Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...97587418247168

1. I've never had a taco bowl before, but I'm certain my gold-plated restaurant makes the best.
2. Hispanics, Latinos, who gives a fuck?
3. I built a wall around my taco salad and I had my cheap, illegal, immigrant labor pay for it!
4. I had pizza for lunch, confirming my love for Italians!
5. Look at my fat, orange face.

Not sure about that last one, but I wanted a round number.

TM

[SEC_Chick]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...97587418247168

1. I've never had a taco bowl before, but I'm certain my gold-plated restaurant makes the best.
2. Hispanics, Latinos, who gives a fuck?
3. I built a wall around my taco salad and I had my cheap, illegal, immigrant labor pay for it!
4. I had pizza for lunch, confirming my love for Italians!
5. Look at my fat, orange face.

Not sure about that last one, but I wanted a round number.

TM

At least he's dropped "the" before Hispanics. This must be pretty infuriating to most of his supporters. I almost wish it were still Black History Month as I am curious to see how he'd celebrate.

After that taco salad tweet, I can hardly believe that Paul Ryan declined to endorse him.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.dailydot.com/politics/tru...rtnr=thrillist

fun times!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Putting aside the endless criticisms of GDP measurement

You've got to stop reading Zero Hedge or whatever it is that makes you take ridiculous paranoia seriously.

how would this graph be entirely responsive to the point made?

Well, your opening factual premise is wrong, so, what more needs to be said?

Granted, I'd have preferred an absolute measure rather than relative to GDP, but that's what was readily available from the St. Louis Fed. Point being there has been quite a bit of deleveraging.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Non crazy Trump voters: Tax voters (golf course people)

These people are stupid if they think they have any idea what Trump might do.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

You've got to stop reading Zero Hedge or whatever it is that makes you take ridiculous paranoia seriously.

Well, your opening factual premise is wrong, so, what more needs to be said?

Granted, I'd have preferred an absolute measure rather than relative to GDP, but that's what was readily available from the St. Louis Fed. Point being there has been quite a bit of deleveraging.

I'm not getting in the weeds with you about the dubious value of GDP measurement (none of which comes from Zerohedge). Suffice it to say, it's worth about as much as the headline unemployment number.

My opening factual premise is not wrong. I will respond to TM on that.

There has been some deleveraging (er... defaulting). I never argued there wasn't. But that's something individuals did. My point was aimed at govt inaction.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

These people are stupid if they think they have any idea what Trump might do.

Trump will do what DC allows him to do, and it will not be much. Remember the last guy to run on a platform, "I'm an outsider, and I'll do what I want. Not what the Establishment wants."? Didn't work so well for Carter, did it?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Ok, Mr. Erickson, you have the floor. Now, we've done this before, and you've fizzled out into dazed fickle and nonsensical naval gazing. Let's see what you can deliver this election season.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Granted, I live in NYC, but I know a number of these people and they all despise Trump and would never vote for him. Most didn't want to vote for Cruz either. Support for Kasich was highest, but probably not enough to get them out to vote for a sure loser.

TM

Every sensible person in the GOP wanted Kasich. But the sensibility that made him attractive to them I believe also brought them to a grudging acceptance of the fact he could not win. While this was going on, Hillary was being pushed to plagiarize Bernie. By default, these people see Trump as the only hope for regulatory relaxation. And though the math is bad for him on the surface, nobody can call him a sure loser anymore. The comeback to that is, "Yeah, well you told me he'd be out of the primaries by months ago!"

Hillary is probably going to relax regs as well. But why not bet on the sure thing?

From my outside NY perspective, community and small bankers have a uniquely strong hatred for Obama. A lot of the regs aimed at the big banks are applied in a one size fits all fashion to the little guys. And the new Dodd Frank rules regarding mortgage and loan processing frustrate the shit out of them. I don't know it's true or not, but that's a constant bitch I hear.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Ok, Mr. Erickson, you have the floor. Now, we've done this before, and you've fizzled out into dazed fickle and nonsensical naval gazing. Let's see what you can deliver this election season.

Hey, hey, hey now... That's unwarranted.

The GOP should apologize to Clinton. So should Ken Starr. But for reasons that have nothing to do with Trump. The apology should go as follows:

"To appeal to provincial sensibilities of religious freaks and low information voters in the Cuckoo Pants Wing of our party, we investigated and impeached Bill Clinton for no good reason. In the future, we pledge to develop a more nuanced and adult view of behaviors between consenting adults. Not exactly as tolerant as the French, as this country was founded by Puritan imbeciles, and is still polluted with people with deep sexual hang-ups. But something a little more enlightened than the Dark Ages views we've held in the past (progress is slow, folks).

So, sorry, Bill. And if it helps, Ken Starr will be writing a letter to the Arkansas Bar in support of your reinstatement. And we'll be donating $50 million, the amount we wasted on his investigation of you, to a charity supporting the construction of LGBT friendly bathroom signs."

That's the apology I'd like.

Oh, and this guy you've cited? He needs to get really drunk, pop a few Oxys, and go swimming in whatever creek abuts his doublewide trailer home.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is not quite true.

If you recall, after 2008, it was impossible to borrow. LIBOR* was fiction (and every bank knew it) and there wasn't a bank out there that would lend. There are a lot of reasons why the economy took a dive, but the lack of lending was a multiplier.

Every single company (other than maybe google and apple) borrows. They do it for all sorts of reasons, including to make payroll, to buy materials and inventory, to fund day-to-day expenses, to make capital investments, etc. ad nauseum). Banks generally don't just lend money to their clients from their reserves. What they do is, whenever they get a borrowing request, go out and borrow from another bank at LIBOR. But during the Great Recession, the books at all the banks were way unbalanced and in order to meet reserve requirements (and because the market was just shaky, period), banks just would not lend. The effect rippled through the economy, putting companies out of business, forcing them to make huge layoffs, which had the effect of reducing demand for goods, repeat cycle.

The best thing the Fed did was flood the market with 0% interest loans to banks. It allowed banks to shore up their books and then lend out at modest rates of interest.** The economy desperately needed it. And it did not cause inflation.

The fact that the rich got richer is not surprising, but it does not have anything to do with the Fed's decision to provide access to cash. Certain private hedge funds took up lending during the vacuum and were charging enormous interest rates. Also, there were tremendous deals to be had out there for those with access to cash. Private equity bought everything and made kajilions when the market turned around. It always happens this way after a recession.

I think you're right to an extent. I think the bail-out should have included big mortgage debt forgiveness for a large number of people. This would have kept people from being displaced and, in connection with other fixes, would have spurred the economy quicker. This moral hazard argument that only average people seem to suffer from espoused by that asshole Larry Kudlow is fucking ridiculous when the banks were playing fucking craps with real estate products even they didn't understand (and then selling insurance in multiples on the outcome of each roll) and then asking for handouts after they crapped out.

I'm not sure how we fix our current problem (producing nothing other than Silicon Valley millionaires). But it would be nice if last century's industries didn't own our fucking legislators so we could be on the cutting edge of clean energy. Surely that's not the end-all be-all, but it would help.

TM

*LIBOR is essentially just an interest rate determined based on an average of the interest rate at which certain large banks self-report they would lend to each other.

**One may question why the fuck banks were allowed to pay their executives huge bonuses based on the profit they made on the commercial loans they were making when money was essentially free for them, but that's a rant for another day.

To the extent my post could be read to assert that TARP, and the initial zero interest lending aimed at shoring up the banks, was directed at creating growth, that's unintended. But I can see how you reached that conclusion.

You're right. The initial Fed intervention was aimed at stopping a calamity. And I agree it was necessary and not doing it would have been insane.

I was more focused on the continued QE, which was aimed in significant part on spurring growth. I don't think that's worked as intended. And given the fact that, yes, it's not surprising the rich would get richer during a phase in which assets became so cheap so quickly, I have to wonder why we went the route we did, rather than doing widespread mortgage forgiveness. The cynic in me has the answer for that.

ETA: Larry Kudlow is, thankfully, one of only a small handful of fools left with the temerity to state that debt workouts or forgiveness for the little guy risks Moral Hazard. I don't even think Rick Santelli would argue that anymore (he'd use the other lousy defense: "But the banks paid TARP back with interest! Main Street won't do that!"). Moral Hazard as a concept is dead. The public will never listen to anyone raising it again without muffling laughter.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

From my outside NY perspective, community and small bankers have a uniquely strong hatred for Obama. A lot of the regs aimed at the big banks are applied in a one size fits all fashion to the little guys. And the new Dodd Frank rules regarding mortgage and loan processing frustrate the shit out of them. I don't know it's true or not, but that's a constant bitch I hear.

ok, look, I know your thing is blowing gonzo smoke for your own entertainment, but do realize, when you talk about community bankers you are talking about me and my family, and you should realize that this is utter bs.

The one size fits all approach to regs for big banks and small banks is a theme that crosses administrations, and Bush was if anything more guilty of it than Obama. The area where this is particularly true is FDIC fees, where small banks feel like they're subsidizing the big banks, but the fault lies at least as much with the Republican Congress as the Administration, as anyone reading their trade association lobbying pitches will know, and both are targeted for lobbying to get something more pragmatic in place.

The people who get frustrated on mortgage and loan processing are the low level lending officers who get more paperwork. Complaints about paperwork are just part of their lot in life; it kind of comes with the territory. But mortgage paperwork isn't a major institutional issue for community banks, it's a mid-level manager issue that they can handle.

The people actually running community banks are more focused on capitalization levels and what is being required there; that is where there is a real interaction between the regulation and bank performance. You'll find people who run mediocre banks are vastly more frustrated with it than those who run good, solid banks. Those with good banks want some exceptions to the higher cap levels for high performance, low risk banks, the people with the bad banks want lower levels across the board, and we all know that is actually a danger that will drive up the insurance costs and potentially hurt the industry.

Warren is indeed hated by many in the community bank community, but most of the group doesn't view Obama and Warren as one and the same. And oddly, Warren has taken a lead on a few big bank/small bank issues, so she's trying to make inroads, but I think it will be an uphill battle for her.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Every sensible person in the GOP wanted Kasich.

Tagging for SEC's response and amusement.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

ok, look, I know your thing is blowing gonzo smoke for your own entertainment, but do realize, when you talk about community bankers you are talking about me and my family, and you should realize that this is utter bs.

The one size fits all approach to regs for big banks and small banks is a theme that crosses administrations, and Bush was if anything more guilty of it than Obama. The area where this is particularly true is FDIC fees, where small banks feel like they're subsidizing the big banks, but the fault lies at least as much with the Republican Congress as the Administration, as anyone reading their trade association lobbying pitches will know, and both are targeted for lobbying to get something more pragmatic in place.

The people who get frustrated on mortgage and loan processing are the low level lending officers who get more paperwork. Complaints about paperwork are just part of their lot in life; it kind of comes with the territory. But mortgage paperwork isn't a major institutional issue for community banks, it's a mid-level manager issue that they can handle.

The people actually running community banks are more focused on capitalization levels and what is being required there; that is where there is a real interaction between the regulation and bank performance. You'll find people who run mediocre banks are vastly more frustrated with it than those who run good, solid banks. Those with good banks want some exceptions to the higher cap levels for high performance, low risk banks, the people with the bad banks want lower levels across the board, and we all know that is actually a danger that will drive up the insurance costs and potentially hurt the industry.

Warren is indeed hated by many in the community bank community, but most of the group doesn't view Obama and Warren as one and the same. And oddly, Warren has taken a lead on a few big bank/small bank issues, so she's trying to make inroads, but I think it will be an uphill battle for her.

I know your thing is to know everything, but when you talk about regional/community banks, you're talking about an industry in which I grew up, which paid for my upbringing and education, and for which an immediate family member works. So let's drop the appeal to authority in your opener. Cool with that? Good.

Now, on to substance, the paperwork/compliance issue is a pain in the ass of consequence because it means having to hire more bodies. I'm sure yours is run better than all others, but for those who don't run theirs quite as well, or don't want to acquire revenue-sucking overhead in an already challenged climate, it's a pain in the ass.

And as you know, if you're a small bank that has attracted the eye of regulators, business is difficult, to say the least. In a distressed state, that's a lot of small banks.

Good point on the subsidization argument.

Now, as I noted in my post, I'm not sure whether the complaints aimed at Obama are bullshit or not. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with misplaced hatred for Obama. I just stated what I've been hearing. YMMV in your part of the world.

I haven't heard much hatred for Warren. I'm sure they hate her, but I've just not heard that name much. My guess is, the guy at the top seems the easiest target.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I know your thing is to know everything, but when you talk about regional/community banks, you're talking about an industry in which I grew up, which paid for my upbringing and education, and for which an immediate family member works. So let's drop the appeal to authority in your opener. Cool with that? Good.

Now, on to substance, the paperwork/compliance issue is a pain in the ass of consequence because it means having to hire more bodies. I'm sure yours is run better than all others, but for those who don't run theirs quite as well, or don't want to acquire revenue-sucking overhead in an already challenged climate, it's a pain in the ass.

And as you know, if you're a small bank that has attracted the eye of regulators, business is difficult, to say the least. In a distressed state, that's a lot of small banks.

Good point on the subsidization argument.

Now, as I noted in my post, I'm not sure whether the complaints aimed at Obama are bullshit or not. I'm sure a lot of it has to do with misplaced hatred for Obama. I just stated what I've been hearing. YMMV in your part of the world.

I haven't heard much hatred for Warren. I'm sure they hate her, but I've just not heard that name much. My guess is, the guy at the top seems the easiest target.

I am glad my bank performs better than your bank.