I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Your numbingly stupid mantra that globalism somehow destroyed the working class, driving them into Trump's arms, is not only misguided, it is frankly immoral. It is immoral because it perpetuates a lie: that the white working class that finds itself attracted to Trump has been victimized by outside forces. It hasn’t. The white middle class may like the idea of Trump as a giant pulsing humanoid middle finger held up in the face of the Cathedral, they may sing hymns to Trump the destroyer and whisper darkly about “globalists” and — odious, stupid term — “the Establishment,” but nobody did this to them. They failed themselves. If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy — which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog — you will come to an awful realization. It wasn’t Beijing. It wasn’t even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn’t immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn’t any of that. Nothing happened to them. There wasn’t some awful disaster. There wasn’t a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence — and the incomprehensible malice — of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain’t what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump’s speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. What they need isn’t analgesics, literal or political. They need real opportunity, which means that they need real change, which means that they need U-Haul.

I crap bigger'n you.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Thanks for the article recommendation. I'll take a look. Heck, if it contains some good stuff, I may even quote it (or the article it quotes) and pretend that I wrote it myself.

You should also read this week's Economist. Lots of interesting articles about Brexit. Sunderland, where Nissan built a plant employing 7000, voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. Cornwall did too - even though its economic problems go back to the 1980s and the collapse of
mining, and it gets around $130M a year of EU subsidies- because the Brexit campaign fraudulently promised that all that money would be replaced.

It reminds me of nothing more than Kentucky and the Tea Party. Gimme my check, now get the gummint out of here until my next check.

[Hank Chinaski]

So, I didn't really listen in macroeconomics. When someone says the economy really did well under President ____, what is the implication? Is it spending to stimulate jobs/ cash flowing, or cutting back to fight down inflation? Or is the economy really not under anyone's real control?

What does a president really do?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, I didn't really listen in macroeconomics. When someone says the economy really did well under President ____, what is the implication? Is it spending to stimulate jobs/ cash flowing, or cutting back to fight down inflation? Or is the economy really not under anyone's real control?

What does a president really do?

What do any of us really do? Mix Bloody Marys at a nearby parade and post holiday-appropriate funk? Yes. A special Daily Dose for the 4th. Parliament with Gloryhallastoopid (Pin the tail on the funny):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gZtmBZuNMc

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, I didn't really listen in macroeconomics. When someone says the economy really did well under President ____, what is the implication? Is it spending to stimulate jobs/ cash flowing, or cutting back to fight down inflation? Or is the economy really not under anyone's real control?

What does a president really do?

It's like when a camp counselor says "whew none of my kids got lost."

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I think he's just described a bond offering actually rather than a commercial lending deal.

Works just fine, but not the only arrow in the quiver.

Good point.

It also ignores the fact that not every credit is one which every bank wants. But that doesn't matter. Do the smaller banks get to opt out of the shittier credits?

I think for the right deal, in the right situation, it could work. But there's no way it works if you force it on every deal.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Precisely. It's done all the time with convertible daily resent preferred, which is nothin more than a cp derivative. I've also done deals over terms ranging from weekly to 45 years. And why is this so dramatically different than slicing up a securitization by credit risk, offering different returns for tranches with more or less risk.

Because there isn't more or less risk! You're forcing a pricing model based on nothing other than what you think should happen.

Originally Posted by taxwonk

In my scenario, the allocation of risk is determined by the return the lender is willing to accept. Risk is parceled out in accord with the interest premium if takes to fund each successive layer.

If I were a bank that could take more than $300 million, why the hell would I agree to take a slice of a loan at a lower interest rate on a credit I think requires a higher interest rate? Because it's good for smaller banks? Because you said so?

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I've done this deal for 25 years, with investment banks and commercial banks, back when it made a difference, insurance companies, vc. and pe. Terms have been everything from overnight working capital to bridge financing, waste control tax-exempt products, and just because it was cheaper than straight debt or equity. I've done it as direct deals, packaged them as collateralized trusts, and floated them publicly. I've done tax-exempt and taxable, special purpose and general credit.

In all those instances, you did the deal because there was a market for it. You're trying to force a market for a product when it doesn't necessarily have one.

Originally Posted by taxwonk

But what do I know. I'm just a simple country tax lawyer.

I'm sure you're the most sophisticated of attorneys. But that doesn't make your idea a good one.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Good point.

It also ignores the fact that not every credit is one which every bank wants. But that doesn't matter. Do the smaller banks get to opt out of the shittier credits?

I think for the right deal, in the right situation, it could work. But there's no way it works if you force it on every deal.

TM

In my practice, the only people in their right minds who lend to my clients are either Venture Lenders or private equity funds with wild structures, equity kickers, and often technically usurious rates on their financing.

A healthy economy needs many arrows in the quiver. I'm a big fan of evening the playing field for billion dollar banks as opposed to 100-billion dollar banks. But restricting product offerings is not part of that equation for me.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

Ah, very good! And if you turn that into a metaphor...?

Uh...it comes to bite you in the ass?

Unless you're now arguing that the increased costs associated with less frequently traveled routes should be spread across all airlines, I don't really understand your point. Air travel is very cheap to places that do not have the costs associated with connecting flights. It's not because there is a tremendous amount of competition. Competition helps, obviously. But the reason why it's cheap to fly to Chicago and not Cincinnati is because there is way more traffic to Chicago, resulting in larger planes and a bigger hub, etc.--all the economies of scale shit that make the per person costs lower.

From this string, your argument would be to force the bigger airlines to give up those economies of scale ("Then I guess we'll just have to outlaw loans that big") and spread costs from the crappy routes to consumers of the cheap routes.

You want to reduce loan size to help smaller banks compete. But all you're saying is that bigger banks must subsidize smaller banks. Just say that. Don't act like you have a market-based solution to the problem.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Given that I have generally changed my mind about what causes terror in the name of Islam, does anyone have thoughts on this?

The six attackers in Dhaka, Bangladesh "all in their late teens or early 20s, were products of Bangladesh’s elite, several having attended one of the country’s top English-medium private schools as well as universities both in the country and abroad.

Among them was the son of a former city leader in the prime minister’s own Awami League, the governing party.

“That’s what we’re absolutely riveted by,” said Kazi Anis Ahmed, a writer and publisher of the daily newspaper The Dhaka Tribune. “That these kids from very affluent families with no material want can still be turned to this kind of ideology, motivated not just to the point of killing but also want to be killed.”

That children of the country’s upper classes appear to have joined militant Islamists in an act of such brutality highlighted the radicalization among the largely moderate Muslim population here, a process that has accelerated in recent years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/wo...=top-news&_r=0

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Given that I have generally changed my mind about what causes terror in the name of Islam, does anyone have thoughts on this?

The six attackers in Dhaka, Bangladesh "all in their late teens or early 20s, were products of Bangladesh’s elite, several having attended one of the country’s top English-medium private schools as well as universities both in the country and abroad.

Among them was the son of a former city leader in the prime minister’s own Awami League, the governing party.

“That’s what we’re absolutely riveted by,” said Kazi Anis Ahmed, a writer and publisher of the daily newspaper The Dhaka Tribune. “That these kids from very affluent families with no material want can still be turned to this kind of ideology, motivated not just to the point of killing but also want to be killed.”

That children of the country’s upper classes appear to have joined militant Islamists in an act of such brutality highlighted the radicalization among the largely moderate Muslim population here, a process that has accelerated in recent years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/wo...=top-news&_r=0

TM

For me, the challenge is always to try to understand the causes of terrorism in Islamic countries as being as complex as the causes of native terrorism here in the US. Islam is clearly an important tool for terrorists, both ideologically and practically (the fact that it's easy to get everyone together once a year in Mecca, for example, has always helped internationalize what otherwise might be local movements). Are these folks like the Brandeis weatherman in the 60s, who killed to fuel a fairly romantic notion of themselves as leaders of the masses? Are they crazies who found each other? Did they react against the western education they received, perhaps getting too heavy a dose of anti-Islamic balderdash from their teachers or the media?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

For me, the challenge is always to try to understand the causes of terrorism in Islamic countries as being as complex as the causes of native terrorism here in the US. Islam is clearly an important tool for terrorists, both ideologically and practically (the fact that it's easy to get everyone together once a year in Mecca, for example, has always helped internationalize what otherwise might be local movements). Are these folks like the Brandeis weatherman in the 60s, who killed to fuel a fairly romantic notion of themselves as leaders of the masses? Are they crazies who found each other? Did they react against the western education they received, perhaps getting too heavy a dose of anti-Islamic balderdash from their teachers or the media?

I'm fairly certain the many reasons why anyone (rich, poor, educated, ignorant, etc.) takes to terrorism are complex. We are (and maybe I more than I should am) constantly trying to reduce it to something fairly easy to understand.

There seems to be a true hatred for the West (which cannot be distilled into any one reason) and for Muslims who are looked upon as not true to Islam. Why people take to violence when it comes to the former, I feel like I understand, given all of the violence that comes from the West. The latter I do not understand at all (outside of extremists who are easily dismissed). But the idea that people should be put to death if they are against Islam (or worse, are seen as not fully committed) is something I cannot wrap my brain around.

That said, I don't understand why Indians hate Pakistanis, Hutus hate Tutsis, North Koreans hate South Koreans, Serbs hate Croats, etc.

The world is shit.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm fairly certain the many reasons why anyone (rich, poor, educated, ignorant, etc.) takes to terrorism are complex. We are (and maybe I more than I should am) constantly trying to reduce it to something fairly easy to understand.

There seems to be a true hatred for the West (which cannot be distilled into any one reason) and for Muslims who are looked upon as not true to Islam. Why people take to violence when it comes to the former, I feel like I understand, given all of the violence that comes from the West. The latter I do not understand at all (outside of extremists who are easily dismissed). But the idea that people should be put to death if they are against Islam (or worse, are seen as not fully committed) is something I cannot wrap my brain around.

That said, I don't understand why Indians hate Pakistanis, Hutus hate Tutsis, North Koreans hate South Koreans, Serbs hate Croats, etc.

The world is shit.

TM

Biology. People are hard wired for tribal thinking. The more enlightened we become, the more we correct for the remnant instincts which had served us well during the period in which we evolved from bands of cavemen to nascent states.

But it's going to take at least a few thousand more years to entirely breed out those instincts. And our economic and political systems don't help the situation.

It's all lizard brain stuff. The world isn't shit. Fifty percent of humans are.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So, I didn't really listen in macroeconomics. When someone says the economy really did well under President ____, what is the implication? Is it spending to stimulate jobs/ cash flowing, or cutting back to fight down inflation? Or is the economy really not under anyone's real control?

What does a president really do?

I don't know what the good ones do exactly. Usually, it seems very little. But I know what the bad ones do. Bush II papered over the economic malaise following the tech crash with a housing bubble. That didn't work out so well.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I'm fairly certain the many reasons why anyone (rich, poor, educated, ignorant, etc.) takes to terrorism are complex. We are (and maybe I more than I should am) constantly trying to reduce it to something fairly easy to understand.

There seems to be a true hatred for the West (which cannot be distilled into any one reason) and for Muslims who are looked upon as not true to Islam. Why people take to violence when it comes to the former, I feel like I understand, given all of the violence that comes from the West. The latter I do not understand at all (outside of extremists who are easily dismissed). But the idea that people should be put to death if they are against Islam (or worse, are seen as not fully committed) is something I cannot wrap my brain around.

That said, I don't understand why Indians hate Pakistanis, Hutus hate Tutsis, North Koreans hate South Koreans, Serbs hate Croats, etc.

The world is shit.

TM

I had like four OMG moments over the weekend where family members who know better expressed what I viewed as totally racist thought processes.

It may be more of a wonder when people don't hate each other sometimes.