Objectively intelligent.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If people are to understand the chain of events that caused Iran and Iraq to become the problem states they are today, we have to start with the dimwitted Brits' carving of boundaries.

Not sure why you're absolving the French of responsibility, but yes, the current issues in the regime date to the decline of the Ottomans.

They weren't dim-witted, though. They were drawing lines to suit their interests, not the interests of locals. That's how imperialism works.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Not sure why you're absolving the French of responsibility, but yes, the current issues in the regime date to the decline of the Ottomans.

They weren't dim-witted, though. They were drawing lines to suit their interests, not the interests of locals. That's how imperialism works.

The Ottomans were no piece of cake, either, but arguments and territory and populations exchanges between Turks, Arabs, and Persians (with a few Greeks, Balkans, and assorted others thrown in) went on for 1000 years before France and England showed up and joined the party.

There is some degree to which western imperialism wasn't all that different from preceding forms. The Brits are much less special than they think they are.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are some advantages to the shift to cyber warfare. For one, the CIA can create bots at 1/1000th the price of hiring local thugs.

More generally, why has there been no discussion of our role in creating the Iranian Revolution? Or the mess in Iraq?

If people are to understand the chain of events that caused Iran and Iraq to become the problem states they are today, we have to start with the dimwitted Brits' carving of boundaries. I believe it was Churchill who assessed Iraq as an ungovernable area of warring tribes long before its arbitrary boundaries were cut. That was the start of the shit show.

Few Americans would care to hear about how we installed the Shah, or understand that this stooge we installed over a democratically elected leader was a repressive incompetent who ruined the country's economy. And it's notable this favoring of a monarch would put them in a camp with Revolutionary Tories, no? Best to have a crown. The people can't think for themselves. But fuck all of that naysaying. Better to dust off the "Nuke Iran" stickers from '79.

That's not to say Trump was wrong. If Iran's leaders have to be checked, then check them. And few things send a message to the fundamentalist vermin who repress both the population and the valid, elected leaders of that country like killing a man who was basically their Secretary of State. And if Iraq's sovereignty must be breached to stanch Iran's influence, then do that too. Just be aware, you're possibly angering a population of Iranians who'd rather be your friends.

And as a disclaimer at the bottom of every story about Iran and Iraq, a recognition that this is a "We broke it, so we now own it" situation should be included. Khomeini didn't appear out of nowhere. He emerged from a nation we repressed. Iraq's Shi'a majority hasn't fallen in with the Iranians for no good reason. That accrues from our backing Hussein and the Ba'athists who persecuted the population of the country.

If we must act in our naked self interest, let's at least be honest about it.

If you want to talk about the big picture, there is a longstanding rivalry in the Persian Gulf between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shi'a Iran, and we side with the Saudis.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yes, the failure in your analysis is in appreciating that banks are different from other businesses.

And, in fact, the fact that they paid all that money back with interest at least somewhat undermines the argument that they were all failed businesses. Turns out those assets weren't all completely worthless after all.



But they were eaten by their betters. There's no more Wachovia, Washington Mutual and a bunch of others. Much more so than other industries, failed banks get literally taken over by other banks that aren't failing.

1. Banks are not different than other businesses. We protected GM and AIG for the same reason we did banks. TBTF.

2. The assets only recovered value because we propped them up with accommodating monetary policy and direct purchases of MBS.

3. Businesses can have all the assets in the world, but if they can’t liquidate them to cover operations and no one will lend to them, They Go Under. Bear Stearns and Lehman were also holding assets which eventually recovered value later (somewhat). But they got caught in a cash crunch.

If you can’t fund operations and the market deems you untrustworthy and thinks it’s preferable to watch you die, you are failed. Those are failed banks. Almost all of them. They exist by grace of the taxpayer. They are, in the deepest Trump accent, truly (unlike most of his targets for the insult), Losers.

Wachovia, WAMU, Bear, and Lehman are at least honorable losers. They went down. Goldman begged Uncle Henry for an 80 cents on the dollar payout using AIG as the stealth delivery method. That’s crony capitalism at its worst. I’d have done the same, as would you, but I’d like think we’d both admit to our skullduggery. Not Goldman. They’re entitled and unashamed, the ultimate “welfare mothers” of Wall Street.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

There is some degree to which western imperialism wasn't all that different from preceding forms. The Brits are much less special than they think they are.

They were a more nuanced, dressed up, and detached form of ruthlessness than prior imperialists. The Nazis are credited with mechanizing evil to banality, and the Brits were certainly not on par, but the cruelty they dished out under the guise of civilizing others is on the same continuum.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Banks are not different than other businesses. We protected GM and AIG for the same reason we did banks. TBTF.

2. The assets only recovered value because we propped them up with accommodating monetary policy and direct purchases of MBS.

3. Businesses can have all the assets in the world, but if they can’t liquidate them to cover operations and no one will lend to them, They Go Under. Bear Stearns and Lehman were also holding assets which eventually recovered value later (somewhat). But they got caught in a cash crunch.

If you can’t fund operations and the market deems you untrustworthy and thinks it’s preferable to watch you die, you are failed. Those are failed banks. Almost all of them. They exist by grace of the taxpayer. They are, in the deepest Trump accent, truly (unlike most of his targets for the insult), Losers.

Wachovia, WAMU, Bear, and Lehman are at least honorable losers. They went down. Goldman begged Uncle Henry for an 80 cents on the dollar payout using AIG as the stealth delivery method. That’s crony capitalism at its worst. I’d have done the same, as would you, but I’d like think we’d both admit to our skullduggery. Not Goldman. They’re entitled and unashamed, the ultimate “welfare mothers” of Wall Street.

Dude. I agree with you on the politics of this, but banks are quite different from other businesses, for important reasons. No one makes a run on a bookstore. And when a bookstore fails, it doesn't jeopardize a lot of other businesses. We have a regulatory apparatus designed to avoid repeating mistakes of the Great Depression. It was tested in 2007-08 and it basically worked. When Lehman and others failed, it was managed. Things could have been a lot worse.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

1. Banks are not different than other businesses. We protected GM and AIG for the same reason we did banks. TBTF.

No, we didn't. Where we protected AIG (and it wasn't everywhere) it was because (1) it was involved in lines of businesses like the banks, and (2) it was financially intertwined with the banks (i.e., it had written "insurance" on the questionable assets on the banks' books). We bailed out the banks and AIG so that we could maintain functioning financial and payment systems and avoid a depression.

We bailed out GM and Chrysler (don't recall whether Ford got help) because of the direct loss of jobs in the auto industry associated with their failure. That would have been bad, but that's not the stuff of total economic collapse.

2. The assets only recovered value because we propped them up with accommodating monetary policy

This is one of the crazy/stupid things you say a lot. The assets recovered their value because the underlying mortgages performed better than people feared during the bank run height of the crisis. There's nothing to recover if people aren't paying their mortgages.

Yes, accommodating monetary policy helps people keep paying their mortgage in a number of different ways, but that doesn't seem to fit with your implied conspiracy.

and direct purchases of MBS.

That gets the banks/investors paid, but it does nothing for the performance of the MBS going forward.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Interesting news about Bolton, but there's an error in the paragraph below:

Mr. Bolton declined to say on Monday precisely what he would be willing to tell Congress. But his lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, told the House’s top lawyer in November that Mr. Bolton knew about “many relevant meetings and conversations” connected to the Ukraine matter that had not been shared with House impeachment investigators. And former White House officials and people close to Mr. Bolton have indicated that his testimony would likely be damning to Mr. Trump and put additional pressure on moderate Republicans to consider convicting him.

The last three express words should be "expressing concern."

But seriously, this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Interesting news about Bolton, but there's an error in the paragraph below:



The last three express words should be "expressing concern."

But seriously, this.

I'd have to pay to read it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'd have to pay to read it.

The gist is, focus on the GOP Senators who face a serious challenge this fall, and what they are saying (or not saying):

There are roughly half a dozen vulnerable Senate Republicans: Cory Gardner (R-CO), Martha McSally (R-AZ), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Joni Ernst (R-IA) and David Perdue (R-GA). ...

There are half a dozen Senators who have real races in November. Because impeachment and Trump divide their home state electorates they are trying to avoid the question in public, seek safety in numbers, so they can tell a story of their own choosing in November. Allowing them that unearned privilege is a terrible, terrible mistake. Conventional wisdom about what “Republicans” will do is vaguery that is a direct attack on individual accountability. All will likely fall in line behind Trump to hold a rigged trial. But we don’t know that. Locking them in now creates accountability and will yield dividends in November.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No, we didn't. Where we protected AIG (and it wasn't everywhere) it was because (1) it was involved in lines of businesses like the banks, and (2) it was financially intertwined with the banks (i.e., it had written "insurance" on the questionable assets on the banks' books). We bailed out the banks and AIG so that we could maintain functioning financial and payment systems and avoid a depression.

I'm well versed in the Cassano debacle.

We bailed out GM and Chrysler (don't recall whether Ford got help) because of the direct loss of jobs in the auto industry associated with their failure. That would have been bad, but that's not the stuff of total economic collapse.

Paying Goldman and the rest of the banks out of AIG at 25 cents on the dollar would have been more than adequate. Goldman itself claimed at first that it would have been just fine if AIG had gone under and paid out nothing. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-doc...-aig-collapse/

Of course, as the article notes, Goldman soon changed that tune.

This is one of the crazy/stupid things you say a lot. The assets recovered their value because the underlying mortgages performed better than people feared during the bank run height of the crisis. There's nothing to recover if people aren't paying their mortgages.

Yes, accommodating monetary policy helps people keep paying their mortgage in a number of different ways, but that doesn't seem to fit with your implied conspiracy.

The assets held value because we came in and saved the market in securities backed by them. I believe the Fed was making the market in MBS.

The underlying residential mortgages continued to perform like shit for a long period of time.

That gets the banks/investors paid, but it does nothing for the performance of the MBS going forward.

It bought time for the economy to recover a bit so some of the mortgages underlying the MBS could start performing again. If the Fed had not bought all those securities, the market for them would have frozen. As it should have. Which is why I call all of the people who bet on that market remaining robust "losers." They were. They are. They are failed business people.

And no, it's no defense that they were victims of a financial crisis. Charles Prince at Citi explained exactly what these people were doing: "When the music's playing, you've got to dance." They were knowingly taking risks in a market that even people like Bill Gross said as early as 2007 looked like a fraud, a house of cards.

All of these failed business people knew or should have known housing was going down. People had been chattering about it for three years prior to Bear Stearns' issues. Fuck... I represented subprime credit card and auto lenders in 2000-2003 and recall thinking "subprime mortgage" sounded like "lead zeppelin."

But hey... I'll be gone, you'll be gone. I know one mortgage broker who made so much in the housing bubble that he retired at 35. So maybe "loser" doesn't fit. Maybe "knowing participant in massive suspension of disbelief/fraud" is a better descriptive. Either way, these people should all have lost their jobs. But 9 out of 10 of them didn't. We bailed them out, they stayed in place, and they've enjoyed a grand run up in the stock market ever since.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Dude. I agree with you on the politics of this, but banks are quite different from other businesses, for important reasons. No one makes a run on a bookstore. And when a bookstore fails, it doesn't jeopardize a lot of other businesses. We have a regulatory apparatus designed to avoid repeating mistakes of the Great Depression. It was tested in 2007-08 and it basically worked. When Lehman and others failed, it was managed. Things could have been a lot worse.

You're mixing two issues. Banks are unique in terms of risk. But in terms of judging how banks are run, you judge them just like any other business. If a bank is well run, it is a success. If it is poorly run and requires a bailout, it has been run to some extent by losers, fools, incompetents. It is a failed business.

But you are correct that there is a justified "heads I win, tails you lose" element to banking. The Feds (or state if so chartered) will have to run in and save any bank going under. So unlike the guy who owns a business and can't make payroll, a bank will never crash and burn. At worst, it'll be forced to sell itself to some other bank or in an extreme situation it will be run off through a receivership. The same applies to insurers.

Adder was arguing that the banks in 2008 weren't failed businesses. That they were holding assets which actually had value. He's wrong. If the assets had value, the banks could have received loans in exchange for collateral positions, or even received unsecured loans based on balance sheet strength. But we know that wasn't true. We know that the banks in 2008 were loaded up with overvalued securities and collateral. They suffered a cash crunch. Just like a business that has tons of receivables which become delinquent, cash flow to these banks was outstripped by their obligations. And in that moment where a business doesn't have enough cash to keep going, that business has failed.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

We bailed out GM and Chrysler (don't recall whether Ford got help) because of the direct loss of jobs in the auto industry associated with their failure. That would have been bad, but that's not the stuff of total economic collapse.

Ford did not.

One of the requirements to get the money was for the two companies to close out tons of dealers. They had too much inventory sitting on too many lots. And they did close them, which was painful and lots of lawsuits.

But lately I've seen them opening new ones. Like there was a half life on the commitment to close them?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The assets held value because we came in and saved the market in securities backed by them. I believe the Fed was making the market in MBS.

You're confusing at-the-time market value (yes, the Fed was making the market) and fundamental performance. The bonds that were valueless, but for the Fed's action, wound up performing to some degree. They paid out some portion of interest and principle, such that, in hind-sight, they were not valueless.

That the Fed bought them changed nothing (well, at least not directly) about the bonds' ability to perform.

The underlying residential mortgages continued to perform like shit for a long period of time.

Yeah, you can use a lack of precision to pretend you aren't following along, but I don't believe you. Defaults were higher than anticipated. That was a real problem for the lower tranches of structured products, but we're still talking percentage points off the whole.

It bought time for the economy to recover a bit so some of the mortgages underlying the MBS could start performing again.

I guess I don't think anyone thinks/thought the Fed's acquisition of distressed assets had meaningful macroeconomic effects. But if by "bought time" you mean kept the banks from failing and making things much, much worse, sure.

If the Fed had not bought all those securities, the market for them would have frozen. As it should have.

What's "should?" You see some sort of moral value in market failure? Because, again, the market value of the bonds did not match the underlying fundamentals. That's not a "should" outcome. That's a market failure, making government intervention appropriate (and, in this case, ultimately successful).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You're mixing two issues. Banks are unique in terms of risk. But in terms of judging how banks are run, you judge them just like any other business. If a bank is well run, it is a success. If it is poorly run and requires a bailout, it has been run to some extent by losers, fools, incompetents. It is a failed business.

But you are correct that there is a justified "heads I win, tails you lose" element to banking. The Feds (or state if so chartered) will have to run in and save any bank going under. So unlike the guy who owns a business and can't make payroll, a bank will never crash and burn. At worst, it'll be forced to sell itself to some other bank or in an extreme situation it will be run off through a receivership. The same applies to insurers.

Adder was arguing that the banks in 2008 weren't failed businesses. That they were holding assets which actually had value. He's wrong. If the assets had value, the banks could have received loans in exchange for collateral positions, or even received unsecured loans based on balance sheet strength. But we know that wasn't true. We know that the banks in 2008 were loaded up with overvalued securities and collateral. They suffered a cash crunch. Just like a business that has tons of receivables which become delinquent, cash flow to these banks was outstripped by their obligations. And in that moment where a business doesn't have enough cash to keep going, that business has failed.

What is a bank run, even??