Below is my column in the New York Post on the suggested censorship of bank critics by Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.). It was only the latest example of how censorship has become a reflexive response of many Democrats to opposing views. It is now increasingly common for certain views to be declared as simply too dangerous to be tolerated or allowed on social media, including (it seems) questioning the solvency of banks.
Here is the column:
Concerned about your money after recent bank failures? You might want to keep those thoughts to yourself.
While some rushed to get their money after the collapses, at least one leading Democrat is pushing for censorship of those who do not have faith in the banking industry.
The Democratic Party for more than a decade has alienated many of us in the party with its embrace of censorship and speech controls.
Democratic leaders actively promote censorship on social media and vehemently defend government efforts to target citizens or groups.
Some have even adopted McCarthyite labels like “Russian lovers” to paint free-speech advocates as disloyal or dangerous in opposing censorship efforts.
Subjects from climate change to gender identity to COVID to elections have been gradually added to the list of prohibited thoughts.
Now Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) has put bank solvency on the list.
It is only the latest example of censorship’s slippery slope.
Kelly shows how censorship is addictive; it not only builds an increasing tolerance for speech limits but a decreasing tolerance for opposing views.
The immediate inclination becomes to silence those who challenge you or refuse to accept your “truth” on any given subject.
In a Zoom call this week with a couple hundred participants, Kelly asked representatives from the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation about censoring social media to remove those raising doubts over bank solvency in the wake of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank crises.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) confirmed Kelly suggested “that government should work with social media companies to censor information that could lead to a run on banks.”
As in past censorship calls, Kelly reportedly cited the danger of “foreign actors” using social media — to undermine banks. It’s those pesky Russians again.
The list of subjects justifying censorship keeps getting longer.
In a critical November 2020 hearing, tech CEOs appeared before the Senate. Twitter’s then-CEO Jack Dorsey apologized for censoring The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story but pledged to censor more people in defense of “electoral integrity.”
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), however, was not happy. He was upset not by the promised censorship but that it wasn’t broad enough.
He noted it’s hard to define the problem of “misleading information,” but tech companies had to impose a sweeping system to combat the “harm” of misinformation.
“The pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm,” Coons said. “But I’d urge you to reconsider” putting in place a “standalone climate change misinformation policy” because “helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world.”
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also warned he and his colleagues would not tolerate any “backsliding or retrenching” by firms “failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.”
He demanded companies keep using “the same kind of robust content modification” — the new Orwellian term for censorship — they did in the 2020 election.
History has shown censorship becomes an insatiable appetite. Once you silence opposing views in one area, opposing views in other areas become increasingly intolerable.
Rather than convince citizens that their deposits are safe, it is easier to just silence anyone who disagrees with you.
With Democrats’ vocal support, Twitter’s former censors recently revealed the standard they used to censor citizens.
Ex-Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli explained at a House hearing last month that Twitter tried not to just “balance free speech and safety.”
Rather, it asked “free expression for whom and public safety for whom. So whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety, and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the wind so that people can speak freely?”
Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) responded: “Exactly right.”
So now “the expense” of free speech is too high if it might undermine faith in our banks’ stability. It is that easy.
Parag Agrawal explained it years ago. After taking over as Twitter CEO, Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the Internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.”
The great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once warned, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
Sen. Kelly is now that man in seeking censorship to protect banks’ assets while leaving free speech insolvent.
Jonathan Turley is an attorney and a professor at George Washington University Law School.
149 thoughts on “Banking on Censorship: Sen. Kelly Becomes Latest Democrat to Suggest Censoring Views on Social Media”
Where have I heard this before. “It has all the earmarks of Russian disinformation”. Kelly couldn’t have put it anymore plainly. “So I said, ‘Hey, our foreign adversaries out there may have an interest in trying to undermine our banking system. Have we put in any protections, have we reached out to social media companies to see if this is something they’re thinking about?’ So that’s the question I asked,” Sen. Kelly said. So a highly positioned government official sends a not so subtle request to social media to censor anyone who criticizes SVB and the government bailout. Just remember that they once told us that they were only going to look at foreign actors and not American citizens. I give out a special thanks to Elon Musk for revealing that they were also censoring domestic opinion. Alas, the smoke screen continues.
“[T]he suggested censorship of bank critics by Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.).” (JT)
This story is an excellent example of the Left’s thuggish tactics (e.g., censorship) to cover its own crimes.
Skyrocketing interest rates are stressing some banks. That rapid, steep rise in rates was caused by out-of-control *inflation* — inflation that was greatly exacerbated by D’s profligate spending. To compound their crime, democrats, early on, tried to evade the reality of inflation, e.g., that it’s just “transitory.” If the Biden administration had acknowledged the reality of inflation early on, cures (e.g., a gentle rise in interest rates) could have been implemented early on. Instead, like a cancer patient in denial, they tried to evade the disease. And now it’s Stage IV.
The Left’s “solution” to a disaster that they largely created, is to punish by censorship those who publicize the disaster and the Left’s creation of it.
In the Left’s version of “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” they imprison the child before he can speak the truth.
Sam, Senator Kelly never suggested censorship. That story is false. The zoom meeting involved 200 congressmen and Rep. Massie is claiming something Sen. Kelly never said.
All the media outlets including mainstream media are only parroting what Rep. Massie said. Not what Sen. Kelly actually said. Nobody has verified that the claim made by Massie is true. Here’s what Sen. Kelly actually said according to him. There was only one media organization who actually interviewed Sen. Kelly on the issue.
“So I said, ‘Hey, our foreign adversaries out there may have an interest in trying to undermine our banking system. Have we put in any protections, have we reached out to social media companies to see if this is something they’re thinking about?’ So that’s the question I asked,” Sen. Kelly said.”
Svelaz and his fiends are turning down the gaslights once again. They are now telling us that SVB wasn’t woke. Here’s a statement that came directly from the pen of the SVB CEO. “In recent months, we’ve expanded our philanthropic giving through corporate donations and employee matching programs,” wrote CEO Greg Becker in an introductory letter attached to the report. “These programs focus on pandemic response, social justice, sustainability and supporting women, Black and Latinx emerging talent and other underrepresented groups.” BLM affiliated groups were recipients of the SVB funds. Hey Svelaz, right from the pen of the SVB CEO. Woke enough for you?
“‘Hey, our foreign adversaries out there . . .'”
Nobody is that naive.
Tyrants always use “malign foreign actors” as a smokescreen to oppress their own people. See Soviet Russia, Iran, communist China. And, now, Senator Kelly.
It seems Turley along with a lot of other people have been misled about what Senator Mark Kelly said. It’s not surprising. It took all of 10 seconds to find out the real story behind the claims.
Turley as well as a lot of other right leaning news organizations are all saying Sen. Kelly “reportedly” said he inquired about social media censoring misinformation. All of them are saying “reportedly” without actually verifying if he actually said that. Here’s the what actually happened. The only person who claims Sen. Kelly inquired about censorship is Sen. Massie from Kentucky who was in the zoom call. He’s making false claims that are supposedly backed by Boebert who is “corroborating” what Massie is claiming. There were 200 people on that zoom call and only Sen. Massie is the one making the claim without ever quoting Sen. Kelly directly. Kelly didn’t say what Massie is claiming. Massie could have provided proof by posting Sen. Kelly saying that, clearly he hasn’t done that, because he’s lying.
Once Massie made the claim on twitter the false claim spread like wildfire and nobody is bothering to check what Kelly actually said. This is an example of how easy false claims can spread on twitter and it reinforces the point Sen. Kelly was making about twitter.
Here is what Sen. Actually said,
“Hey, our foreign adversaries out there may have an interest in trying to undermine our banking system. Have we put in any protections, have we reached out to social media companies to see if this is something they’re thinking about?’ ”
Massie lied about what Sen. Kelly said. He was not inquiring about censorship at all. He deliberately twisted what Sen. Kelly said.
“Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz, said tweets claiming he asked the Treasury Department about a program to censor information on social media regarding bank runs are false. Kelly told Straight Arrow News his question was specifically about foreign adversaries.
On Sunday, the Treasury Department held a briefing for members of Congress about Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse and the FDIC’s takeover.
“So I said, ‘Hey, our foreign adversaries out there may have an interest in trying to undermine our banking system. Have we put in any protections, have we reached out to social media companies to see if this is something they’re thinking about?’ So that’s the question I asked,” Sen. Kelly said.
When the briefing was over, two members of the House of Representatives accused him of asking about censorship.
“A Democrat Senator essentially asked whether there was a program in place to censor information on social media that could lead to a run on the banks,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., tweeted. A member asked if the they [sic] were reaching out to Facebook and Twitter to monitor misinformation and ‘bad actors.’ And this administration AGAIN just committed the federal government to interfere with free speech. Unacceptable!” Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., tweeted in part.
But Kelly said his inquiry was specific to countries like China, Iran, North Korea and Russia.
“We know they have been involved in our social media platforms before. If they wanted to undermine our banking system at this critical moment, probably would not be hard for them to do that. So it’s something we just need to be aware of. And I think that it’s important that Treasury reaches out to social media companies to say – do they see any of this activity,” Sen. Kelly said.”
This is how misinformation spreads. This is exactly why twitter and face book are ideal vehicles for spreading falsehoods.
Turley as well as most media outlets parroting the story according to Sen. Massie didnt bother to vet the information and instead took it at face value. This is why Fox News and media in general have been so sloppy with reporting and why they have been getting in trouble a lot more than usual.
Sen.. Massie was lying. It’s as simple as that.
Svelaz says that no request for censorship of opinions about bank failures should be allowed on social media because such criticism must be coming from the Russians. You see Svelaz is still all in on the Russia, Russia, Russia thing. If his grandma developed a bunion it has to be the Russians fault. When we consider Svelaz’s opinion we should remember that he said that CRT wasn’t being taught in schools and that the Hunter laptop is just Russian disinformation. We should always keep in mind the things that he has stated on this blog in the past. There’s a lot of track record that Svelaz wants you to forget because he just assumes that you are to stupid to remember.
“Svelaz says that no request for censorship of opinions about bank failures should be allowed on social media because such criticism must be coming from the Russians. You see Svelaz is still all in on the Russia, Russia, Russia thing.”
Problem with that assertion is that I didn’t say that. TiT, your penchant for lying never ceases to amaze.
“Rather than convince citizens that their deposits are safe, it is easier to just silence anyone who disagrees with you.”
Well Said, Professor Turley, Thank You.
If someone knows something bad about my bank, I want to know it too.
The Democrats are a regime, not a party, and a global one at this point. We are looking at the face of 21st century fascism, and that’s all there is to it. Nothing they do anymore is a shock to me – they act as a fascist regime would act. Our first and second amendments are all we have holding them in check in this country, hence the non-stop attacks on said amendments.
People promoting censorship would not want their own views censored.
The elites want the power to dictate what others can say or write, but wish to reserve free speech for themselves.
Likewise, those who shout down, harass, or threaten invited conservative speakers would be outraged if they received the same treatment.
Indeed. Such people are the very definition of cry-bullies.
Karen, the other half of free speech is that you have to listen to someone else’s BS.you know, like on this blog.
Everyone has the right to free speech.
And I have the right to ignore them.
Or as the case on this blog, just scroll past their comments.
To many people are confusing the right to speak freely with the non-existent “Right to be Heard”; to force others to listen.
. . . men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
These “men of zeal” understand exactly what they’re doing, and they are not well-meaning.
As usual, Turley can not see the censorship of right wingers, just the left” , “….example of how censorship has become a reflexive response of many Democrats to opposing views”. Where has Turley been with the whole host of right wing censorship….Like DeSantis in Fla schools. If parents do not want the child(ren) to read certain books, they can go to the school and put their own solo parental ban in it. But, these “God driven” book “Nazis”, please let me decide what is appropriate, or not, for for MY child(ren). These decisions should be left up to parents, not an over reaching govt..
Ugh, this tired old false comparison. The Left wants to shut down all debate anywhere, whereas parents want to have a say in what their 5, 6, and 7 year olds are being taught in school. Apples and oranges.
Oh, I see now, you’re saying that in government schools, the state government should not be able to restrict what is taught in the government school to K through 2nd grade. That’s really a weird argument, since it’s the government at one level (state) that is restricting what the government at another level (school district) can teach very young children. It’s also a very esoteric kind of argument, and it again has nothing to do with the federal government censoring public debate in the public square (social media).
In short, it is not “censorship” by “right wingers.” When the government decides what it will and will not say to very young children, that simply is not censorship.
Government works best when it comes from the bottom up, not the top down.
True (mostly). But the government deciding what the government will say to a captive audience of 5-7 year olds is not censorship. And it cannot validly be compared to the government shutting down the free speech of opposing views in the public square which is what AI was trying to do.
You could just remove government from education and solve this and myriads of other problems.
You claim that Republicans censor, and you gave as an example DeSantis in FL schools.
First, there are around 4 million new books published annually. Not being included in an elementary school library is not censoring. In addition, material selected for school libraries must be deemed age appropriate. Books that detail $ex acts, or that promote changing gender to kids under 3rd grade, are not appropriate. For example, one of the books removed from the library promoted a pedophilic relationship, complete with detailed descriptions of $ex acts between a child and adult. If an adult man handed a child he wasn’t related to such a book, it would get him arrested. Obviously, parents objected to pornography in young children’s public school libraries. These books were so pornographic, that when Gov DeSantis, parents, or students try to read from them during a televised school board conference, local news cut the live feed due to the explicit content. (Here is one example: https://www.newsweek.com/florida-tv-cuts-feed-ron-desantis-shows-explicit-content-books-1786589)
Schools have been a bit late learning go woke, go broke. They’re used to having a captive audience. However, the more far Left curriculum goes, the worst test scores drop, and enrollment plummets as parents pull their kids out of school.
You cannot force parents to send their kids to schools where they will be taught pornographic content. Here is another example. A high school gave a writing assignment of a $exual fantasy. A teacher essentially was collecting the $exual fantasies of his students. This is really sick. https://www.foxnews.com/media/parents-outraged-oregon-teacher-asks-students-write-sexual-fantasy-short-story
Or, you could be objecting to DeStantis stopping the debunked 1619 Project, or racist CRT, from being taught in Florida schools. Racism and proven incorrect theories should not be taught in public schools. That’s not censorship. Those views are able to be found on any far Left activist website. They’re just not taught in public schools. Knitting is not censored when it’s not taught in public schools.
Ah, the normalization of abject perversion and the perversion of eminent normalcy.
Great idea that.
Actually, the normal thing to do is to call the freaks of nature freaks of nature.
Like DeSantis in Fla schools. If parents do not want the child(ren) to read certain books
I thought what DeSantis did was just fine. But, reading your comment, a different tack might be better. Instead of taking books out, I think we should add a couple of hundred Christian books. Extolling he virtures of celibacy, sexual prurity, sanctity of human lives, especially babies not yet born. Value of a complete family. With a mom, and dad, and kids. I’ll get them in there. If anyone complains, they are the book burners.
they’re children, not leftist ideology receptacles
What is you leftists, Democrats obsession with exposing 6 year olds with pornography and pedophilia?
Anyone with even a small degree of common sense would know 6 year olds at a drag show is inappropriate.
But common sense appears to have left the Democrat party.
“Beward the Ides of March” — or something like that.
Senator Kelly is just so warm and fuzzy.
The solution to false reports about a bank’s solvency status is more speech, not less. How about posting real time, 24/7, online data on every bank’s assets, cash, cash flow, liabilities, debts, and investment leverage?
This may be a duplicate
It was against the law to spread rumors about a bank that could cause a run. Just enforce that law.
The law was unconstitutional in its denial of the 1st Amendment freedom of speech; not dissimilar to the unconstitutional ruling of “law” by the totally illegal, corrupt, prejudiced and partial Supreme Court of 1973, with reference to abortion.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people, dictatorship does.
Prosecution and litigation of bodily injury and property damage may result from the exercise of free speech (Commonwealth v. Carter, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
October 4, 2018, Argued; February 6, 2019, Decided, SJC-12502).
similar to yelling fire in a theatre – creating a run is dangerous. I am against the bailout of these banks
Is it not incumbent upon individuals to discriminate regarding that which is spoken freely?
Yours is to assume incapacity and incompetence.
Freedom and Self-Reliance constitute the American thesis.
Banks may be bailed out after the concern involves all or the whole, as in “…general Welfare…” which Congress is provided the power to tax for in Article 1, Section 8.
I heard that another bank wanted to takeover the silicon bank. Supposedly the FDIC would cover deposits up to $250,000.00. After that supposedly this other bank would recapitalize silicon so the rest of the depositors would be covered. But the politicians don’t want that. They’re from the government and they’re here to help. God bless America.
I am having problems following the details – not because there is no information – but because it is not trustworthy and contradictory.
While there is plenty of Stupid woke nonsense in SVB and it is likely that contributed to its failure, if I have things correct SVB is not “insovlent”, it is “illiquid”.
I.e there are enough or nearly enough assets to cover liabilities. but not enough cash to pay those seeking greener pastures.
This does not appear to be FTX – where the money is GONE.
Assuming that is correct there absolutely should have been NO BAILOUT – that introduces significant moral hazard and does not even provide a benefit.
It is my expectations that there will be more failures like this.
Many banks have large portfolios of loans at low interest, at a time when Treasuries are paying 4.5%. People are going to pull their money – even with early withdrawl penalties that is the wise move.
We have some unique problems because we have gone from low inflation to high inflation, from low interest to high interest rapidly.
Also because is screwed up as the US economy is right now, it is still the best in the world and capitol is flooding in.
And this is thwarting efforts to fight inflation.
Bailing out Banks, is a mistake not merely for the moral hazard issue, but because it will push up inflation.
“While there is plenty of Stupid woke nonsense in SVB and it is likely that contributed to its failure, if I have things correct SVB is not “insovlent”, it is “illiquid”.”
SVB didn’t collapse because of wokeness. That’s just a stupid rumor being peddled by Fox News.
The gist of the run on SBV is that they made some very bad decisions regarding investments with depositors funds. It was the rise in interest rates that created the problem coupled with panic about the consequences of those bad decisions that spread like wildfire thru twitter.
I completely agree with you that there should be no bailout. Not of regular depositors but of the large companies who had more than $250,000 in funds in the banks. What is not being talked about is the incentives the bank offers to their biggest customers in exchange for keeping their money in the bank. Banks do this all the time. They often offer sweet deals on mortgages or other financial instruments to entice large depositors. For example those that deposit or have funds of $500,000 or more could have greatly reduced interest rates on mortgages or even zero interest rates. This is not saying that’s what they did but as an example of how bad decisions are made.
When interest rates rise the cost of borrowing money and the return on investments goes down. The bank was losing their depositors money without having the ability to cover withdrawals. The run on the bank occurred because the news of the financial problems spread thru twitter and social media so fast that people panicked and started withdrawing money.
Turley talks about Sen. Kelly suggesting censorship on twitter to prevent more runs on banks and he isn’t wrong on bringing up the suggestion. What Turley doesn’t seem to understand is that these panicky runs can very difficult to control when social media can create an instant run on a lot of banks and that can be a real problem. What’s to prevent bots from foreign governments creating rumors about banks financial vulnerabilities? There’s a real risk of a financial crisis if such things are left unchecked or unmonitored at least. It’s reasonable inquiry given the ease in which runs on banks can happen with the split second creation of rumors on social media.
“It was the rise in interest rates that created the problem . . .”
You left out the most important part of the story:
Skyrocketing interest rates were caused by democrat-created *inflation*. And by their attempt, early on, to evade the reality of inflation, e.g., that it’s just “transitory.” If the Biden administration had acknowledged the reality of inflation early on, cures (e.g., a gentle rise in interest rates) could have been implemented early on. Instead, like a cancer patient in denial, they tried to evade the disease. And now it’s stage IV.
You can evade reality. But you cannot avoid the consequences of evading reality.
Sam, the Biden administration didn’t evade the reality of inflation. The dealt with it head on. The inflation reduction act passed last last year and inflation since it’s highest in June at 9% has dropped steadily to 6 % today.
Interest rate were indeed raised and that’s how inflation has always been dealt with.
What is being ignored is that banks, not just SVB, invested heavily on things when interest rates were practically near zero. They made poor choices in their investment decisions and their depositors and stockholders got burned essentially. The run on the bank was triggered by panicky depositors spreading the rumors on twitter and it became a runaway run on the bank. It was literally an old fashioned run on the bank. The only distinction is that the panic was easily spread thru social media.
Democrats didn’t create inflation. Republicans are just as responsible for it as well. They voted repeatedly for the stimulus packages floated by congress during the pandemic. Trump even signed them into law. He’s just as culpable for the rise in inflation. Fortunately inflation has been steadily and slowly going down.
“SVB didn’t collapse because of wokeness. That’s just a stupid rumor being peddled by Fox News.”
No it is a fact based on the laws of economics. In fact it is a FACT based on the laws of mathematics.
But these seem beyond you.
You are constantly fighting against against this.
Subsidizing something makes it more expensive.
Investing on any basis except risk and return results in less efficient investment.
It appears at this time that SVB did not lose hundreds of billions of dollars.
The combination of high inflation and the Fed’s increasing interest rates to fight that inflation are having a number of unintended (but predictable) consequences.
One of those is that it is driving an exodus of investment from low returns to higher returns – and the larger the gap between the returns of some financial entity the more capital will flow away from it.
SVB and several other institutions like it are “1st” to fail – because they have the worst returns on investment for their risk level.
They have that low return/risk ration because they are work – investing on any basis other than seeking the highest Return for the level of risk you are willing to tolerate is ALWAYS inefficient. You are free to do so. But your return will be lower – and in times of financial stress – you will be first to fail.
I would note this is also self evident by the fact that capitol was fleeing SVB. SVB was proud of its “wokeness” – it marketed itself on that basis.
It attracted people to the bank on that basis. So those with money in SVB KNEW what they were getting into.
Yet, when the gap between Return/risk at SVB became too large – they pulled their money out anyway.
Even the “woke” know that Woke is financially inefficient. They MAY choose to tolerate a small decline in return for the perceived value of claiming to be Woke.
But the real value of Woke is obviously small – and the capital flight from SVB proves that.
All of the above is a long wordy way of saying that value is subjective. It is determined by humans, and the way – the ONLY WAY it is accurately measured is in a free market. The Capital flight from SVB tells us that being woke has a relatively tiny market value.
SVB Exposes ‘Lazy’ ESG Funds as Hundreds Bet on Doomed Bank
First – I think ESG is nonsense. No you can not ignore “G”. But better still throw the whole thing out.
The real market accurately and dynamically reflects the TRUE values of people.
When you try to overlay your own values or some other values you will fail to the extent your values do not match the markets.
I do find it evidence of the cognative bubble the left lives in that SVB was highly rated – until it wasn’t.
Not only were fund managers not doing their job, ratings companies were not either.
Just proof that the left confuses their ideology with reality.
I thought so too.
The fact they put so much emphasis on ESG, Green and other woke investments rather then stick to sound banking policies is obvious to see why it is one of several reasons SVB failed.
The fact SVB had so many Democrat customers is the obvious reason they got a bailout.
I am not trying to piss all over “values” in making business decisons.
What I am saying is that WITHOUT the outside hand of govenrment – the merket will get all of this pretty much right – reflecting our values, all by itself.
If Disney thinks that kids shows with Drag Queens are going to appeal to its market – it is free to do so.
And if the audience leaves – they must have got that wrong.
Our free market exchanges accurately reflect our values.
Women go to the polls and vote for candidates that impose mileage standards and dictate tiny cars.
Then they go to the car dealer and Buy a honking big SUV.
Are they voting their actual values ?
Or are they expressed in their purchases ?
The latter. Votes are nearly always Utopian
They do not weigh competing factors.
“SVB didn’t collapse because of wokeness. That’s just a stupid rumor being peddled by Fox News.”
No it is a fact based on the laws of economics. In fact it is a FACT based on the laws of mathematics.
But these seem beyond you.”
Huh? Are you saying, no SVB did not collapse because of wokeness or no SVB collapse because of wokeness?
You wrote, “While there is plenty of Stupid woke nonsense in SVB and it is likely that contributed to its failure, if I have things correct SVB is not “insovlent”, it is “illiquid”.”
Likely contributed to it’s failure? Based on what? Fox News has been the only network peddling that nonsense. Everyone else has been pointing out that this was poor investment decisions by the bank.
“The combination of high inflation and the Fed’s increasing interest rates to fight that inflation are having a number of unintended (but predictable) consequences.
One of those is that it is driving an exodus of investment from low returns to higher returns – and the larger the gap between the returns of some financial entity the more capital will flow away from it.”
Correct, I agree with that assessment. However as a bank they had the responsibility to make smart choices with their investments and it’s not as if interest rates suddenly rose in one day. Rates have been going up for a while and banks knew this. They made poor choices and paid for those poor choices by getting poor returns on their investments. Depositors found out about it and that’s when the panic ensued. 90% of depositors in SVB had more than $250,000 in funds at the bank and their the bank couldn’t cover the withdrawals because most were tied to these poor investments.
Wokeness had nothing to do with the run on the bank. That’s an excuse to make this about woke being bad for policy. It’s a BS rumor being peddled for the benefit of those who want to “stick it to the left”.
This was about bad choices and the consequences of taking risks. All the investors should have been allowed to be wiped out. That would be the correct outcome for making bad choices.
Please read EXACTLY what I wrote.
The answers to your questions are there.
God, you are an incredible idiot.
If you would just read carefully – and think a bit before you post.
I do not know all the facts yet. I am speculating on several things.
This is not Fox anything – I have no clue what Fox has said.
Much of my information comes from Treasury, or the Fed.
From what I can tell SVB is not insolvent they are illiquid.
Do you know what the difference is ?
Both will result in bank failure.
FTX was insolvent – investors will lose nearly everything.
Illiquid means SVB does not have sufficient cash on hand to cover withdraws.
And that getting enough cash to do so will likely result in their becoming MILDLY insolvent – because when you try to sell long term loans with low interest rates when interest rates are high – you have to discount the price to make them sellable. If SVB jas 10B in assets and sells them at a 10% discount to raise cash – it will collect 9B If its liabilities are greater than 9B it will be insolvent. It is highly unlikely that their liabilities are significantly greater than their discounted assets.
Most depositors will likely get 0.90/$ if the Government does not bail SVB out.
That assumes they are illiquid.
If they are insolvent – they already have more liabilities than assets – then depositors are getting screwed – possibly baddly.
As of now I do not know which they are. But the odds favor illiquid not insolvent.
None of that comes from Fox. There are a few other possibilities – but those are the most likely.
Further the CAUSE of this – regardless of whether it is insolvency or illiquidity is the same – bad decisions.
There is a fair amount of evidence that Woke drove those bad decisions.
You are free to bury your head in the sand.
But most economics is not that difficult.
“Please read EXACTLY what I wrote.
The answers to your questions are there.”
That’s the problem John. What you wrote made now sense. It may have made sense in your mind, but it certainly didn’t make sense when you wrote it. That’s why I asked for clarification. Don’t blame me for your poor attempt at conveying a thought.
“There is a fair amount of evidence that Woke drove those bad decisions.”
No there isn’t. Otherwise you would have posted it. You’re just peddling the Fox News narrative. They are the only ones peddling the woke angle.
If you think what I wrote made now(no?) sense – then I would suggest returning to grade school and taking more English classes.
Or some logic course.
I am not interested in defending your idiotic misread of what I have written.
You do not want long posts from me. Then you could atleast read what I wrote before getting it obviously wrong.
The “clarification is in the original post.
I can not give you the ability to comprehend standard written english.
Outlets that have addressed SVB Wokeness
Those outlets do not all agree as to the extent to which SVB’s Wokeness contributed to its demise.
But NO ONE is denying that SVB was woke.
And no one is denying they made bad choices.
Increasing the evidence I am finding is that SVB is atleast party insolvent. That it is not just that their loans have poor returns, it is that many of those loans will not be fully repaid and some may not be partly repaid.
I would further note that outside the MSM there is reporting that numerous institutions and financial advisors are revising or eliminating there ESG commitments.
SVB relied heavily on ESG ratings for loans – and those loans underperformed or failed.
This is creating a financial system wide shift to distrusting ESG ratings.
The reputed premise of ESG is that IN ADDITION to using the credit worthiness of a borrower to determine whether to issue a loan,
That financial institutions should use additional critera.
That only works IF the creditworthiness remains critical.
Financial institutions have learned from SVB – and a few other recent failures – that ESG ratings are CLEARLY not doing their due dilligence regarding Creditworthyness.
Absolutely some aspects of this are resembling 2008 – Bankers were encourged to write loans that did not meet credit/risk standards
because other political factors were emphasized.
You can play label games all you like ,
But the Fact is that SVB used ESG ratings to make loans. That is pretty much the definition of Woke.
Even those ranting that this is right wing talking points, accept that SVB (and several other failing banks) issued loans based on ESG ratings that are failing.
And the SVB story is getting worse.
This is not only a Woke Bank, it is linked to Newsome and many other democrats and democrats causes.
It is increasingly appearing that it is being Bailed out to protect not merely Democrats, but even Democrat political resources.
That without a bailout the Democratic party and candidates may take a bath.
Good to hear that you oppose Bailouts.
I still only rarely watch Fox.
I have not seen anything from Fox in a while, and nothing at all regarding SVB.
I am sure they are running SVB. but I have no idea what they have reported.
Can we please dispense with the Fox nonsense.
The ACTUAL news is that:
It was making loans based on ESG ratings.
I(t is increasingly evident to the financial industry that ESG is not properly measuring Risk.
There is absolutely no difference between using religion as the basis for your investing and using woke ideology.
In either case you could get lucky and do well.
But the ODDS are that you will under-perform other investors.
As long as it is YOUR money – so what. The harm is to you.
Banks invest other peoples money.
“This was about bad choices”
Correct – likely bad woke choices.
“and the consequences of taking risks.”
In this case it probably has nothing to do with “risk”
The problem may well have been they took too little risk or more accurately that instead of picking low risk normal return investments, they picked low risk low return woke investments.
Regardeless the problem is not likely too much risk, but way too little return for the risk.
It is highly unlikely that their investments were or even now are risky.
All that presumes that they are illiquid rather than insolvent.
“All the investors should have been allowed to be wiped out.”
Again it is unlikely that investors would be “wiped out” even without bailouts.
Regardless. the correct outcome is the market outcome, not the government outcome.
Svelaz, My information and knowledge on Economic matters does not come from Fox or any other part of the MSM.
I follow about 30 different economics blogs written by the top economists in the world. People like John Taylor – the creator of the Taylor Rule that was used for decades to calculate the Fed Interest rate. I followed Elenor Olstrom before she won her Nobel. Greg Mankew. Marginal Revolution, EconTalk, Robert Barro from Harvard,
I do not need nor pay attention to economic claims by Fox or the rest of MSM.
I have no problems with Banks or corporations embracing Woke values – or any others – so long as they do so freely and openly.
I have major problems with those values being imposed through government rules.
Anyone can choose to reflect their personal values – whatever they are, in their investing. Any company that wishes to identify with specific values and embrace them – is free to do so. And the Free market will value the company based on what humans AS A WHOLE determine regarding those values.
With SVB – the market just spoke, Woke is fine, when the cost to being woke is very low. When it rises – Woke is not worth much.
SVB is not alone among the Woke banks that are teetering right now.
Over time this is likely to climb through banks that are less screwed up than SVB – but all that fall will be the weaker Banks, and the Weakest – like SVB will fall first.
And Woke made them weak. Again the market has spoken.
“When money realizes that it is in good hands, it wants to stay and multiply in those hands.”
“With the distanced drumbeat of the Revolution, the chink of coins suddenly became more important than commitment to the cause.”
Money talks. It makes art. It determines what food we eat, whether we are cured or die, and what shoes we wear.
Money talks, and bulls*** walks.
When money talks, there are few interruptions.
There should be no bailout of anyone.
I have only one problem with the FDIC – and that is the “F”.
Banks are free to and should insure their depositors – privatel, and I can assure you that sufficient cost effective private deposit insurance is feasible.
I have no problems with things like reserve rules for banks – and these should come from the private companies that insure banks – not the FED.
Government should have no role – not for big depositors, not for small ones.
Small depositors can choose banks that are well insured – or not.
Big depositors can choose banks that are well insured – or not.
We should be able to seek banks that insure only small balances – or very large ones.
Insurance is a cost to the bank and wil reduce that banks rate of return.
But that is how ALL investment works – Return is a function of Risk. Low risk, low return.
Wokeness also effects return – and as we are seeing – depostors are only willing to leave a small amount on the table for Woke.
And that it how it should be the market – which is all of us and the choices we make, should decide the value of woke, or ….
Actual bailouts – as opposed to actual private insurance
ALWAYS amplify moral hazard.
They increase the amount of risk that people who beleive they are likely to get bailed out are willing to take.
I have no problem with risk – but moral hazard artificially alters the relationship between risk and return in a bad way.
You are addressing bailouts as if they are some kind of policy that government should decide.
They are NOT.
As I noted – I have no problems with Deposit Insurance. That leaves risk/return choices with the market – with You.
The role of government is to assure that people actually do what they contracted to do,
And that those who engaged in fraud are punished
That is the means – the only means that government should be protecting people from harm.
Each of us MUST be free to make our own decisions – with risk and return being factors – and if Wokeness floats your boat – then you are free to chose based on that – so long as you choose for YOU – and not me.
It is always moral hazard when you break the link between individuals and the consequences of their choices.
Doing so results in their making increasingly worse decision.
Or as Nassim Taleeb and many others have said – never trust the advice of those who do not have “skin in the game”
It does not matter whether it is investing or public health or a business.
If a person’s advice does not come with rewards when they are right, and consequences when they are not – their advice is worth nothing.
This is a key reason that so many government experts were wrong about Covid – they had no “skin in the game”.
Fauxi was being paid a fortune – as as we now learn receiving far far far more from Pharma and the industries he regulated.
But his government pay was not contingent on performance. While his private payment were contingent on delivering and controlling contracts – not beating Covid.
People make bad decisions when THEY do not bear the cost of being wrong.
That is moral hazard.
This is also why Polls swing radically when you attach a cost to some measure.
Do you support free college, and would you pay $100 extra a year in taxes for it poll diametrically opposite.
“They often offer sweet deals on mortgages or other financial instruments to entice large depositors. For example those that deposit or have funds of $500,000 or more could have greatly reduced interest rates on mortgages or even zero interest rates. This is not saying that’s what they did but as an example of how bad decisions are made.”
That is correct – those things happen all the time.
They do because they are WISE, not because they are bad.
Banks profit by loaning depositors money to others at interest.
There is far less work to get 500,000 from one depositor, than from 1000.
That means the bank has lots of money on the table to lure big depositors and still make a higher total return.
And they absolutely should offer perqs to get those big deposits – everyone benefits including small depositors.
As always you can not tell the difference between good decisions and bad decisions.
“That is correct – those things happen all the time.
They do because they are WISE, not because they are bad.”
They can also make bad choices because the get greedy. Banks, like people, are not immune from getting greedy and that often leads to bad decisions. Wall Street has shown that many times with serious consequences for everyone.
“They can also make bad choices because the get greedy. Banks, like people, are not immune from getting greedy and that often leads to bad decisions. Wall Street has shown that many times with serious consequences for everyone.”
The absolute duty of every business is to profit its investors as much as possible PERIOD – if you call that greedy – then Greed is a duty, not a vice.
I do not care what “motivated” you to make a bad decisions – SVB was apparently motivated by Woke. The issue is that they made bad decisions.
And actually no Wall Street has NOT shown that many times.
I can not think of a serious financial problem in the US that is not a consequence of GOVERNMENT.
While there are many errors government can make that screw up the economy – by
FAR the worst are Monetary.
It is probably that the rapid V downturn in 2020 is the ONLY economic downturn in US history not caused by MONETARY errors.
The great depression and great recession were caused by interest rates too low for too long. The 1980’s recession was deliberately caused to clear inflation – again ALWAYS monetary, from the system.
The FED is currently trying to thread a likely impossible needle and Weaken the economy to purge inflation without causing a recession – or at best a mild one. It will be a miracle if they manage that and I would bet heavily against. – but of course I hope they succeed.
Hope is not economics.
While SVB made poor choices that left it weak when things got tough – and we do not know how many more banks that is true of.
The direct cause of even their problems is MONETARY – the Fed raising interest rates.
Every action by the FED has winners and loser.
Everything you do with money supply hurts someone and helps someone.
Right now the FED is deliberately trying to hurt all of us – in the short term, in the hopes that it can get rid of inflation and leave us better off in the long term
Finally any action by Banks, Wall street, Business, that serves their investors that is not a crime is legitimate.
All but the most stupid left wing nuts understand that you can not benefit investors, without making customers happy.
“It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
― Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature & Causes of the Wealth of Nations,
“The absolute duty of every business is to profit its investors as much as possible PERIOD – if you call that greedy – then Greed is a duty, not a vice.”
That doesn’t change the fact that businesses will overdo it due to greed, not just merely looking out for investors. It’s a human flaw that will always be a factor in financial decisions.
“That doesn’t change the fact that businesses will overdo it due to greed, not just merely looking out for investors. It’s a human flaw that will always be a factor in financial decisions.”
There is no “over do it”
There is following the core law that I have provided – in which case all else is not only legitimate but REQUIRED.
And there is not – which is either an actual crime, a contract violation or a tort.
No regulation needed,.
no monitoring needed.
Twitter and elsewhere only accelerated the inevitable.
People do not invest perfectly – they do not seek the perfect ratio of risk to return. Investing itself has a cost, and finding the best risk return ration has a cost, as does staying on top of it.
Wall Street and Day Traders make lots of money being on top of tiny changes in real time and moving investments rapidly.
They would not do that though – if they could not profit from that micromanagement of investment.
Most of us have neither the time nor the skills. So we do not micro manage.
But We do MACRO manage. There is ALWAYS a point at which the risk return ratio has changed enough that we will move.
All Twitter did was increase the speed at which people learned it was time to move.
They were moving anyway.
Claims that informations about things like this should be supressed are stupid.
All they mean is that the FEW who know – and those who control the power to know will profit greatly.
Or as the SEC would call it – insider trading.
Censoring economic information always results in “insider trading” – profit for those who get to know first, and for those who control who knows first.
This is also why most congressmen are in the market, and why they ALL have profited handsomely.
First they know many financial things before others, because they are passing the laws.
Next, others reward them one way or another because they control who gets to know first.
Newsom has deeper ties to Silicon Valley Bank than he let on, report says
I can not help but smile when I discover that statists are up to their eyeballs in the destruction they cause.
But aside from possible improprieties, this is tangential.
It appears SVB failed because its returns under performed as interest rates rose.
Government is already complicit in that.
Govenrment cause the inflation that required higher interest rates to cure.
Now ever business with a low rate of return is in trouble.
Those investing their own money who do not need it now. Will survive.
If you are investing other peoples money at a low return and there is anyway they can reclaim those funds – your screwed – and to some extent so are they.
“Claims that informations about things like this should be supressed are stupid.”
Nobody is claiming that information should be suppressed or censored. Claims that Sen. Kelly suggested censorship are false. That is not what he said. Rep. Massie was deliberately twisting what Sen. Kelly said. This is what he actually said in that meeting,
“Hey, our foreign adversaries out there may have an interest in trying to undermine our banking system. Have we put in any protections, have we reached out to social media companies to see if this is something they’re thinking about?’”
He asked a valid question. That’s all he did. He didn’t suggest anything of the sort that Rep. Massie claims Sen. Kelly said.
You acknowledged that twitter accelerated the run on the bank by spreading the panic instantaneously. Sen. Kelly was asking about the prospect of foreign governments exploiting this as a way to create panic and runs on bank and what we could do about it. That’s what he was asking and that is a valid concern given the prevalence of bots and how easy it is to spread misinformation on social media. Do you think that makes more sense than what Rep. Massie claims? Isn’t that a valid concern given how fast and how easy panic spreads? It could create a serious financial crisis if that panic were to spread due to bots or foreign governments spreading false claims about banks running out of money or losing stock value. All it takes are small events like the SVB to set it off.
Clearly it was serious enough that the treasury and the federal reserve had to calm people and investors with a lot of public assurances.
“Nobody is claiming that information should be suppressed or censored.”
If that were true this conversation would be over.
But as is typical you want to censor – but not call it censor.
You want Twitter of FB to do your bidding.
Or you want the Government to “monitor” – as if there is actually something within their power.
A constant theme of the left – Government should solve something that is either a small problem, or no problem at all,
that is outside of anything government could do anything about anyway.
While we agree – partly, about Bailouts – except you have no idea why they are a bad idea.
You do not understand that they are not even sometimes a good idea.
You have no understanding of moral hazard.
You have no understanding of the fact that we MUST let things that are going to fail fail.
That stopping that is WORSE than allowing it.
You allow empathy – something we all have, for those who are going to lose, to overcome logic.
Those who can not learn from history or logic are doomed to learn from experience.
Bar that and no learning occurs.
There is no getting around this.
We already have serious problems from the non-bailout bailouts of 2008/2009.
Banks now presume they will be bailed out – and it seems that belief is justified.
An expectation that there will be a bailout results in taking risks that are not justified by returns.
We ALL lose.
“Nobody is claiming that information should be suppressed or censored.”
If that were true this conversation would be over.”
ItI can’t be over because there are those knowingly or ignorantly perpetuating a false claim.
“But as is typical you want to censor – but not call it censor.”
False. That is not what I want nor have I said I want You are deliberately mischaracterizing the issue.
“You want Twitter of FB to do your bidding.”
Nope. However there is nothing wrong with asking what they can do since they CAN on their own do something about it because they have the power and constitutional right to censor what they might deem harmful just as Turley has the right to censor openly racist comments. That’s not “wanting them to do my bidding”
“You have no understanding of moral hazard.”
I understand moral hazard just fine. It seems you are applying it the wrong way though. You literally have it backwards. Which is not surprising.
“You have no understanding of the fact that we MUST let things that are going to fail fail.
That stopping that is WORSE than allowing it.”
I disagree. Those who can easily recover from failure usually the well off, be it banks or individuals are those who take the greatest risks. Problem is that when those risks produce massive failures THEY can recover from it while others who had no hand in taking those risks are burdened with the consequences of THEIR risk taking..
This is what happened during the housing bubble. Banks and investors took huge risks with sketchy financial instruments with prospects of huge rewards. They expected government to bail them out because the financial harm it literally threatened the entire financial system. Failure was NOT an option. Because only the wealthy would have managed to recover while everyone else would have suffered from THEIR failure.
You advocate for such a situation because it’s literally a Darwinian approach to the “unfortunate” consequence of the free market despite the fact that the market was rigged by those who caused the problem in the first place. The very same advocates for free markets were the first to beg for a bailout by the government. The housing bubble exposed the fallacy of the free market philosophy and that’s why it never works. That’s why regulations are in place. Because there is always someone trying to rig the system to their advantage.
I do not “advocate” for free markets. I correct your mistakes.
While Darwinian survival of the fittest is an actual law of nature that does not care about your feelings.
Free markets are NOT Darwinian.
In nature – you fail you die.
Free exchange raises human standard of living such that failure is learning and trying again.
Radically different form Darwin.
We agree on some points – you just do not understand what those mean.
In a free market (or not) Some will universally seek advantage by leveraging the power of government.
The failure vectors in 2008 were:
Interest rates too low for two long – resulting in pricing risk too low.
Government – both parties actively pushing people towards home ownership – which is why the bubble occurred in housing.
But it also included private actors seeking to rent government power for personal advantage.
Whether that was Countrywide and others buying politicians all over the country with sweet heart loans,
or begging for bailouts when things collapsed.
I do not disagree with you that free market actors seek personal advantage – in fact everything depends on that.
It is a feature not a bug. Further it is absolutely true that ONE of the many ways they will seek advantage is by renting government power.
Free markets will devolve when those in government allow their power to be bought.
Eternal vigilance is required.
Further the bigger and more powerful government is – the exponentially greater the opportunity for government corruption.
We agree that private interests will seek to rent government power.
We do not agree on the solution.
You seek to thwart that through idiotic rules regarding money – do you really think that those in government are going to make rules that prevent themselves from getting rich without loopholes ?
Rich now we are drowning in growing information regarding how the Biden family has profited by renting govenrment power.
We can debate the legality of their actions – but it is absolutely beyond dispute that the entire Biden clan got rich from the proviate money to be made from government access, favors and influence.
Nor is this limited to the Bidens – Pelosi is no different.
Nor is there a shortage of Republicans profiting from their positions in government.
What you do not seem to grasp is that what power government has WILL BE RENTED NO MATTER WHAT.
The biggest reduction can be obtained by severly limiting government power.
Government corruption is as old as government.
Do you really think you have an answer to it that no one has found in 10,000 years ?
You can reduce government corruption dramatically by reducing the power of government.
That actually works.
It does not achieve perfection but it radically reduces the problems.
BTW we WANT private actors to chase personal advantage. We just wantr to narrow the was they can do so to eliminate the use of force, reneging on agreements, failing to take responsibility to correct the actual harms they cause and renting government power.
We want them to profit by building a better or cheaper mousetrap.
We want them to profit by better giving us what we want and need.
Absolutely people try to game the system – and the single largest class of people seeing to game the system are politicians.
There is no role in society that is more strongly self selecting for exactly the types of people you do not want in those positions. more so than politics. Government generally is next.
Where do you have an example of a regulation actually working ?
I recently watched a Ken Burns documentary on the Dustbowl.
From Beginning to end Burns is discussing the human causes – which though likely corect, are not actually proven,
As well as almost a decade of govenrment efforts to correct the problem.
Was the Dustbowl ended by tilling the ground differently ? By following contours ? By leaving land fallow each year ?
Nope – Though Burns is favorable to all govenrment efforts, in the end he can not avvoid documenting that they did not work.
The dustbowl ended when the droughts ended and the rain returned.
We have not had the dustbowl return because farmers discovered a gigantic aquifer running under the great plains and have been using it to irrigate since.
The gist is government accomplished nothing.
We have seen the same with Covid – please tell me a single meaningful thing that Government accomplished regarding Covid ?
Please show me a single government regulation where you can look at data and find a distinct change in trend following the enactment of that regulation ? There are none.
Absolutely our world has been improving. It is improving in developed countries and undeveloped countries.
The state of the world in any place is directly tied to the standard of living.
Those countries with the highest standard of living have the cleanest healthiest safest environments the lowest rates of death,. the highest workplace safety.
This is true regardless of the scale of government or the regulations of that government.
Further it has been true for over 500 years. Long before there were consequential govenrment regulations.
You say regulation is necescary – then why did SVB fail ? Why are other banks teetering ?
Why do we have inflation ?
Why are we headed into recession ?
You have regulated the crap out of things – and yet the types of failures you claim to be fixing continue.
As if the regulation was useless – or even made things worse – because it did.
You are “regulating” the wrong thing.
Your problem is not business, it is govenrment.
Kelley is free to say stupid things – but the FACT is we do NOT need or want government involved – not even if “foreign adversaries” are trying to defame our banking system (or elections).
Wise people judge what they hear – even on SM based on the trustworthiness of those speaking.
Government is not there to protect the unwise from the consequences of their poor choices – though there is no evidence of a real problem.
While there is no evidence of consequential russian interferance in US elections – so long as Russia does so through speech – there is no issue. Technically Russia has no first amendment rights. But the FACT is that there is absolutely no good reason for government to mess with election speech – whether protected or not.
The only speech with respect to elections that is absolutely barred is that OF THE US GOVERNMENT.
“Wise people judge what they hear – even on SM based on the trustworthiness of those speaking.”
Wise people take advantage of that trustworthiness and exploit it. That’s been true every time we have a financial crisis. Government does need to be involved because they are the ones who enforce the rules. We have rules for a reason. Government is there to protect from those who deliberately seek to exploit others for financial gain. Which means maintaining everyone’s liberty and freedom. That involves protection from exploitative individuals who can cause great harm to a LOT of people at the same time.
“Wise people take advantage of that trustworthiness and exploit it.”
Of course not.
Do you grow your own food ? Build your own home, your own car ?
I highly doubt it.
That means you trusted someone.
We do not live like Robinson Crusoe
If your grovery, your car dealer, your real estate agent, your resturaunt screws you.
You don’t go back. Maybe you talk to the manager, maybe you write a bad review, maybe you sue them.
But you do not go back, and you do not tell people how great they are.
Businesses must earn your trust over and over with every single purchase you make.
No one is obligated to buy anything, and certainly not from only one place (unless government is involved).
The fundimental principle of free exchange is that all exchange is voluntary. You can go elsewhere or buy something different.
But more than that – no one enters and exchange without the expectation that what they are buying is worth more to them than what they are selling.
McD’s will not sell you a Hamburger unless they are getting more in return than they are giving.
You will not buy the hamburger unless you are getting something you want more than you are paying.
You go to work everyday expecting pay worth more than the time and effort you expend.
Your employer expects more value from you than he is paying.
Not only is that ALWAYS the expectation – but it is TRUE 99.999999% of the time.
If it was not, the economy stops.
Trust that every exchange is a win-win is an absolute requirement for an economy.
“That’s been true every time we have a financial crisis.”
Nope. If it was actually true that the market screwed up as frequently as we had crises – that would be amazing.
But the market makes more mistakes than that. HOWEVER, The market does not make systemic mistakes – it CANT.
McD’s will overcook your burger now and then.
The market is enormous, billions of transactions an hour. Mistakes are made.
And people work hard to fix those mistakes most of the time to keep your trust.
Because the market runs on trust.
Regardless, the market is Bottom up. It is completely incapable of a systemic problem.
No one manages the market.
Systemic problems – financial crisses, inflation, housing bubbles require all or most of the market to move in the same direction.
It is like water sloshing in a bathtub, Only a human can get it all moving in unison to rush over the lip of the tub.
Systemic errors require managers. Top down control.
All systemic market failures in all of history are from govenrment.
We had the deepest fastest recession in history in April 2020.
We all know that.
We all know the cause – Government locked down the economy.
Everyone understands that Only government can do that.
From rome forward – inflation has always been caused by government.
The housing bubble was a form of inflation restricted to the housing market.
Government inflated money supply, kept rates too low too long
They encouraged more and more people to buy homes.
Both republicans and democrats fell overthemselves to push home ownership.
As they exhausted buyers with excellent credit, they lowered credit standards slowly – without raising interest rates.
Because mostly we are not allowed to allow loan rates to reflect the risk of the borrower – again government.
Estimates are that a 1% increase in mortgage rates in 2003 would have prevented the entire mess.
The market can lend to almost anyone – so long as it is allowed to price the risk.
The price of risk is the interest rate.
Did businesses – even many “greedy ones” go along with this – absolutely.
Did many of them join hand in hand with those in government to keep interest rates low and encourage ever less creditworthy buyers ?
Absolutely. Did they give sweetheart deals to politicians to keep the faucets open ? Absolutely.
But the fact that businesses “bribed government” should tell you all you need to know.
They were incapable of creating the housing bubble without govenrment.
Just like a human in a bathtub – only government can keep everything headed in the same direction.
Markets never do that naturally.
And systemic failure – by definition requires whole segments of the economy moving in one direction.
Once again you prove you are incapable of figureing out who you can trust.
“Government does need to be involved because they are the ones who enforce the rules. ”
There are three basic rules Government exists for.
You may not use force – except in self defense – this is mostly Criminal law.
If you enter a contract, you must keep it – This is contract law – most civil law.
If an act of yours directly harms another you must make them whole – this is tort law.
Those are the only rules needed. I would further note all of them are a posteriori.
i.e. You use force – you get punished.
You break a contract you most honor it or pay damages.
You spill something slipery on your floor and someone slips and falls – you owe their medical bills.
There is not a single legitimate law that tells people how to do things.
“We have rules for a reason.”
Of course we do – it is called the social contract.
It is the foundation for government.
But it is LIMITED and you still do not grasp that.
“Government is there to protect from those who deliberately seek to exploit others for financial gain.”
Nope. Government is there to punish those who use force, fail to honor contracts or are reckless and harm others.
Everyone seeks personal gain. That is ALWAYS true.
“Exploit” is just left wing nut speak for – I expect to get more out of an exchange than I put in.
Which every single person does every time.
Lets look at an egregious example.
If I buy a house for 10,000, and you come to me and want to buy it from me and I say sure – I want 100,000.
And you say fine – here is 100,000.
Did I financially gain ? Of course. Did I exploit you ? Nope. You were free to walk away, buy a different house.
Did I cheat you ? Nope. The house was mine. I can sell it for whatever someone will agree to pay, or give it away.
There is absolutely no such thing as the correct price for anything.
The only actual price of anything is what a willing buyer and a willing sellor agree to.
Government exist to make sure that when I sell you a house – I actually transfer to you the house I sold.
And that you pay me what you agreed to. It is there to make sure your money is not counterfeit, and that I did not deceive you about the house.
And that I did not put a gun to your head, or you to mine.
Basically to make sure we both honored the contract.
That is it.
There is no “exploit”
“Which means maintaining everyone’s liberty and freedom.”
Amything beyond what I noted restricts liberty.
“That involves protection from exploitative individuals who can cause great harm to a LOT of people at the same time.”
Again nope. criminals exist, sociopaths exist – though the vast majority actually live up to agreements.
But even what you call “exploit” is incredibly rare.
you do not like Trump.
Are you required to play golf at his golf course ?
To stay at one of his hotels ?
To buy one of his condo’s ?
To gamble at his casinos ?
If you do business with Trump – you did so by choice.
You do not have to.
If that is not true – If someone put a gun to your head – that is a crime, government can step in.
If you get e coli from the steak Tartar, you have both tort and contract law remedies – that is governments job.
I would further note that even if you have a problem that government has no involvement in – in a great deal of cases
the seller will bend over backwards to make you happy.
Many products have warranties. They are not required to. They are offered to encourage you to buy. And to make you happy.
Government is there legitimately to enforce the contract.
Myriads of sellors offer deals to regular buyers – loyalty programs, points.
All these are to encourage you to buy from them – to build trust.
It is self evident that as with most everything else – you have never though more than shallowly about any of this.
Let me address one other thing.
With incredibly rare exceptions – pretty much those things government is entangled in the real price of everything declines over a long enough time period.
That is an absolute requirement for rising standard of living.
Real Prices do not decline over time because businesses want to make less money.
They do because Buyers have the greatest power in a free market.
Which is BTW why big business bribes government so heavily. They are buying protection – form competitors and consumers.
All these things seem wrong to you.
And that is part of why you are anxious and depressed – cognative distortions – innaccurate dark views of the world are the source of depression and anxiety.
Unless you just got out of Auschwietz, you have little basis for depression.
There are conservatives here who are also suffering from anxiety and depression – but far far fewer than left wing nuts.
They to have an artificially dark view of the world – some share to a small extent your twisted view of free markets. They certainly hate international free trade in the way you hate free trade within the country.
They also beilieve you are destroying the country – which you are.
But they do not grasp that one way or another – you will fail, and recovery is not that difficult.
I think you can make a gargantuan mess – but we will still recover – rapidly.
They like you are depressed about that – but they are far less depressed than you are.
Why ? Because they are suffering from far less cognitive distortion.
It is the things that are false that you beleive to be true that depress you.
That cause anxiety.
And the cure is easy – fix your thinking.
see the world as it really is.
“That’s what he was asking and that is a valid concern given the prevalence of bots and how easy it is to spread misinformation on social media.”
Nope. If you are stupid enough to trust a social media/internat post from an unknown source – the problem is yours.
Again you are completely oblivious to the way TRUST works in real life.
“Nope. If you are stupid enough to trust a social media/internat post from an unknown source – the problem is yours.
Again you are completely oblivious to the way TRUST works in real life.”
It seems you are the one who is oblivious as to how trust works in real life.
You’re the perfect example of what willful ignorance looks like.
Look at how you deal with the Fox News dominion case. It has been revealed that Fox News deliberately lied about voter fraud and willfully peddled Trump’s false claims about voter fraud. You have based a lot of your voter fraud claims on the very same claims made by Trump who has never produced any supporting or clear and convincing evidence of his claims.
Social media spread those claims for months and it’s certain that you got a lot of your information from social media.
All the evidence you have used and presented has already been debunked or discredited as false. Yet you still buy into the fallacy that the election was stolen. Fox News used sources they deemed not credible. They even called their sources liars and nut jobs.
How does one detach themselves from that false narrative when all the evidence points out that they’ve been lying to you
I have looked at the Dominion case. DVS is going to lose. Either before trial when the case gets dismissed or at trial, or on appeal.
There is absolutely no possible way that you can have a free press if they must prove something is true beyond a reasonable doubt before airing it.
Further – I have watched those like you on the left RANT that something has been proven in Discovery.
You constantly equate beleif with Truth. Many fox representatives did not beleive the DVS claim – WOW!.
Who would have guessed ? It is not like Carlson challenged Sydney Powell on it on his show and told her to come back when she actually had some evidence. Except that IS exactly what he did.
Regardless, We constantly get this absolute garbage from those of you on the left that “belief” is the same as truth.
Well I think last poll has 59% of people BELEIVING that the 2020 election was “stolen” somehow.
Does that make it TRUE ?
I guess DVS must automatcially lose because most people BELEIVE it is likely the election was stolen.
But luckily for all of us – the standard is not BELEIF – because you left wing nuts BELEIVE all kinds of nonsense.
This everyone not on the wing nut left is a Fox zombie nonsense is just stupid.
You claim I am clueless regarding Trust because of Fox ?
What makes you think I trust Fox ?
I do not Trust Fox, I do not Trust Republicans, I do not Trust Trump.
But I trust Fox, Republicans, Trump far more than the MSM, Democrats and Biden.
Why ? Not because they do not lie.
But because they lie FAR LESS.
RIGHT NOW, I have FORGETTEN more PROVEN Big lies by the left, the democrats, the media,
Then you can even claim regarding all those you think are untrustworthy.
Except that we agree – Do not Trust Fox. Do not Trust Republicans, Do not trust Trump.
Where we DISAGREE is that YOU still trust PROVEN LIARS. the MSM, Democrats, and Biden.
BTW it has NOT been revealed that Fox deliberatedly lied.
It has not even been revealed that Fox was wrong, or that Sydney Powell was Wrong.
It is PROBABLE that DVS did not Rig the election – it is FAR from PROVEN.
And the reason it is not proven – is because YOU fought transparency tooth and nail.
If you want DVS to win their Case you must PROVE
That DVS did NOT rig their tabulators – it is NOT good enough that is not likely.
You must PROVE that FOX KNEW DVS did not rig their tabulators AT THE TIME OF THE REPORTING.
You must PROVE that Fox itself claimed DVS rigged the tabulators – not Sydney Powel as a guest.
You must prove that Fox did this with Malice.
You can not PROVE one of this things.
MSNBC’s Rachel MAdow was sued for defamation by OAN Because she said on her show that “OAN was litterally Russian paid propoganda”
That is FALSE. Maddow knew it was false at the time. It was said with obvious mallice.
OAN lost the case – why ?
Because Rachel Maddows show is NOT a news show it is an opinion show and everyone knows that her remarks – even though she used “litterally” were only an opinion.
That is the state of the law.
Beleifs are not Facts,
And you can not even get beleives straight.
Whether you like or not – the “revalations” about Fox are no secret.
Fox viewers were leaving Fox after the election specifically Because Fox Was reporting the Election fraud claims SKEPTICALLY.
YOU may think you found the smoking gun that proves that Fox lied.
But that is only because your head is deep in a dark place divorced from reality.
Most people not on the wing nut left KNEW that Fox was skeptical of election fraud claims – particularly the DVS claim.
Because that is what they reported on the air at the time.
But YOU do not know that.
Because YOU trust a bunch of LIARS,
“Social media spread those claims for months and it’s certain that you got a lot of your information from social media.”
I am sure they did, just as they told us that the lockdown would work, that masks work, that the vaccines would work, …..
Many many many things that are not true are reported all the time.
NY Times and WaPo got Pulitzer Prizes for completely bogus reporting on the Collusion Delusion – have they returned their pulitzers ?
I Trump entitled to a huge Defamation award against them ?
You have this very odd idea that what you BELEIVE to be True is actually the KNOWN Truth.
In the real world Truth – particularly about developing stories – and especially about those that someone is working hard to hide is elusive – unknown.
You seem to believe that ONLY your SPIN, your NARRATIVE is entitled to be spoken on SM or Fox.
“All the evidence you have used and presented has already been debunked or discredited as false. ”
By people who have been lying out their a$$ for the past 10 years.
Regardless, Pick something – Anything. any Assertion I have made and PROVE it is wrong.
Not prove others disagree. Not prove it is not proven to be true, but actually irrefutably proven to be False.
Again ANY assertion.
If you can not do that – they YOUR claim that my claims have been “debunked” is a LIE.
And please go take a course in logic.
Belief and Truth are NOT the same thing.
“Yet you still buy into the fallacy that the election was stolen.”
A “fallacy” is one of a number of FORMS of argument that are INVALID.
Saying something is a “fallacy” is a statement about the ARGUMENT, not about its conclusion.
Was the election stolen – that depends on what you mean by “stolen”.
It was certainly conducted outside the law.
It was certainly conducted sloppily and insecurely.
It was certainly conducted with piss poor chain of custody, and accountability.
We certainly had “election interfereance” – by assorted left wing nut 501C3’s that actually took over the jobs of govenrment election officials – this is illegal in 24 states and should be in all.
The social contract functions of government MUST be performed by government.
We should not have privately run prisons.
We can not have privately run elections.
The media and social media and democrats, and government agencies and DNC and Biden campaign actively conspired to censor THE TRUTH in the 2020 election.
That meets MY definition of “stolen”
It also meets the definition of some 59% of Americans.
I would further note that LOTS of Election Fraud have been PROVEN – we KNOW there was ballot harvesting in states where that is against the law – every state except California.
Was it large enough to change the outcome ?
Given that only a total of 44,000 votes in 3 states would flip the election – I BELEIVE so.
Can I prove it ? Nope.
Can YOU prove I am wrong – not even close.
Maybe you could have had you agreed to scrutiny – to let the light shine in 2 years ago.
But YOU hid the ball – just like the collusion delusion. Just like the Hunter Biden laptop,
Just like on J6.
You are ALWAYS trying to hide things.
Fox News used sources they deemed not credible. They even called their sources liars and nut jobs.
How does one detach themselves from that false narrative when all the evidence points out that they’ve been lying to you
” Fox News used sources they deemed not credible. ”
Were the source that got NY Times and WaPo’s collusion delusion Pulitzer Credible ? Nope.
Did NJYT publicly note that their sources had credibility issues ? Nope.
Did Fox ? Yup.
Just to be clear – I watch Very little Fox.
I am not Defending Fox.
What I am pointing out is that YOU are not credible.
YOU are not telling the TRUTH.
You are conflating beleif with truth.
You are pretending there is one standard for Fox and another for MSNBC or CNN.
You are litterally LYING about the facts,
What was actually reported on air at the time and by who.
And you are conflating probability with certainty.
And you are doing all this in a situation where it WAS possible to KNOW the Truth – but we did not – and likely will not ever KNOW the truth because YOU refused to allow the sunlight in.
You do not seem to get that you do not get to accuse someone else of being a LIAR – when YOU are making it impossible to find the truth.
Has the MSM – including Fox been lying to me – sure.
I know that.
You are the one that thinks that ONLY Fox has been lying.
That they are worse.
And worse still that they are lying about something that is a BELEIF, not a FACT.
Even today it remains a BELEIF.
Because YOU blocked the inquiry needed to establish if it was a fact.
“Isn’t that a valid concern given how fast and how easy panic spreads?”
As I noted already – panic is NOISE. Markets do not crater from panic.
“It could create a serious financial crisis if that panic were to spread due to bots or foreign governments spreading false claims about banks running out of money or losing stock value. ”
Nope. Actual crises have REAL causes. It is the myth of movies and bad history books that recessions depressions or anything with meaningful consequences – beyond to those who panic, comes from panic.
Again – it is just noise.
SVB is not in-trouble because people panicked.
It is in trouble because rising interest rates made it a poor investment.
“All it takes are small events like the SVB to set it off.”
Many of us are concerned right now. We are concerned because we do not know the ACTUAL weakness of banks.
If there is widespread weakness – there will be severe problems. NOTHING will stop that.
If there is not – there wont. Panic will not change that.
“Clearly it was serious enough that the treasury and the federal reserve had to calm people and investors with a lot of public assurances.”
Nope. The federal government often does things it does not need to do.
The rants about panic are more nonsense mostly originating from fallacies about the great depression.
Free markets do not fail because people panic. But psychology, panic are noise, they are not signal.
This is why the greatest investors – the Buffets, operate off of FUNDIMENTALS.
They do not care if a stock is tanking, or rocketing. They do not mostly care what will happen tomorow or 6 months from now.
They care what will happen over the next 5 years.
When others panic they assess – and then they buy everything that is undervalued.
Market panic can tank an investment for a day, or a week, or a month. But the longer the impact the more REAL the cause must be.
Panic will not drive a stock down for a month – unless there is a real problem with the value.
If that is the case – investors are going to get out – panicked or not.
Again panic is noise. It is not substance.
The great depression did not occur because markets panicked.
It did not occur because of investment on the margins – though that severely harmed those who did it without the resources to do so.
The great depression occured for much the same reason the housing bubble and financial crisis occurred.
The FED kept interest rates too low for too long. The result was malinvestment.
By 1929 the US had significantly more manufacturing capacity than people were capable of consuming and the price of that capacity was much higher than it should have been
Just as in 2006 we had built too many homes and their prices were too high.
When that happens collapse is inevitable.
There are other factors – the dotcom bust was very similar – but with one big difference.
The dotcom bust was a stock bubble effecting primarily rich investors. The loss was huge – to people who could afford it.
The factory bubble in the 20’s and the housing bubble in the naughts was in long term assets and the investors were ordinary people who could not afford the temporary loss.
In case you think I am off somewhere – this is what Milton Friedman got his Nobel for, and nearly all economists – including Christine Romer Obama’s CEA, agree.
I would note the over building of factories in the 20’s resulted in vastly shortened ramp up of war production in the late 30’s as WWII approached.
“What’s to prevent bots from foreign governments creating rumors about banks financial vulnerabilities? ”
Have you read the story of the little boy who cried wolf ?
People who react to rumours from sources that are not credible without checking them out first – will lose their shirts – and should.
I constantly hammer TRUST and CREDIBILITY in my posts.
The reason you do not lie, cheat, censor, hide what others are saying is because doing so destroys trust.
Russian Bots did not impact the 2016 election. There were few, most of the stores about them – Hamilotn 68 were LIES,
But most importantly – because only idiots believe nonsense from people they never heard of on the internet.
The internet changes the speed at which things move. It does NOT change the fundamentals.
It has ALWAYS been true that if you get snookered by people who are not trust worthy – and Trust is ALWAYS something that must be earned, that you will lose your shirt – and you should.
“There’s a real risk of a financial crisis if such things are left unchecked or unmonitored at least.”
Nope. Those who make poor choices in those they trust will take a bath – as they should.
AGAIN – market panic is NOISE. Real declines have REAL causes.
SVB has REAL problems. It appears they are not huge – without bailouts from what I can tell even uninsured depositors will get 90+% of their money back in a year. They will have to take a loss – because although the Bank appears to be solvent but illiquid. Long term investments will have to be sold for less than face value to increase cash – because no one is going to buy a low interest loan without a discount.
Will you pay 100K today for a loan that will pay you back 100K next year ? Nope. Will you pay 90K ? Absolutely – that is a 10% ROI.
SVB will have to sell low intest loans at less than face value to make there ROI high enough for others to buy them.
The alternate is to wait until they fully mature. The reason that SVB is illiquid is because depositors were not going to wait.
They were better off taking penalties for early withdraw and putting their money into treasuries.
This is already happening to other banks. And it will likely slowly climb through banks.
But those banks with sufficient risk return and early withdraw penalities to assure that it is not worthwhile to jump ship will be fine
This is why the Woke banks are failing first.
They are the least efficient.
It’s reasonable inquiry given the ease in which runs on banks can happen with the split second creation of rumors on social media.
“There’s a real risk of a financial crisis if such things are left unchecked or unmonitored at least.”
Nope. Those who make poor choices in those they trust will take a bath – as they should.”
You’re ignoring the problem. When foreign governments have the ability to create panics and financial crisis it affects everyone. Not just those who have the ability to recover. But also those who would never be able to recover. Your “trust” philosophy only goes so far and only applies to a very narrow view.
It’s not always about those making poor choices. Its’ also about those who deliberately exploit that trust for financial gain. The ones gaming the system pose a far greater risk for everyone else and the system itself. The idea of the free market is mostly a farce when the market itself is rigged in favor of those who have the ability to game the system.
We have gone through that before. With the housing bubble and the whole derivatives fiasco that exposed the fallacy of the free market and self regulation.
When they are left unchecked or unmonitored it always leads to financial harm to the entire country for the benefit of a a few. The free market rules suddenly are a problem for those who promote it and demand government bailouts while the rest of the nation is left to fend for itself.
“You’re ignoring the problem.”
No I am flat out saying that you are OBVIOUSLY wrong.
” When foreign governments have the ability to create panics and financial crisis it affects everyone.”
Except that does not and can not happen.
Panics are NOISE. Some more economics – the opposite side of inflation.
The economy is the value that we produce PERIOD.
It is completely unaffected by “money”.
Adam Smith first reported this 250+ years ago.
It is why even Gold Cranks are economic idiots.
“All money is a matter of beleif”
That includes Gold and silver and Bitcoin and dollars.
Wealth – is what we PRODUCE. It is typical for GDP to be measured in Dollars.
But the dollars are merely the measure.
The economy does not rise or fall with the stock market.
Aside from that NOISE you keep mentioning.
The Stock market rises and falls with production of value.
Apple Stock Rises when we place more value on what apple produces.
The stock market is SOMETIMES a useful predictor of the economy
It is not the economy any more than a tape measure is a board.
So exactly how is it that “foreign bots” are going to change what we have produced ?
SVB is not in trouble because people yanked their money.
It is in trouble because there is not enough value in SVB for the money that is deposited.
When you are thinking of economics ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS think of what humans VALUE first.
Which is with rare exceptions what we produce. That is why we produced it.
“:Not just those who have the ability to recover. But also those who would never be able to recover.”
It is unbelievably rare that someone can “never recover” – that is part of the cognitive distortion common to the left.
There are people who started over with nothing at 70 and are billionaires.
Those of you on the left constantly fixate on Trump’s bankruptcies.
He is Still worth 3.2B according to Forbes today.
Germany was rubble at the end of WWII, the people were starving. It recovered quickly.
Many here on the right are justifiably concerned that you left wing nuts will destory everything.
They may be right. But short of triggering global nuclear war – we will recover quickly – and you will be appropriately chastized.
And the left might not show their face for a few decades.
Further even people who say they lost everything – rarely lost everything.
They merely lost enough to be “painful”
Finally, If you put your money into a bad investment – you lose what you put in.
You were supposed to think about that before hand.
If not “oh well”.
You want sympathy – you can have all the sympathy you want.
That is free.
You want a bailout ? Nope.
I will take you to the dinner and buy you a meal.
If I am in the same position – that is all I expect.
Without consequences there is no learning.
Even the best childrens books address this.
Here is a good start on raising your child.
Or yourself since you still seem to be a child
The role of a parent is to provide children the oportunity to make decisions on their own
even fail and suffer the consequences of that failure – while protecting them from death
serious injury or other adult consequences for decisions as a child.
If you do not learn this through your parents – as an adult there will be no one to save you from the adult consequences of mistakes.
Regardless, you learn either – through gaining knowledge from the experience of others in the past, or from the consequences of your own failures.
Thwart that and you thwart learning.
You claim that the Russians could cause panic and destroy our economy.
That is B$.
But lets assume it was true.
What would you learn from that to prevent a recurrance ?
That is trivial – Do not trust the Russians.
Over and over and over I stress TRUST here.
Whether it is regarding the coillusion delussion, or where to invest.
If you make bad choices regarding who to trust – you harm yourself.
Protecting you from the consequences will prevent you from learning who to trust.
Something you have enormous problems with.
And not just in economics.
You actually beleive the Russian can tank our Economy.
They can – by Nuking us. Not by spreading lies on the internet.
” Your “trust” philosophy only goes so far and only applies to a very narrow view.”
It is not a “philosophy” it is the foundations of all free exchange and pretty much all human relations.
“It’s not always about those making poor choices. Its’ also about those who deliberately exploit that trust for financial gain.”
That is called making a poor decision. You chose to trust the wrong person.
I can understand why that concerns you.
You have trusted so many people who have lied to you.
But you are still not taking personal responsibility.
Absolutely liars and frauds should suffer the consequences of their lies.
But so must those who believed them.
Your not “innocent”.
It was always YOUR life – not theirs.
You have made all the choices that bring you where you are.
There are very very few things like completely unpredictable natural disasters
that really fall completely into “bad luck”
IK would further note you are not ever going to be your best self, truly happy,
until you take responsibility for your own life.
Even the things that really aren;t your fault.
You are still the only person that can take your life back.
I have said several times on this blog, that 40 years ago – almost exactly.
My wife of 6 months was sexually assaulted for 3 hours on a sunday morning headed to church where she was the organist.
She did not cause they. I did not cause that.
It ruined our lives.
Many people helped us – a bit.
But ultimately WE were the only ones who could reclaim our lives.
I hope nothing so bad happens to you ever.
But I am sure that bad things will happen to you.
My wife has also had cancer twice.
In the end WE own our own lives.
You can wallow in misery and blame others.
You can wait for help that will never come.
You could win the lottery – and it will not fix the bad things.
“The ones gaming the system pose a far greater risk for everyone else and the system itself.”
Only if you trust them.
“The idea of the free market is mostly a farce when the market itself is rigged in favor of those who have the ability to game the system.”
Only government can rig a free market. Why do you think businesses and the rich contribute so much to poliitics ?
“We have gone through that before. With the housing bubble and the whole derivatives fiasco that exposed the fallacy of the free market and self regulation.”
Nope – obviously wrong. The housing bubble was just a focused form of inflation – only in housing.
And AGAIN “inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomena.”
The root cause was the Fed, But the bubble was in housing rather than elsewhere -= because of Government policies.
All the greedy people you are ranting about – were tightly entwined with politicians.
Countrywide loaned billions to just about every politician red and blue in the country – and they were not alone.
Again – you can not figure out who to trust.
Here is a simple test – if the Banks etc Blew up the economy – why is it that is not what Dodd-Frank regulated ?
Dodd frank created the CFPB to regulate payday loans and the like.
Absolutely no one thinks payday loans or anything Dodd frank regulated had anything to do with 2008.
A wise person would say – “they are lying”.
You do not have to know who screwed up the economy in 2008 – to know that Congress LIED.
Because what they regulated had nothing to do with what failed.
Besides most of congress is not actually that stupid – despite what they say.
Though they are that big a liars.
Barney Frank knew all along that the very stuff he (and lots of republicans) had been pushing since about 1996 combined with rates too low for too long caused 2008.
Look at SVB now – How did government miss that ?
Easy – because they have NEVER known what they are doing.
At best they make things worse.
“When they are left unchecked or unmonitored it always leads to financial harm to the entire country for the benefit of a a few.”
You keep saying this – but it is obviously false.
What do you even mean by “monitoring” ?
When has government EVER thwarted failure.
The depression happened – didn’t it ? Shortly after forming the Fed, we had the worst downturn in US history.
We have had more recessions per decade since the Fed was created than before.
The inflation of the 70’s the recession of the 80’s the S&L crisis – all happened.
The tech bubble burst, the housing bubble burst the financial crisis happened, Obama presided over the longest and weakest recovery in US history.
And now SVB has failed – and others may follow.
Solyandra BTW is gone along with Billions in Obama Bucks.
If this montioring and regulating is so necescary – why hasn’t it worked ?
Growth in the 19th century US averaged 7% – with very mild deflation from 1800-1899
20th centyry growth was 3.5% with something like 2500% inflation 1900-1999.
The 21st century growth is running less than 2%
So how is it that that monitoring of the free market has worked ?
The economy was better when the Robber barons were around.
The average 19th century working class person saw standard of living double about every 7-8 years.
At 2% growth I think it now takes 40 years.
Svelaz – we have massive amounts of economic data.
We know what works and what doesn’t
Socialism does not work – it has the worst and bloodiest history of ANYTHING.
Yet find 1 in 100 college professors that will tell you that.
As Talleb says – IYI – Intellectual Yet Idiot.
Regardless – all you are demonstrating is that you are not very good at figuring out who to trust.
“The free market rules suddenly are a problem for those who promote it and demand government bailouts while the rest of the nation is left to fend for itself.”
I have no idea what you mean.
Do you actually think the Woke idiots running SVB are ferverent Free marketers ?
Again you are really poor at figuring out who to trust.,
You talk about “monitoring” – but I will bet you have no idea what you mean.
You are pretending that those in government have magical powers or that censorship can stop “panic”
If this is just panic – it will subside quickly – panic is just noise.
The REAL problem is what I stated before – SVB and other banks are at a point at which it is worthwhile for depositors to take penalties to move to better investments.
That is a REAL problem – shutting down Twitter etc is not going to change the facts – just slow down how quickly people learn the TRUTH.
There is nothing “monitoring ” can do that will change the FACTS.
Nor is there anything censorship can do.
Even censoring a lie would be a mistake – censoring it gives it credibility.
I have addressed this with you and others regarding the election.
Apostle Thomas who will be forever remembered as “doubting Thomas” did not beleive jesus had risen.
He asked for proof.
That is how we determine was is true and what is not – by transparency, evidence, inquiry.
When you hide things – people believe you are lying. Just as when you have lied in the past – and worse hid it – people believe you are lying now.
If you wanted people to beleive the election was honest – you should have followed the law. You should have been transparent, you should have as christ did encouraged Thomas to examine the evidence. You should have allowed court proceding to get to discovery to look at the evidence.
Here you are – the whole story of the left over the past decade has been making poor choices as to who to trust, and how to behave so that others would trust you.
And because of your poor understanding of trust – you are terrified that others will make poor choices based on unreliable sources.
People who make poor choices based on unreliable sources should suffer consequences –
if you can not learn though good judgement, then you get to learn from bad experience.
“SVB didn’t collapse because of wokeness. “
Woke was more important than the job banks are supposed to do. Who was their all-important risk manager? If banks fail at risk management, they FAIL. No one has occupied that position for many months. Who is on the board? The Woke. Who had adequate experience? I understand only one person, but he was sub-optimal. How did the bank spend a lot of time and money? On Wokeness.
All this is well documented, but it is impossible for you to import that knowledge into your brain.
Perhaps you had neurosurgery performed at a Woke hospital with a Woke surgeon, and Woke nurses. Maybe they should have concentrated more on brain surgery than Wokeness.
Inflation has been going down for six months straight according to reporting from January. Meaning it was going down last year. It’s not low enough to lower interest rates just yet. However it is still on a downward trajectory which is good news.
Inflation was at it’s highest in June of last year at 9% now it’s down to 6% and trending down. Thanks to Biden’s inflation reduction act. I’d say that is an improvement.
I noticed you left out the fact inflation went UP in February.
The IRA is projected (by the CBO) to actually increase inflation into 2024 and maybe even 2025.
There are three taxes on energy that will lead to higher energy prices for the end consumer.
And there is a tax on investments/capital gains that will be felt by some 401k.
Inflation is now so bad people are nostalgic for 2021, when an avocado cost $1 instead of $2.50, and a dozen eggs were $1.60 not $4.21
“Inflation has been going down for six months straight according to reporting from January. Meaning it was going down last year.”
In what world do you think I trust you ?
I would further note that there are several stories recently that Wall Street does not Trust Government numbers.
They lied in June about unemployement. and now places like JP Morgan Goldman, and other mostly democrat financial giants think they are lying about many figures now.
Another way the US under Biden looks like China.
Regardless we will find out soon enough.
So far pretty much no one has been right in predictions.
My dinner napkin guestimate is that Inflation is stuck or possibly even rising a little.
Why – for the reasons I have noted repeatedly – Money is flooding into the US because as bad as things are here – the rest of the world is worse.
More money means more inflation.
So the Fed is raising rates – which eventually brings inflation down – but massive inrushes of capitol for the rest of the world push back.
Generally capitol flowing to the US is a good thing – but ANY large scale monetary swing is destabilizing.
I hope I am wrong.
But I doubt it.
Further current predictions are for MORE Fed rate increases.
There is currently talkk that SVB and a few other bank failures MAY result in SMALLER increases – but I know no one predicting the Fed is done increasing interest rates.
And that means they STILL think inflation is not under control.
“It’s not low enough to lower interest rates just yet.”
The expectation is the Fed is continuing to RAISE interest rates – which either means – they do not beleive you,
OR they beleive even if inflation is headed down – that strong inflationary pressures remain.
I would love to see interest rates drop soon. High interest rates have pretty much wiped out one of my businesses.
And I will assure you that if market leaders even THINK the Fed is lowering rates – my business will pick up instantly.
It has not. There is no expectation it will
“Thanks to Biden’s inflation reduction act. I’d say that is an improvement.”
There is ONE and only ONE thing that the Executive can do to reduce inflation – Cut Spending
That is BASIC economics.
“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon”,
I have explained this too you before – why is it necescary again ?
The laws of supply and demand are immutable.
For ANY fixed money supply – there will NEVER be inflation.
If something – such as the Urkaine war – drives gas and food and fertilizer prices up – other prices MUST come down.
People only have so much to spend. If they spend more on Gas and Food and Fertilizer they have less to spend elsewhere.
Those prices MUST go down – because demand goes down.
Inflation – an OVERALL rise is prices, can only occur if MONEY SUPPLY increases.
The Massive spending on Covid relief that would not have been needed but for bad policies,
which was then Funded by the FED “printing” money.
Caused inflation. PERIOD.
The Inflation reduction act increased spending.
It therefore increased inflation.
The name is a bad joke.
You can not spend your way out of inflation.
You can not price control your way out.
We have massive global experience on this.
DC may be lying to you – and Biden has never been the brightest bulb,
But mostly they KNOW the IRA was not going to do anything good.
It was just an effort to buy the election, nothing more.
Goldman Sachs is now reporting a 35% chance of a Recession this year, up 10 points from their previous assessment.
Others are saying the SVB bailout makes a Recession all the more certain, likely later in this year.
Regardless, The Fed/Powell is in a tight spot: Raise rates to continue to stop inflation, and likely cause a Recession/Unemployment (note, Amazon, Meta and other Big Tech corporations are laying off thousands, many got severance packages, so that is not reflected in the unemployment reporting . . . yet), and more bank failures. Ease or stop raising interest rates, save the banks at the expense of the people. We see it at the grocery store, the fuel pump how much it hurts us, We The People. More so for those of the lower economic class, but it is even eating into the middle class.
The Biden Crime Family would rather bail out their friends and donors at the expense or the expendable lower 90%.
At this point, I am seriously considering cashing in the 401K to pay off the farm.
I have been trying to tell people since June.
The FED is Trying to cause a recession.
That is the only known way to clear inflation.
Every single time some left wing nut here claims – its all fine Biden is doing great see no recession.
Every Time Biden talks about purportedly having a good economy,
all he is doing is saying – I am FIGHTING what the Fed is doing and we are all in for Inflation.
I have no idea what investment advice to give you.
Generally hard assets are good in an inflationary period.
But so are stocks.
There are claims that we have another Housing bubble in the process of bursting right now.
I wish I had bought more rental property pretty much any time AI had the chance.
I am trying to re-insure my home. Several issurance companies are giving me Values that have me asking
Instead of insurance – will you buy the house ?
I rejected selling one of my rental properties after an excellent offer last year – because who wants cash right now ?
That is definitely one thing I would say – do not hold cash.
The Public Viewing today of the latest piece of the Birth of the New World Order, Mark of The Beast, the Chinese Communist Social Credit Score system.
Moving towards the complete Federalization of the US Banking system outside of the State’s control.
I don’t know how to get away from it, but in 2001 DC/Wallst/City of London intentional economic collapse of Argentina the farmers used their silos of Wheat, Corn, Cattle, eggs, as a currency, much like booze & cigs, etc., have often been used over the years.
I agree with you that the unholy alliance between the left and elites is headed as you claim.
I find it humoerous that Antifa is in bed with Sorros.
Is there anyone that thinks that ends well ? The only question is Who eats who.
Regardless, There is a mathematical problem with majoritarianism.
Lets say you have 10 issues, each of which goes 51/49. Each of which has 10% absolutely totally rigidly opposed.
With each measure that passes you INCREASE the number of people who are really pissed – unless there is PERFECT overlap which there never is.
I have been paying attention to the demographics of elections.
I am quite bothered by the 2022 election – because Just about every single demographic trend favored republicans.
More minorities voted republican.
The only group that Democrats did better in in 2022 than they did in 2020 was Single young white women.
Groups that Democrats won in 2022 – they won bigger in 2020.
Out simply they are losing ground, they are pissing people off – slowly.
The assorted election games that the left is playing are likely the only reason they still have any power.
And those are FIXED increases – not trends.
Democrats are on the wrong side of all trends.
There are better books on economics – but this one is free easy to read and has no serious flaws.
This is better – but you have to pay for it.
This is also free and the most important book on economics ever written – but you might have difficulty with the 18th century english
This is also good, and easy to understand and humerous, But I do not think Bastiat directly addressed inflation.
This is an easy read but should bitch slap you and force you to reconsider things you thought were absolutely true.
I do not completely agree with Block. Regardless he will challenge you, and that is always good
Finally This is an economic history of China post Mao through 2013, By Nobel Prize winner and one of the 4 greatest economists of the past century Ronald Coase.
It is a very easy read, and Coase gently merges in an excellent basic primer on economics using post mao China as a foil
It is also short, but you have to pay for it. Frankly read anything by Coase – he is brilliant and easy to read.
I updated your comment to remove the protocol from the last hyperlink so that it would post.
Thanks, I thought I did that.
You did for the penultimate comment but the last one slipped by. No worries.
John, I think Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” is the best book for a person like Svelaz to read. There are videos of the PBS broadcasts on the book for free on Youtube. However, if Svelaz finds a way to provide his address I will send him a copy from Amazon at my expense.
There is So So So much that he could read or look at.
There are large collections of Friedman and Sowell, and Williams on Youtube.
I beleive you can find Coase.
There is I, Pencil – as a PDF or a youtube video – atleast a dozen different times,
And I, Wiskey and I Toaster, and ….
I cited 2 of the top 4 economists of the past century. Hayek is the 3rd – But Svelaz is not up to reading Hayek – or Nozick.
But there are dozens of other Nobel prize winners or top economists.
Olstorm, Barro, Mankew. Cochrane, Tullock. Buchannon.
Svelaz Really should read some public choice economics.
Even reading Krugman – before he became a left wing nut.
Frankly even many of the “left” leaning economists would refute most of what he believes
Reinhart and Roggoff, Romer, Summers.
While these do not agree with me 100% – they do atleast 70%.
The Wall St. Journal reported there were buyers for SVB, they would of bought it, pennies on the dollar, and all those depositors above the $250,000 mark, would of lost their money.
Rather, the government came in and covered all the deposits than let the market work the way it should. And bail out those depositors.
SVB was grossly mismanaged. They also provided loans for ESGs start ups and other “green” loans. They did not have a general risk manager for 9 months, and their UK unit risk manager appeared more involved in some LBTQ+ activism then doing her job.
Surprise, surprise SVB crashed and burned.
Go woke, go broke.
I absolutely aggree that this failure is the result of those involved living in a cognative bubble and not allowing reality in.
And I can celebrate the comeuppance of those on the left.
It is also true – from my posts regarding the high rates of anxiety and depression in young lefties – especially women, that this is all the result of self imposed cognitive distortions.
It should not surprise that those on the left got SVB wrong – they do not perceive reality accurately.
Their own rates of anxiety and depression are proof. Anxiety and depression are most frequently caused by cognitive distortion.
Today this problem is much WORSE on the left. but it would be wrong to believe it is limited to the left.
Any investors success is proportionate to their ability to accurately perceive reality.
Anything that distorts your perception of reality will result in poorer investment.
I am still trying to sort out the extent to which SVB is insolvent rather than illiquid.
The difference is quite important – both for those with money in SVB and for the economy as a whole.
SVB owns lots of Loans. Are those loans under performing or are they just gone belly up.
SVB is unlikely to be the only place we see this.
Rising Interest rates are going to cause people to leave low return investments – even facing penalties.
Trillions of dollars are moving or going to move.
If they are moving from low interest investments to high interest investments – it will be painful – but we will survive.
If those investments failed that is entirely different.
You can sell a a low return loan at a discount – because that makes it a hig return loan for the buyer.
You can not sell a failed loan.
The 2008 finacial crisis did not ultimately involve anyone selling anything.
The banks litterally refused to sell their MBS’s – that is why even though AIG had huge exposure they never actually never needed money.
CDO’s and CDS are forms of insurance. When the value of the MBS drops low enough – you trade the MBS to AIG for cash.
AIG keeps the MBS and if it recovers they make money.
The banks all KNEW the MBS’s were going to recover – rapidly and refused to sell.
They played a game of chicken with the government – The banks were illiquid not insolvent.
They basically bet that there was no way governentn was shutting down the biggest banks in the country – and they are right.
TARP was nearly worthless. What saved the Banks was the FED providing them liquidity. Which started in Sept 2008.
UpstateFarmer I wold like to add that:
The FDIC is nothing more than a Real Estate Brokerage for Bank Institutions. They simply shutter the Doors of the defunct Bank and find another Bank willing to to buy it. As for what a Customers of a shuttered Bank will experience – It not having access to your money which means you can;t pay your Bills (No Cash Flow). Which in some cases leads to Bankruptcy Filings by goo credit worth Customers.
This was true in the in the S&L Silverado collapse (It cost the Tax Payers $1B) and during the Savings and Loan Crisis.
The FDIC providing Helicopter Money (Bailout Funds) in the SVB is highly irregular. It is as close to a breach of the Glass-Steagall Act as I care to see.
Trickel-Up Voodoo Economics I guess.
“Bailing out Banks, is a mistake”
Is it, or is it a means to the end? What do they want? The banks socialized.
Somewhere I heard that SBV had at least 95% of the assets. That is a problem easily fixed, but might not lead to the desired ends. Every investor faces the same risk and that is why people do not rely to heavily on one type of asset.
Reliance on the favors of government leads to sloppiness and eventually disaster.
I heard the same 95% claim. But more recently I am hearing that they have alot of Assets that are NOT worth face value.
How far off are they ?
AS I noted with Svelaz – If you have liabilities of $1B and assets of $1B – but the assets are illiquid,
You can discount the assets to $900M – and they will Sell, because those buying them have a near guaranteed 10% Return if they can hold them a bit and then sell them. And liabilities get paid $0.90/$.
This is not a big deal.
But I am increasingly hearing that SVB is not just illiquid but insolvent.
Now I do not know if that means $1B in liabilities and $900M in assets – which means creditors get $0.80/$
Or more like $400M in assets.
“This is not a big deal.”
It isn’t if most of the assets can be recovered. If the assets are worth less, it’s not my problem. I have faced the problem of temporarily banking large amounts of money left on a deposit that is too high to be covered by insurance. Even though it was short term, I put the money in treasuries. That cost a bit, but the money was more secure. I resent paying for other person risks that are known when I cover my own.
Each of us gets to decide the risk we are willing to take.
I am sure you have funds invested in places that are not insured at all.
I would also bet you expect a good return on those and that if you do not get it you will move them.
As a rule the higher the return, the higher the risk the more mobile the funds.
If you think a Stock is not performing you can trade it in seconds at small cost.
While the return on a CD is low, the risk is low, and you are expected to keep it for years and penalized for early withdraw.
Regardless, bailouts create moral hazard
Independent, I think the explanation is simple. The left wishes to socialize our banking system. Then like the Chinese CCP ,they will have inside knowledge of almost everything we do. That leads to total control.
Wake up Americans if you wish to be free.
Back in the 1970s when I got into banking, it was against the law to talk negatively about a bank that could cause a run.
Lets just make that law clear.
It was also a criminal offense in Washington State up until 1987.
9.58.100 Slander of financial institution.
[1933 c 61 § 1; 1913 c 97 § 1; 1925 ex.s. c 141 § 1; RRS § 2432-1.]
Repealed by 1987 c 456 § 32.
If memory serves me correctly this was only a misdemeanor. I don’t remember it being a felony but I could be mistaken. WA decriminalized most, if not all, of its criminal slander and libel laws. See https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/dispo.aspx?cite=9.58.100
Long gone are the days when military service meant a person was a defender of the Constitution.
Right, that ended with Oliver North around 1986. The U. S. Naval Academy does teach government, so he should’ve known all appropriations bills must originate in the House of Representatives, not a secret arms-for-hostages deal.
Who is becoming Russia? Would Mark Kelly now like to throw those, who may not agree on his every word, in jail as is done in other countries? At the next election, research and think carefully about who you will give your vote to. Don’t vote early because something will crop up at the last minutes–it always does. Then again, would people have voted differently if they had known about the classified documents that were found before the Nov. election but leaked out in December? Just keep your eyes and ears open, do your research so you are satisfied with your vote, whichever way you go. And be able to talk reasonably with someone, who may have had a different opinion. Who knows, you may come together.
Comrade Mark Kelly seeks to forcibly and arbitrarily abrogate the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, and impose the Communist Manifesto.
Comrade Mark Kelly seeks to forcibly and arbitrarily impose the “dictatorship of the proletariat”; the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, demoblicans, RINOs, AINOs) in America have already forcibly imposed central planning, control of the means of production (unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering.
Comrade Mark Kelly is a direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Americans and America.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people, dictatorship does.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
If Mr. Turley could just come out and admit that Mark Kelly was completely fraudulently elected in 2020, then we wouldn’t be having this problem in the first place.
The Constitution provides the power to States to severely restrict the vote in this “democracy” as was logically and coherently done in Greece at inception, and as subsequently perpetuated by Rome and the United States.
The vote must be reasonably and rationally restricted, voters must be of reasonable age of full maturity and experience which is 21, voters must be ambitious, accomplished, responsible, homogeneous, and vested, voters must present and be identified at a polling place, elections must be held in a “place,” the post office will never be a “place,” elections must be held on a “day,” one 24-hour period, and results must be posted at the end of election “day,” State constitutions must be strictly obeyed and adhered to.
None of that happened in the “fake” stolen election of 2020.
Democrats cheat every way they can dream up and democrats or liberals have cheated exponentially since 1860.
Everything democrats have accomplished is unconstitutional; start with these budget Frankensteins, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, etc.