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

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

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

Gloryhallastoopid is now going to replace every utterance of profanity I contemplate for the rest of my days on this gloryhallastoopid planet.

[taxwonk]

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

I realize I'm just a simple country tax lawyer, but last time I checked players were free to bid or not bid on a financing.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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

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?

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.

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

TM

You're right. I'm trying to force a structure. Most forced redistribution works that way. You could do it with use fees or excise taxes, if you prefer. But forced redistribution does have some element of compulsion in it. That's why it's called forced. Because the greedy gloryhallastoopid big banks ain't gonna redistribute profits, opportunities, risks, or paper clips voluntarily.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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

Never said it was a market-based solution. I just tried to come up with a solution less intrusive than "Chase, you give us another $30 million dollars; we're going to give it to FNB St. Simon's Island, Frederica Branch."

[taxwonk]

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

Children of privilege have always been contributors to radical movements of all kinds. It's a parallel to White Guilt.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

The world is shit.

TM

See, you've reduced it to something simple to understand.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ah, you mean other than Russia's presence in Syria and their plans and troops and stuff and all the back and forth between Kerry and Russia and the coalition over the last couple of years? Or like Russia's presence in the Caucuses and dealing with all the terror there and in Central Asia, like when Russia invaded Afghanistan (remember that?)? Or dealing with terror attacks in places like Moscow and Dagestan?

In other words, huh? How long did Rip van Winkle sleep again?

I know Russia deals with terrorism. Beslam posts were all deleted, but I remember them. I meant specifically dealing with ISIS.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

also, not looking to defend Trump, but on the Star of David/Hil issue, is there any reason to believe Trump would want to paint Hil as friendly to Israel or Jewish people in general? It seems more that he will say she/Obama were hostile to Israel.

You're not looking at Trump's true base, which these days is far more likely to wave the stars & bars than they are the Mogen David.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I know Russia deals with terrorism. Beslam posts were all deleted, but I remember them. I meant specifically dealing with ISIS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My6M9HCviEs

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

So what are your views on democracy? Ah, never mind.

Daily Dose time. Grooved-out bass line? Check. Distorted wah wah guitars? Check. Driving horn lines? Check. Incorporation of the word "funk" into the band or song name? Check! It's Con-funk-shun with "Clique":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YNM0MGv8lo

A heavy dose of funk need not be obscure. You can go all Dick Clark and still feed the need.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

You're right. I'm trying to force a structure. Most forced redistribution works that way. You could do it with use fees or excise taxes, if you prefer. But forced redistribution does have some element of compulsion in it. That's why it's called forced. Because the greedy gloryhallastoopid big banks ain't gonna redistribute profits, opportunities, risks, or paper clips voluntarily.

look. This is draggin on long enough.

You want to control banks? We already have them by the short and hairies.

American commercial banking is almost completely dependent on the fed's window to make money. It sets their cost of capital, provides them liquidity, and pretty much creates their entire business for them. Just condition access to the window on banks doing X and they'll do X. Whether X is blowing Roger Ailes or making funds available to poor people, though, frankly, they'd prefer to blow Roger.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

look. This is draggin on long enough.

You want to control banks? We already have them by the short and hairies.

American commercial banking is almost completely dependent on the fed's window to make money. It sets their cost of capital, provides them liquidity, and pretty much creates their entire business for them. Just condition access to the window on banks doing X and they'll do X. Whether X is blowing Roger Ailes or making funds available to poor people, though, frankly, they'd prefer to blow Roger.

So, in other words, if the Fed were to say "start opening up syndications to bulge bracket banks on similar terms, it could be done?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

A heavy dose of funk need not be obscure. You can go all Dick Clark and still feed the need.

I agree, and I have tried to alternate between more obscure funk 45s and more established artists such as James Brown, the Meters and the various P-Funk incarnations. That said, I have tried to avoid moving into the disco genre, although the lines are certainly blurred. Mainly, I have attempted to keep roughly within a 1968-75 time frame. What I think of as, for lack of a better phrase, roots funk.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I agree, and I have tried to alternate between more obscure funk 45s and more established artists such as James Brown, the Meters and the various P-Funk incarnations. That said, I have tried to avoid moving into the disco genre, although the lines are certainly blurred. Mainly, I have attempted to keep roughly within a 1968-75 time frame. What I think of as, for lack of a better phrase, roots funk.

I wasn't being critical. Your Con-Funk-Shun link just reminded me of that tune.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

So, in other words, if the Fed were to say "start opening up syndications to bulge bracket banks on similar terms, it could be done?

They'd resell loans to Trump's casinos in exchange for chips if it was a condition of window access.