that will succeed is what you need. You do not need to invest in companies like Solyndra.

Unfortunately, predicting which businesses will succeed is an inexact science.
With all the wisdom of hindsight, we can see that investing in Solyndra was a bad idea, not least because around then the Chinese decided to copy Germany in investing in a ten-fold increase in solar-cell manufacturing capacity, which - not unexpectedly - halved the price that they needed to charge per kilowatt for solar cells. It pretty much bankrupted the German solar cell industry (just as they'd pretty much bankrupted everybody else a few years earlier with exactly the same tactic) and it made Solyndra non-viable as well.

> It is you who has no idea of finance and economics.

You may thinks so, but the level of financial sophistication you are exhibiting is less than impressive.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:21:10 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It is you who has no idea of finance and economics.

You may thinks so, but the level of financial sophistication you are exhibiting is less than impressive.

I am modest. You do not see me mentioning my IQ, where I went to school, etc.
I only exhibit the level of financial sophistication that I think you can understand. I have no desire to impress you.

Dan

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:24:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I don't like debt. The problem with borrowing money is that most
people expect you to pay it back.

Another problem is that most people expect you to pay interest.

Dan

 

[John Larkin]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:53:45 -0400, krw <krw@nowhere.com> wrote:

On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 16:07:10 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

On 8/30/2015 3:49 PM, amdx wrote:
On 8/30/2015 1:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 10:29:37 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com
wrote:

On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 10:12:21 AM UTC-4, rickman wrote:
On 8/29/2015 11:03 PM, dcaster@krl.org wrote:
On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 8:33:06 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

The rich don't get rich by being "allowed" to get rich, they
formulate
a plan, take the reins, and drive relentlessly toward their goal, a
la: "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead."

It is really easy to get rich, but you need to start early.

Yes, the best way to be rich is to choose your parents wisely.

Or to actually do something, earn some money, and save it.

ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment

To get 'rich' you have to earn, live beneath your means, and save, which
used to be common, but which today many people can't do.


I have more wealth than the total net worth of about 40% of the US
population. Anybody worth $1 does, too.


When I read that, I was thinking 40 percentile and thought, no way!
But you're correct, that shows most Americans are in debt.
I suspect your net worth is more than 95% to 97% of the US population.
That's a $1,900,000 to $3,100,000 net worth.
But, no need to respond.

If that debt is offset by property that secures the debt, it is still a
net positive wealth by the equity.

That's the definition of "net worth" (property value - debt).

I don't like debt. The problem with borrowing money is that most
people expect you to pay it back.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 13:05:05 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:21:10 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It is you who has no idea of finance and economics.

You may thinks so, but the level of financial sophistication you are exhibiting is less than impressive.

I am modest. You do not see me mentioning my IQ, where I went to school, etc.

And no doubt you have much to be modest about - as Churchill is reputed to have said of Attlee.

> I only exhibit the level of financial sophistication that I think you can understand. I have no desire to impress you.

You have succeeded in that modest aim.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:45:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I am modest. You do not see me mentioning my IQ, where I went to school, etc.

And no doubt you have much to be modest about - as Churchill is reputed to have said of Attlee.

Actually I am pretty sure that I have more that I could boast about than you.

I only exhibit the level of financial sophistication that I think you can understand. I have no desire to impress you.

You have succeeded in that modest aim.

You misunderstand. Having no desire is not the same as having an aim.

Dan

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:21:10 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It is you who has no idea of finance and economics.

You may thinks so, but the level of financial sophistication you are exhibiting is less than impressive.

I am modest. You do not see me mentioning my IQ, where I went to school, etc.

Your personal details are vital to Bill so that he can concern himself with
you personally, rather than the strength of your ideas.

It's weird.

> I only exhibit the level of financial sophistication that I think you can understand. I have no desire to impress you.

Having been young once I understand vanity, even pride, but having grown
older, I don't understand it in adults. It always seems like weakness.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 22:07:01 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:45:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I am modest. You do not see me mentioning my IQ, where I went to school, etc.

And no doubt you have much to be modest about - as Churchill is reputed to have said of Attlee.

Actually I am pretty sure that I have more that I could boast about than you.

Feel free.

I only exhibit the level of financial sophistication that I think you can understand. I have no desire to impress you.

You have succeeded in that modest aim.

You misunderstand. Having no desire is not the same as having an aim.

Whatever. Somebody who carries on about how modest he is, and how he has no desire to impress, has a fairly obvious aim. If you had as much to boast about as you seem to think you do, you might have been able to work that out for yourself.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, 4 September 2015 22:11:36 UTC+10, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 11:05:05 PM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:21:10 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

It is you who has no idea of finance and economics.

You may thinks so, but the level of financial sophistication you are exhibiting is less than impressive.

I am modest. You do not see me mentioning my IQ, where I went to school, etc.

Your personal details are vital to Bill so that he can concern himself with
you personally, rather than the strength of your ideas.

It's weird.

I couldn't care less about his personal details, but he did seem to know very little about how bank worked.

I only exhibit the level of financial sophistication that I think you can understand. I have no desire to impress you.

Having been young once I understand vanity, even pride, but having grown
older, I don't understand it in adults. It always seems like weakness.

There are others. Gullibity about right-wing web-sites isn't a defect you ought to advertise.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydeny

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:44:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, 4 September 2015 22:07:01 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 1:45:16 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I am modest. You do not see me mentioning my IQ, where I went to school, etc.

And no doubt you have much to be modest about - as Churchill is reputed to have said of Attlee.

Actually I am pretty sure that I have more that I could boast about than you.
On Friday, 4 September 2015 22:07:01 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

Actually I am pretty sure that I have more that I could boast about than you.

Feel free.

In my opinion boasting is uncouth.

Whatever. Somebody who carries on about how modest he is, and how he has no desire to impress, has a fairly obvious aim. If you had as much to boast about as you seem to think you do, you might have been able to work that out for yourself.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Dan

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I couldn't care less about his personal details, but he did seem to know very little about how bank worked.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydeny

Yet I noticed that you changed your statements about how banks work after I pointed out that you were wrong.

Dan

 

[sms]

On 9/3/2015 7:24 PM, John Larkin wrote:

I don't like debt. The problem with borrowing money is that most
people expect you to pay it back.

That's your problem, you think you have to pay back money that you
borrow. Ask Donald Trump about how the bankruptcy laws can eliminate the
need to pay back money that you borrow. He's done it four times.

 

[krw]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 20:07:04 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:24:27 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

I don't like debt. The problem with borrowing money is that most
people expect you to pay it back.

Another problem is that most people expect you to pay interest.

I don't mind short-term debt, particularly when people don't want the
interest and even pay me to take it (-3% or -5% for a month isn't at
all bad). Long-term debt isn't so bad for appreciating capital
acquisitions.

 

[John Larkin]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 07:40:43 -0700 (PDT), "dcaster@krl.org"
<dcaster@krl.org> wrote:

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:



I couldn't care less about his personal details, but he did seem to know very little about how bank worked.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydeny

Yet I noticed that you changed your statements about how banks work after I pointed out that you were wrong.

Dan

You can play the insult game endlessly with Sloman. If he enjoys
anything in life, it's issuing pompous insults.

Note that he has little say about electronics.

Ignore him and everybody will benefit.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, 5 September 2015 00:40:47 UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:49:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

I couldn't care less about his personal details, but he did seem to know very little about how bank worked.

Yet I noticed that you changed your statements about how banks work after I pointed out that you were wrong.

I certainly went into more detail. I hadn't noticed that you'd pointed out that I was "wrong", and I'd be interested to see what you thought was "wrong".

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney