Essential Economics for Politicians
- Thread starter Bruddah IZ
- Start date
-
- Tags
- finance too
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
Cranky before your coffee in the morning, just go back to beating your wife or shooting at illegals from your pickup truck.
Wez
DA
That passed. When DB looked like it was on the ropes a few weeks ago, it reminded me of 2008 when the banking sector was leading the way down.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
It's been recovering and there doesn't seem to be much fuss anymore. For a bit, DB was dragging the whole EU banking sector down, but the trend didn't hold.... for now.
Sheriff Joe
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Wez
DA
Not arguing, but I'm guessing you think all banks are in big trouble...
Bruddah IZ
DA
Letʻs finish up DB first. They, no doubt, were one of the TBTF banks and the only one targeted in The Big Short. They have been paying huge legal fees to the U.S. for their involvement in the Motgage backed securities (jenga) scandal. In 2010 they attempted to avoid the Dodd-Frank, 20 billion dollar reserve requirement by removing their American Subsidiaries from their holding company. The Feds put the brakes on that attempt by DB to gain a competitive advantage on other American banks. To be sure, DB is still in big trouble. But not as big trouble as its depositers.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
Another example of government agencies providing a false sense of Security
What the Theranos Debacle Reveals about Government Regulation
https://fee.org/articles/what-the-t...gulation/?utm_medium=trending_homepage_widget
“Given the pivotal role of labs in medicine, consumers need to trust the quality and accuracy of the tests they get,” Holmes wrote in a WSJ op-ed. “The FDA sets the gold standard for quality assurance. Its review is data-driven, objective and uniquely rigorous. I know this firsthand because Theranos, the company I founded, voluntarily committed to submit all of its lab tests for review starting in 2013. On July 2, the FDA cleared the first of those tests, for herpes simplex virus 1, and the associated finger-stick blood-test technology and underlying system on which our tests are run.”
How odd that the “uniquely rigorous” FDA reviewed Theranos’s finger-stick blood-test technology and underlying testing system, yet didn’t catch that they don’t work. The company told federal health regulators in April that all test results from its proprietary Edison devices from 2014 and 2015 were void.
Steve Hammons isn’t the only person Elizabeth Holmes put in harm’s way. And despite the fact that the FDA scrutinized her company’s systems in-depth, from collection devices and software to analytics and methodology, some people are still going to look at this debacle and call for more government oversight.
This is not just the wrong approach, but a dangerous one.
What the Theranos Debacle Reveals about Government Regulation
https://fee.org/articles/what-the-t...gulation/?utm_medium=trending_homepage_widget
“Given the pivotal role of labs in medicine, consumers need to trust the quality and accuracy of the tests they get,” Holmes wrote in a WSJ op-ed. “The FDA sets the gold standard for quality assurance. Its review is data-driven, objective and uniquely rigorous. I know this firsthand because Theranos, the company I founded, voluntarily committed to submit all of its lab tests for review starting in 2013. On July 2, the FDA cleared the first of those tests, for herpes simplex virus 1, and the associated finger-stick blood-test technology and underlying system on which our tests are run.”
How odd that the “uniquely rigorous” FDA reviewed Theranos’s finger-stick blood-test technology and underlying testing system, yet didn’t catch that they don’t work. The company told federal health regulators in April that all test results from its proprietary Edison devices from 2014 and 2015 were void.
Steve Hammons isn’t the only person Elizabeth Holmes put in harm’s way. And despite the fact that the FDA scrutinized her company’s systems in-depth, from collection devices and software to analytics and methodology, some people are still going to look at this debacle and call for more government oversight.
This is not just the wrong approach, but a dangerous one.
Bruddah IZ
DA
The hallmark of a truly free market is that all associations and relationships are based on voluntary agreement and mutual consent. Another way of saying this is that, in the free market society, people are morally and legally viewed as sovereign individuals possessing rights to their life, liberty, and honestly acquired property, who may not be coerced into any transaction that they do not consider to be to their personal betterment and advantage.
The rules of the free market are really very simple: you don’t kill, you don’t steal, and you don’t cheat through fraud or misrepresentation. You can only improve your own position by improving the circumstances of others. Your talents, abilities, and efforts must all be focused on one thing: what will others take in trade from you for the revenues you want to earn as the source of your own income and profits?
Consent, Not Coercion, Is a Hallmark of the Market
https://fee.org/articles/free-markets-refine-good-manners/
The rules of the free market are really very simple: you don’t kill, you don’t steal, and you don’t cheat through fraud or misrepresentation. You can only improve your own position by improving the circumstances of others. Your talents, abilities, and efforts must all be focused on one thing: what will others take in trade from you for the revenues you want to earn as the source of your own income and profits?
Consent, Not Coercion, Is a Hallmark of the Market
https://fee.org/articles/free-markets-refine-good-manners/
Bruddah IZ
DA
"Is it really true that political interest is nobler somehow then economic self interest?"
Tried to send you a PM, but it wouldnt take.
I dont know why.
Just a heads up if youre in Oceanside for a beer or two.
Bruddah IZ
DA
Bruddah IZ
DA
It Literally Hurts My Brain to Read the Economic Idiocy Emitted by Trumpkins
Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:
Wilbur Ross’s and Peter Navarro’s defense of Donald Trump’s economic policies is mostly a mash of bunkum (“A Vote for Trump Is a Vote for Growth,” Oct. 26). Consider this claim: “Donald Trump will cut taxes, reduce regulation … and eliminate our trade deficit through muscular trade negotiations that increase exports, [and] reduce imports….”
Cut taxes? Bunk. Trump famously promises to raise taxes on Americans who buy imports. Reduce regulation? Rubbish. Trump promises moregovernment intrusions into Americans’ commerce with foreigners.
As for ‘eliminating’ our trade deficit, Trump might indeed succeed on that front. But such ‘success’ would be regrettable, for it would be the inevitable outcome of the American economy being made an unattractive destination for investment. (Ross and Navarro seem to be unaware that to “eliminate our trade deficit” – such as was done, for example, during the Great Depression – is to eliminate net contributions by foreigners to increasing the size of America’s capital stock.)
But Trump’s most absurd promise is to enrich Americans by increasing exports and reducing imports. Imports are what we voluntarily buy and exports are the price we pay. Therefore, a policy meant to increase exports while decreasing imports is a policy meant to force Americans to pay more to foreigners and to receive less in return – a decidedly unartful deal the architect of which would deserved to be fired.
But the Trump camp’s confusion runs even more deeply. Exporting for Americans is worthwhile only because it supplies us with the means to purchase imports, either currently or in the future. So a policy that aims both to increase exports and to decrease imports is akin to a policy that aims both to increase people’s spending power and to decrease it. It’s a policy meant to give Americans greater means for acquiring imports as it simultaneously strips Americans of the freedom to use those means. It’s the economic policy equivalent of an attempt to square a circle.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Here’s a letter to the Wall Street Journal:
Wilbur Ross’s and Peter Navarro’s defense of Donald Trump’s economic policies is mostly a mash of bunkum (“A Vote for Trump Is a Vote for Growth,” Oct. 26). Consider this claim: “Donald Trump will cut taxes, reduce regulation … and eliminate our trade deficit through muscular trade negotiations that increase exports, [and] reduce imports….”
Cut taxes? Bunk. Trump famously promises to raise taxes on Americans who buy imports. Reduce regulation? Rubbish. Trump promises moregovernment intrusions into Americans’ commerce with foreigners.
As for ‘eliminating’ our trade deficit, Trump might indeed succeed on that front. But such ‘success’ would be regrettable, for it would be the inevitable outcome of the American economy being made an unattractive destination for investment. (Ross and Navarro seem to be unaware that to “eliminate our trade deficit” – such as was done, for example, during the Great Depression – is to eliminate net contributions by foreigners to increasing the size of America’s capital stock.)
But Trump’s most absurd promise is to enrich Americans by increasing exports and reducing imports. Imports are what we voluntarily buy and exports are the price we pay. Therefore, a policy meant to increase exports while decreasing imports is a policy meant to force Americans to pay more to foreigners and to receive less in return – a decidedly unartful deal the architect of which would deserved to be fired.
But the Trump camp’s confusion runs even more deeply. Exporting for Americans is worthwhile only because it supplies us with the means to purchase imports, either currently or in the future. So a policy that aims both to increase exports and to decrease imports is akin to a policy that aims both to increase people’s spending power and to decrease it. It’s a policy meant to give Americans greater means for acquiring imports as it simultaneously strips Americans of the freedom to use those means. It’s the economic policy equivalent of an attempt to square a circle.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
and
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030
Bruddah IZ
DA