I found the next bubble...

[ivwshane]

Gee I see a common theme here among the bubbles of the last 15 years. The Fed makes available cheap money while our politicians look the other way. Now if this bursts how much does anybody want to bet Nancy Pelosi gets on the TV and says "they are too big to fail"?

And this isnt capitalism at its finest. This is crony captialism at its finest. Without the state providing an avenue for these banks to pull this crap. It wouldnt work nearly as easy, if at all, as the cost of ferrying around commodities and sitting on inventory would be too great.

Crony capitalism = capitalism. A truely free market allows for cheating and manipulation, no rules means the smartest business wins and smart businesses will win when they are willing to do whatever it takes. Supply and demand is only a temporary step until control of either can be had.

 

[BoberFett]

Crony capitalism = capitalism. A truely free market allows for cheating and manipulation, no rules means the smartest business wins and smart businesses will win when they are willing to do whatever it takes. Supply and demand is only a temporary step until control of either can be had.

In your ridiculous notion of a truly free market, I'd simply murder the guy that defrauded me.

Sorry, but nobody with even a smidgen of intelligence considers fraud or crime a part of a free market. And that explains your position...

 

[ivwshane]

In your ridiculous notion of a truly free market, I'd simply murder the guy that defrauded me.

Sorry, but nobody with even a smidgen of intelligence considers fraud or crime a part of a free market. And that explains your position...

And exactly what is fraudulent that's happening here? If it's not illegal then it's not fraudulent. You somehow thinking murdering is the smart thing to do, disregarding the fact that murder is illegal, tells me you failed to understand the point; in the absence of regulation businesses will use any means necessary to gain market control.
All I have to do is point to history for proof.

 

[Genx87]

Crony capitalism = capitalism. A truely free market allows for cheating and manipulation, no rules means the smartest business wins and smart businesses will win when they are willing to do whatever it takes. Supply and demand is only a temporary step until control of either can be had.

If you believe crony capitalism is the same as free market capitalism. I dont know what to tell you.

A more free market would punish these banks when they inflate a bubble and it pops. A more free market wouldnt have the fed printing money for the banks to take over an entire supply chain and inflate prices because they can afford to horde resources. Did you read your own article?

You are complaining about free market's potentially doing what crony capitalism is already doing.

 

[ivwshane]

If you believe crony capitalism is the same as free market capitalism. I dont know what to tell you.

A truely free market would punish these banks when they inflate a bubble and it pops. A free market wouldnt have the fed printing money for the banks to take over an entire supply chain and inflate prices because they can afford to horde resources. Did you read your own article?

You are complaining about free market's potentially doing what crony capitalism is already doing.

And how would this free market you speak of punish these banks? By people going to other banks who are doing the same thing? How many bank mergers do there need to be before the market doesn't have any options? How much control of an industry does a bank need before the market is no longer able to counter the banks behavior?

You live in a fantasy world, one in which Alan Greenspan lived in until 2007-2008.

 

[Genx87]

And how would this free market you speak of punish these banks? By people going to other banks who are doing the same thing? How many bank mergers do there need to be before the market doesn't have any options? How much control of an industry does a bank need before the market is no longer able to counter the banks behavior?

You live in a fantasy world, one in which Alan Greenspan lived in until 2007-2008.

Gee is this difficult for you to understand? A more free market would had have these banks collapse under their own terrible decisions. Not have the tax payers bail them out so they can consolidate and become more powerful.

The mergers happened using tax payers money for fucks sake. The banks that should had collapsed grew stronger because of state intervention(crony capitalism).

It seems to me your article tells us how much control a bank can exert over a market when the govt is making it cheap enough for them horde resources and buy up the supply chain to inflate prices. And while they do that the regulators turn a blind eye. It took Coca-Cola before anybody within govt decided to go "gee maybe we should look at this situation". One of the largest companies in the world. The rest of us are fucked.

I am not sure you are understanding my point at all if you think Alan Greenspan and I are on the same side of this argument. Alan Greenspan opened the spigate of cheap money(sound familiar?) that exploded the housing market. Even your sides idol Krugmen talked about this back in 2002.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/o....html?scp=4&sq=krugman mcculley bubble&st=cse

Like I said in my first response. It seems these bubbles and consolidation of wealth\power has the same recipe. Cheap money from the fed and a willing govt. Or in other words crony capitalism.

 

[IGBT]

why not do what the obama did to solve the problem..just key board in fictitious amounts (billions) of money (air money) and pump it into the banking / stock market so nobody knows whats real or air money?? And then pretend this stunt won't effect valuations in the future!!

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Gee is this difficult for you to understand? A more free market would had have these banks collapse under their own terrible decisions. Not have the tax payers bail them out so they can consolidate and become more powerful.

The mergers happened using tax payers money for fucks sake. The banks that should had collapsed grew stronger because of state intervention(crony capitalism).

It seems to me your article tells us how much control a bank can exert over a market when the govt is making it cheap enough for them horde resources and buy up the supply chain to inflate prices. And while they do that the regulators turn a blind eye. It took Coca-Cola before anybody within govt decided to go "gee maybe we should look at this situation". One of the largest companies in the world. The rest of us are fucked.

I am not sure you are understanding my point at all if you think Alan Greenspan and I are on the same side of this argument. Alan Greenspan opened the spigate of cheap money(sound familiar?) that exploded the housing market. Even your sides idol Krugmen talked about this back in 2002.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/o....html?scp=4&sq=krugman mcculley bubble&st=cse

Like I said in my first response. It seems these bubbles and consolidation of wealth\power has the same recipe. Cheap money from the fed and a willing govt. Or in other words crony capitalism.

As much as you try to explain it to these guys (as much as the article explains it) they to invested in the delusion that those in government and government itself and members of the party they support will save them from their peril if they just give up more of their rights and seed more control to government.

These guys just don't see, or do not want to see or even want to dream of seeing, how they are being screwed not only from without but from within and they are the ultimate puppets to be manipulated into voting for the very thing that will screw them over and everyone else over as well as they drag us down with them. They are entrenched in their own form of political tribalism, chanting "Your side, my side, your side, side".

 

[BoberFett]

And exactly what is fraudulent that's happening here? If it's not illegal then it's not fraudulent. You somehow thinking murdering is the smart thing to do, disregarding the fact that murder is illegal, tells me you failed to understand the point; in the absence of regulation businesses will use any means necessary to gain market control.
All I have to do is point to history for proof.

You were talking about how capitalism = cheating. Is cheating not fraudulent?

 

[ivwshane]

You were talking about how capitalism = cheating. Is cheating not fraudulent?

No not necessarily. When there are no rules there is no such thing as cheating. When the spirit of the law is violated but not the law itself, that's considered cheating. We can continue playing semantics if you want but I would hope that you understand my point.

 

[Fern]

Deregulation to blame?

I imagine if banks were solely in the business of banking, this wouldn't happen....

Obviously. Freakin Republicans and their incessant need to de-regulate. They are on a mission to deregulate America out of existence.

Jeebus, give it a rest.

Clinton signed the bill and Robert Rubin, who had 26 yrs with - guess who - Goldman Sachs before Clinton appointed him, had as much as anybody to do with the legislation.

Looks more like the Congress didn't intend this happen and that federal regulators in 2010 (or thereabouts) are who opened up this loophole with a very 'generous' interpretation of the phrase "complementary to a financial activity".

Moreover, Leach was shocked to hear that regulators had pointed to this section of a bill bearing his name as the legal authority allowing banks to gain control over physical-commodities markets.

The JPMorgan witness, Michael Patterson, told the House Financial Services Committee at the 1999 hearing that his idea of "complementary activities" was, say, a credit-card company putting out a restaurant guide. "One example is American Express, which publishes magazines," he testified. "Travel + Leisure magazine is complementary to the travel business. Food & Wine promotes dining out . . . which might lead to greater use of the American Express card."

In any case, in 2010, a decade after the Rich pardon, Holder was attorney general, but under Barack Obama, and two Rich-created firms, along with two banks that have been major donors to the Democratic Party, all made moves to buy up metals warehouses. In near simultaneous fashion, Goldman, Chase, Glencore and Trafigura bought companies that control warehouses all over the world for the LME, or London Metals Exchange. The LME is a privately owned exchange for world metals trading. It's the world's primary hub for determining metals prices and also for trading metals-based futures, options, swaps and other instruments.

We're screwed.

Fern

 

[Fern]

And exactly what is fraudulent that's happening here? If it's not illegal then it's not fraudulent. You somehow thinking murdering is the smart thing to do, disregarding the fact that murder is illegal, tells me you failed to understand the point; in the absence of regulation businesses will use any means necessary to gain market control.
All I have to do is point to history for proof.

Let's go 'paint by numbers'.

Politicians get big contributions fro Goldman Sachs and other banks.

Politicians (President) appoint GS partner Sec of Treasury.

Bill gets passed.

Fed govt decides to interpret language in ways never contemplated, and frankly, IMO, that makes no sense.

At the exact same time as above, the fed govt decides to give these banks literally free money to go on buying binge now that fed govt has just granted approval of such through novel and highly beneficial interpretation of "Complementary to a financial activity".

Banks etc make big profit, politicians get big contributions.

Rinse, repeat.

Fern

 

[Incorruptible]

Crony capitalism = capitalism. A truely free market allows for cheating and manipulation, no rules means the smartest business wins and smart businesses will win when they are willing to do whatever it takes. Supply and demand is only a temporary step until control of either can be had.

It takes a complete moron to believe this nonsense. Crony Capitalism is what your POS obama is engaging in.

 

[werepossum]

Jeebus, give it a rest.

Clinton signed the bill and Robert Rubin, who had 26 yrs with - guess who - Goldman Sachs before Clinton appointed him, had as much as anybody to do with the legislation.

Looks more like the Congress didn't intend this happen and that federal regulators in 2010 (or thereabouts) are who opened up this loophole with a very 'generous' interpretation of the phrase "complementary to a financial activity".



We're screwed.

Fern

Isn't it amazing how often Republicans make the Democrats pardon crooks and the Democrats' big donors break the intent of the law with the connivance of Democrat politicians? That must be some mind ray . . .

If only there was some way for the Chief Executive to exercise some control over the Executive Branch of government. Except for Bush relaxing all the rules, I mean. Some way for Democrat Chief Executives to exercise some control over the Executive Branch of government, to keep the lying crooks they pardon and from whom they solicit money in line.

 

[ivwshane]

Let's go 'paint by numbers'.

Politicians get big contributions fro Goldman Sachs and other banks.

Politicians (President) appoint GS partner Sec of Treasury.

Bill gets passed.

Fed govt decides to interpret language in ways never contemplated, and frankly, IMO, that makes no sense.

At the exact same time as above, the fed govt decides to give these banks literally free money to go on buying binge now that fed govt has just granted approval of such through novel and highly beneficial interpretation of "Complementary to a financial activity".

Banks etc make big profit, politicians get big contributions.

Rinse, repeat.

Fern

You say this as if the end result wouldn't have been the same. Here's a clue it would have; once regulations were removed these controlling tactics were used. Had there never been any regulation in the first place, this practice would have happened even sooner.

 

[sandorski]

Anything Too Big to Fail is too big to not Regulate.

 

[Newell Steamer]

It's OK - because to be critical of something like this, means you are un-American.

That you feel self entitled and want stuff for free. That you are lazy and angry for not being rich and famouse, without having to work for it.

 

[OverVolt]

This stuff with the metal market, where the same company that warehouses it is also making bets on its price, and hoards supply, and all this nonsense.

That ALWAYS ends badly. These kinds of schemes always go haywire, that metal will have to hit the market eventually they can't pay to warehouse it forever.

 

[ivwshane]

This stuff with the metal market, where the same company that warehouses it is also making bets on its price, and hoards supply, and all this nonsense.

That ALWAYS ends badly. These kinds of schemes always go haywire, that metal will have to hit the market eventually they can't pay to warehouse it forever.

They don't need to do it forever. They just need to store it long enough to raise prices, and then sell.

What we end up with is a roller coaster of ups and downs where prices increase and then decrease. The ramifications of this is Enron all over again. Did your company just ink a deal to produce a widget made of some metal? Oops, it looks like the price of that metal went up! Good thing the bank that is manipulating the market price of that metal just so happens to be your bank and they are all too happy to give you a larger loan!