• bang-bang control loop

    From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Jan 25 09:33:02 2022
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Jan 25 12:57:10 2022
    On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 1:33:13 PM UTC-4, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Really? You think this is Bang-Bang control? Perhaps you don't know what the term means? Or much more likely you have such little understanding of economics you don't know what the Fed does or how it does it?

    What do you think the Fed should do?

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jasen Betts@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Jan 25 20:36:57 2022
    On 2022-01-25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    many think this is intentional.


    --
    Jasen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org on Tue Jan 25 13:06:54 2022
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 20:36:57 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:

    On 2022-01-25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    many think this is intentional.

    Probably is.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Jan 25 16:27:20 2022
    On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.




    Speaking of control theory ever seen the optimized minimum-time-to-climb
    path for e.g. a jet fighter aircraft using the minumum-energy-state optimization methods?

    It's friggin' weird like go straight up. Go sideways. Dive for a while
    at 45 degrees down. Pull up 45 degrees. Pull straight up again. Invert
    the aircraft and fly at 45 degrees inverted to the first dive.

    How the pilot keeps their lunch in the process is the other
    control-theory problem

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Jan 25 16:19:04 2022
    On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.


    Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
    duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

    If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
    Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Jan 25 13:44:54 2022
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.


    Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
    duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

    I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
    element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
    the schematic.



    If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
    Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation



    It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
    about 2:1.

    I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
    took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
    lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
    courses.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology. on Tue Jan 25 17:09:15 2022
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:44:54 -0800, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.


    Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
    duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

    I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
    element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
    the schematic.



    If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
    Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation



    It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
    about 2:1.

    I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
    took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
    lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
    courses.

    Me too. Econ does use systems of ODEs, but solve for steady-state.
    The key in Econ is to find a mathematically simple way to plausibly
    capture human behavior. It kinda works, so long as one does not push
    one's luck.

    A key assumption is that the various economic actors being modeled are statistically independent, which is true until it isn't - like in a
    bubble and/or crash, when everybody tries to do the same thing.

    In the Financial world, Economists are not listened to.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Tue Jan 25 17:43:41 2022
    On 1/25/2022 5:09 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:44:54 -0800, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.


    Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
    duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

    I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
    element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
    the schematic.



    If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
    Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation



    It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
    about 2:1.

    I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
    took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
    lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
    courses.

    Me too. Econ does use systems of ODEs, but solve for steady-state.
    The key in Econ is to find a mathematically simple way to plausibly
    capture human behavior. It kinda works, so long as one does not push
    one's luck.

    A key assumption is that the various economic actors being modeled are statistically independent, which is true until it isn't - like in a
    bubble and/or crash, when everybody tries to do the same thing.

    In the Financial world, Economists are not listened to.

    Joe Gwinn

    True facts, I have an acquaintance who's a PhD academic macroeconomist.

    He doesn't try to model entire economies, more like small subsets say a particular industry like textile manufacturing, and its interactions
    with its host country's commodities market.

    Often the thrust being that the particular industry could make more
    profit with the resources they already have by doing something
    non-intuitive. But industry is often very stodgy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Jan 25 17:59:59 2022
    On 1/25/2022 4:44 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.


    Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
    duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

    I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
    element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
    the schematic.



    If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
    Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation



    It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
    about 2:1.

    You can build a hysteric buck converter that can line and load-regulate
    fairly well but AFAIK a naive hysteric boost will always wander without
    more advanced tactics, even with a constant load.

    But for an approximately resistive or constant current load I think you
    can make the wandering arbitrarily small and the good news is that type
    of loop can never go into severe oscillations, it's already unstable by
    its nature.


    I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
    took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
    lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
    courses.

    The programmers who built the first massively multiplayer online games
    like Ultima Online were very optimistic they could build a world with
    its own "real" economy and virtual ecosystem of e.g. forests and oceans
    and mines and monsters with their own life-cycle, that would run itself
    without having to resort to dumb hacks to keep the game interesting.

    This was impossible, the virtual worlds were too small, like your little player-guy could travel across the whole of the world at a fast jog in a
    half hour of real time. A few hundred players together in that virtual environment left to their own devices could strip the whole world bare
    of resources in days.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Jan 25 23:10:24 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:8uc0vg5tpgr83ao6rjbum39d0bp8dv4u1u@4ax.com:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-si gnal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds
    much damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    We will see perturbations from Nixon's devaluing the Gold Standard
    for decades to come.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Tue Jan 25 23:38:38 2022
    Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in news:ljs0vg1sueskc6clq8ti9mmj13li3m8mns@4ax.com:

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:44:54 -0800, John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net>
    wrote:

    On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to
    -signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds
    much damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.


    Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too
    low: duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

    I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
    element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can
    find the schematic.



    If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work
    alright. Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation



    It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around
    erratically about 2:1.

    I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with.
    When I took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects,
    leads and lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were
    undergrad courses.

    Me too. Econ does use systems of ODEs, but solve for
    steady-state. The key in Econ is to find a mathematically simple
    way to plausibly capture human behavior. It kinda works, so long
    as one does not push one's luck.

    A key assumption is that the various economic actors being modeled
    are statistically independent, which is true until it isn't - like
    in a bubble and/or crash, when everybody tries to do the same
    thing.

    In the Financial world, Economists are not listened to.

    Joe Gwinn


    Like Al Pacino said "The Big Bang Threw us all out here, and the
    Big Slam is gonna pull us all right back in."

    <https://youtu.be/UneS2Uwc6xw?t=54>

    Or as Dr. Frederick Frankenstein said "Entropy, entropy, no
    escaping that for we!"

    We are all having a 'Nachtmere'. Just ask Teri Garr.
    Nice Knockers!

    <https://youtu.be/P0WapDCR9fg?t=7>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Jan 25 16:05:10 2022
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 17:43:41 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 1/25/2022 5:09 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 13:44:54 -0800, John Larkin
    <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote:

    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 16:19:04 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 1/25/2022 12:33 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.


    Ever done if voltage too high: duty cycle = 20%, if voltage too low:
    duty cycle = 80% on a boost topology?

    I've done something like that, a boost converter where the control
    element is a schmitt trigger gate. Hysteretic boost. Maybe I can find
    the schematic.



    If the load is like a Nixie tube or something seems to work alright.
    Stand by for my economy = Nixie tube formal presentation



    It would show on the nixie if the voltage jumped around erratically
    about 2:1.

    I wonder if economists have something like Spice to play with. When I
    took economics there was no mention of time-domain effects, leads and
    lags and loops, or of nonlinearities. But those were undergrad
    courses.

    Me too. Econ does use systems of ODEs, but solve for steady-state.
    The key in Econ is to find a mathematically simple way to plausibly
    capture human behavior. It kinda works, so long as one does not push
    one's luck.

    A key assumption is that the various economic actors being modeled are
    statistically independent, which is true until it isn't - like in a
    bubble and/or crash, when everybody tries to do the same thing.

    In the Financial world, Economists are not listened to.

    Joe Gwinn

    True facts, I have an acquaintance who's a PhD academic macroeconomist.

    They are all macroeconomists. That's glamorous and powerful.

    Of course, macroeconomics is just the sum of all the microeconomics.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Jasen Betts on Tue Jan 25 23:24:23 2022
    Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote in news:sspn19$t96$1@gonzo.revmaps.no-ip.org:

    On 2022-01-25, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com <jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com> wrote:

    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-s
    ignal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds
    much damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    many think this is intentional.


    Every move they make is.

    Big business does not want the change which is coming. They are
    going to try to squeeze everything.

    Progress in the US is stifled by dopes like Mitch McConnell and the republicans, because somewhere along the way they decided that getting
    rid of previous adminstration progress was a good move. Mitch let
    hundreds of bills sit on his desk for YEARS.

    We have a boatload of oath ignoring bastards whom should all be
    sitting in cells scratching their heads right now, wondering why they
    made such stupid choices, and Mitch to blame for it..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Jan 25 17:02:21 2022
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control, and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the economy has crashed.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Wed Jan 26 08:24:03 2022
    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html



    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control, and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    The deregulation of the banks under Clinton and Blair lead to
    short-term release of cash and therefore a feeling of well
    being which delights politicians. But it also set the scene
    for the 2008 crash.

    I remember being somewhat uneasy that banks were allowed to
    lend 8 times the assets they held. I was horrified to find that
    limit had been removed, and that some were lending ridiculous
    amounts, e.g. Northern Crock 42(!) times.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 26 07:39:17 2022
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

    The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
    productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
    policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
    the tiger's back.

    Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
    value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Wed Jan 26 10:51:38 2022
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html



    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as >> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
    2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable >> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control, >> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the >> economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
    control... lacks "diversity."


    The deregulation of the banks under Clinton and Blair lead to
    short-term release of cash and therefore a feeling of well
    being which delights politicians. But it also set the scene
    for the 2008 crash.

    I remember being somewhat uneasy that banks were allowed to
    lend 8 times the assets they held. I was horrified to find that
    limit had been removed, and that some were lending ridiculous
    amounts, e.g. Northern Crock 42(!) times.

    Banks became yet another gambler in the already crowded casinos.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Wed Jan 26 17:55:36 2022
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the >> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control, >> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."

    Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

    Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

    China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

    Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

    The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Jan 27 01:28:48 2022
    On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html



    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the >>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control, >>> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
    control... lacks "diversity."

    Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
    hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
    powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
    US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
    didn't, y'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
    influence on the so-called "free world"?

    Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
    other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
    of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...

    The deregulation of the banks under Clinton and Blair lead to
    short-term release of cash and therefore a feeling of well
    being which delights politicians. But it also set the scene
    for the 2008 crash.

    I remember being somewhat uneasy that banks were allowed to
    lend 8 times the assets they held. I was horrified to find that
    limit had been removed, and that some were lending ridiculous
    amounts, e.g. Northern Crock 42(!) times.

    Banks became yet another gambler in the already crowded casinos.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bitrex on Thu Jan 27 12:24:34 2022
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:29:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
    On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html



    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the >>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
    and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
    control... lacks "diversity."
    Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
    hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
    powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
    US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
    didn't, y'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
    influence on the so-called "free world"?

    Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
    other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
    of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...

    Yeah, what's your point? Are you thinking bang-bang control is a military term?

    --

    Rick C.

    + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu Jan 27 21:28:53 2022
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
    2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
    and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
    Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

    Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

    China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

    Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

    The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:
    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country while the income tax rates are HIGHER: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Thu Jan 27 21:58:38 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
    2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
    and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
    Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

    Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

    China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

    Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

    The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

    I have a hard time believing that, Sloman. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

    says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.

    while the income tax rates are HIGHER:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28

    If you've got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US
    doesn't have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don't get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.

    Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it's gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Jan 28 01:16:58 2022
    On 1/27/2022 3:24 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:29:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
    On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html



    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the >>>>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
    and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
    control... lacks "diversity."
    Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
    hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
    powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
    US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and
    thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
    didn't, y'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
    influence on the so-called "free world"?

    Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
    other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
    of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...

    Yeah, what's your point? Are you thinking bang-bang control is a military term?


    Oh, nah sometimes I just talk about whatever I feel like talking about
    on OT threads like this one, everyone else seems to do it.

    I think it is tangentially relevant to the term "disaster capitalism"
    but "bang-bang control" as a metaphor for US foreign policy? No I didn't
    think of that, but lol that's a good one and not a bad metaphor for the
    Sixty Years War, 1965-2022.

    A three-word summary of the "free world's" behavior in that respect
    during this period could be "what a waste" but "bang-bang control" is
    also grimly amusing; the US has had the bang-bang part down pretty good
    but reliable control has always seemed elusive, relative to the amount
    of bang-bang being applied.

    Military might can't solve social/societal problems, or the problem of a
    very large set of people just being extremely poor compared to the others.

    And I think sometimes military-people tend to understand this better
    than politicians. As I recall Donald Trump seemed to feel similarly
    about it, and that was one of the few topics I agreed with him on. What
    a waste.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rick C on Fri Jan 28 01:21:14 2022
    On 1/27/2022 3:24 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 2:29:00 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
    On 1/26/2022 1:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html



    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the >>>>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
    and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player
    control... lacks "diversity."
    Hey remember that time Richard Nixon was obviously enjoying shaking
    hands and chatting it up with the supreme leader of the second-most
    powerful communist country in the world at the time, and meanwhile the
    US was bombing one of the poorest countries on the planet with B-52s and
    thousands of US soldiers were being killed and maimed because if we
    didn't, y'know, communism would get too powerful and have undue
    influence on the so-called "free world"?

    Lot of sense that made from an economic perspective, much less any
    other. If the Vietnam war ever had any sense it sure never made a lick
    of sense after 1972, and yet the US kept at it for another three years...

    Yeah, what's your point? Are you thinking bang-bang control is a military term?


    Also for pet-lovers there's the theory of "mess with the meow meow, you
    get the peow peow":

    <https://wingstee.com/wp-content/uploads/You-Mess-With-The-Meow-Meow-You-Get-The-Peow-Peow-Shirt-1.jpg>

    Bang-bang control.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu Jan 27 23:21:52 2022
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much >>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
    2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
    and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
    Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

    Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

    China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

    Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

    The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

    I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

    says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.

    You have to have income to create wealth, SNIPPERMAN. Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from?

    while the income tax rates are HIGHER:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28
    If you've got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US
    doesn't have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don't get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.

    That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth. Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans.


    Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it's gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.

    More libtard bullshit - you don't have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it. Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house?
    Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation. Anyone in the US who can't afford college and doesn't want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).


    --
    SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Flyguy on Fri Jan 28 00:28:58 2022
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:21:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much >>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
    2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
    and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.

    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.

    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
    Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

    Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

    China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

    Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

    The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.

    I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

    says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.

    You have to have income to create wealth, Sloman.

    Or make good investments. Having a bigger income can make it easier to invest, but not everybody does.

    Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from?

    Australia now has universal health care. Unexpected illness used to be a drain on many peoples finances - the 1960's Melbourne poverty survey high-lighted it as the most common event tipping people into poverty.

    while the income tax rates are HIGHER:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28

    If you've got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US
    doesn't have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don't get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.

    That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth.

    Not to you.

    Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans.

    None of which stop unexpected illness being the most likely cause for an American to fall into bankruptcy.

    Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it's gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.

    More libtard bullshit - you don't have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it.

    Of course we do. It's just that it's not the only way to pay for your education, and because out primary and secondary education systems are funded on a state by state basis, you can get decent education even if you live in an area of low average income.
    The US system of tiny school districts means that the kids of rich parents grow up going to better-funded schools.

    Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house?

    There is "social housing" - if not enough of it. Nobody gets a free car, but there's quite a lot of public tansport.

    Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation.

    And opportunity, Growing up with rich neighbours generates quite a lot of opportunities.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design

    goes into that.

    Anyone in the US who can't afford college and doesn't want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).

    If you are fit and healthy enough for the military to let you enlist. And the US has a wide range of educational institutions. John Larkin went to Tulane.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Jan 28 08:52:56 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

    The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
    productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
    policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
    the tiger's back.

    Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
    value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.

    Just in time for their 100th birthday.

    Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
    years.


    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Fri Jan 28 13:59:03 2022
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

    The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
    productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
    policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
    the tiger's back.

    Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
    value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.

    Just in time for their 100th birthday.

    Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
    years.

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Fri Jan 28 10:20:55 2022
    Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

    The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
    productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to
    sane policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They
    are riding the tiger's back.

    Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
    value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.

    Just in time for their 100th birthday.

    Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
    years.

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
    most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
    consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
    been a mistake.

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
    people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
    law, just a misuse of one.

    Northern Rock had some reason to expect Fannie, Freddie, Goldman,
    Lehman, et al, to buy the debt. But they could have loaned 1000 times
    assets if the loans were repaid. The left steadfastly refuses to see
    that it was the policies of the left that were the overriding factor.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

    The last paragraph briefly alludes to the work of then HUD secretary
    Andrew Cuomo. As an aside, in SED 16 months ago I mentioned his work as
    New York governor that caused the deaths of 10-15k elderly in 2020,
    which you and Bill Sloman were quick to dismiss as right wing propaganda
    as if you know more about what happens in New York than I do. Democrats
    were quick to remove him on weak sexual harrassment charges to prevent a serious look into that, because it would cast doubt on all their COVID policies.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

    ''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any
    kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of
    Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee.
    ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is
    on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable
    housing.''

    Yeah let's not pressure them to remain solvent. Instead let's pressure
    them to loan to the poor and then declare there weren't enough
    regulations. And let's not regulate government entities like Fannie and
    Freddie - just private companies because they cause all the trouble.

    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Fri Jan 28 12:53:30 2022
    On 1/28/2022 10:20 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

    The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
    productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to
    sane policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They
    are riding the tiger's back.

    Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
    value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.

    Just in time for their 100th birthday.

    Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
    years.

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
    most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
    consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
    been a mistake.

    The conservative's most consistent behavior is pretending he's anything
    but a vengeful petty tyrant still ruminating over decades-old grudges
    most reasonable people would have long forgotten, playing the role of a "rational man."

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
    people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
    law, just a misuse of one.

    Northern Rock had some reason to expect Fannie, Freddie, Goldman,
    Lehman, et al, to buy the debt. But they could have loaned 1000 times
    assets if the loans were repaid. The left steadfastly refuses to see
    that it was the policies of the left that were the overriding factor.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

    The left has little real power to do much of anything of substance in
    America. You'd expect there'd at least be a national healthcare system
    and the military budget would be a lot less than whatever absurd figure
    that it is, if it did, but that's not the America we live in.

    Oh you mean Democrats, yes Democrats have had fifty years to do
    something significantly different than neoconservatives do. But they
    vote for defense spending increases as well as anyone, and on the
    occasions they do try they get hamstrung by literally two people, from
    their own party. Lol

    The last paragraph briefly alludes to the work of then HUD secretary
    Andrew Cuomo. As an aside, in SED 16 months ago I mentioned his work as
    New York governor that caused the deaths of 10-15k elderly in 2020,
    which you and Bill Sloman were quick to dismiss as right wing propaganda
    as if you know more about what happens in New York than I do. Democrats
    were quick to remove him on weak sexual harrassment charges to prevent a serious look into that, because it would cast doubt on all their COVID policies.

    He also has a tendency towards paranoia.

    Yeah let's not pressure them to remain solvent. Instead let's pressure
    them to loan to the poor and then declare there weren't enough
    regulations. And let's not regulate government entities like Fannie and Freddie - just private companies because they cause all the trouble.

    And naturally doesn't like the poor very much, figuring anyone who is
    must have done something very bad to deserve it. He might be skeptical
    of vaccines against Covid, but would never turn down the opportunity to
    be vaccinated against poor-cooties.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Fri Jan 28 12:32:02 2022
    On 1/28/2022 8:52 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html

    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj

    The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
    productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
    policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
    the tiger's back.

    Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
    value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.

    Just in time for their 100th birthday.

    Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
    years.



    The late 1800s in the US aren't well-known for a high degree of economic stability, either, the panic if 1893 set off the second largest
    depression in US history next to the Great Depression.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Jan 28 13:10:38 2022
    On 1/28/2022 1:03 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 1/28/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com >>>> wrote:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html


    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj


    The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
    productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
    policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding >>>> the tiger's back.

    Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
    value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.

    Just in time for their 100th birthday.

    Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
    years.

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Almost like your typical American conservative

    note that incidentally, I can't say I've ever met an atypical one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Fri Jan 28 13:03:05 2022
    On 1/28/2022 8:59 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:


    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/25/the-federal-reserve-is-likely-to-signal-a-march-rate-hike.html


    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
    damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.

    Cryptos add a nice (ie nasty) destabilizer to the system.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/crypto-collapse-erases-more-than-1-trillion-in-wealth-forcing-a-reckoning-for-everyday-investors/ar-AAT8lXj


    The Fed deliberately zeroed interest rates and pushed savings and
    productive investment into the fantasy stock market. A return to sane
    policy risks being justly blamed for a historic crash. They are riding
    the tiger's back.

    Even rumors about possible Fed decisions swing trillions in stock
    value. That is macroeconomic power madness. That's insane.

    Just in time for their 100th birthday.

    Sanity would be repealing every law involving money from the past 100
    years.

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Almost like your typical American conservative is pretty far from
    anything resembling the concepts of "decent" or "honest", and knows full
    well what type of environment he thinks he'll be the most prosperous in.

    "Are you questioning my honor?"
    "I'm not questioning your honor, I am denying its existence..."

    <https://youtu.be/fTItsm9meX8>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Fri Jan 28 18:16:58 2022
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
    most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
    been a mistake.

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
    law, just a misuse of one.

    That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

    When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

    It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just
    let the bubble blow up and burst.

    <snipped the rest>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sat Jan 29 13:09:55 2022
    On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
    most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
    consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
    been a mistake.

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
    threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
    people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
    law, just a misuse of one.

    That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

    When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

    It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just
    let the bubble blow up and burst.

    <snipped the rest>


    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
    somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd. Who
    were they so afraid of and what consequences. Major lenders settle class actions by citizens all the time for chump change, they're not afraid of
    this it's a cost of doing business.

    <https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-rise-of-bank-prosecutions>

    Only times they get really hit hard is when they fuck with the federal government itself like in tax evasion, money laundering, and anti-trust
    suits, that is to say the big gangsters got the impression the little
    gangsters were trying to screw them over on their cut. They were never
    afraid of violating anyone's "civil rights", come on.

    "Upon closer examination, the recent string of bank prosecutions, while noteworthy, fails to address persistent concerns that deterrent fines
    are not routinely imposed, that compliance terms designed to
    rehabilitate firms are not used effectively, and that individuals remain largely un-prosecuted."

    They're not afraid of shit

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Jan 29 10:45:10 2022
    On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
    most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
    consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
    been a mistake.

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
    threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
    people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
    law, just a misuse of one.

    That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

    When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

    It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he
    just let the bubble blow up and burst.

    <snipped the rest>


    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
    somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

    They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
    loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
    both ends.




    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bitrex on Sat Jan 29 11:56:46 2022
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:10:04 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
    On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in >> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
    consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
    been a mistake.

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of >> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
    people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
    law, just a misuse of one.

    That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

    When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

    It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he
    just let the bubble blow up and burst.

    <snipped the rest>

    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
    somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

    It is absurd. The banks loaned the money because they would not hold the note for more than a few weeks. It would be someone else who actually took the risk. Meanwhile they had met all the requirements so the note could be sold.

    --

    Rick C.

    -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Jan 29 14:30:03 2022
    On 1/29/2022 1:45 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in >>>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
    consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
    been a mistake.

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of >>>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to >>>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new >>>> law, just a misuse of one.

    That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

    When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

    It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he
    just let the bubble blow up and burst.

    <snipped the rest>


    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
    somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

    They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
    loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
    both ends.


    Yep, there was a profit motive to do it, the customers were looking to
    buy despite their lack of funds, and "it seemed like a good idea at the
    time", no one had to pull a gun and the Civil Rights Act out on anyone
    to make it happen.

    Business can be pretty equitable all by itself about stuff like race and
    class if and when it seems like there's a better buck to be made in not fretting it. Some of the first businesses to independently de-segregate
    in the South were railroads, hauling around two types of passenger car
    and paying someone to enforce the distinction, was a money-loser long
    before 1964.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From amdx@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Sat Jan 29 14:11:01 2022
    On 1/28/2022 2:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:21:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: >>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much >>>>>>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
    Or none that John Larkin can understand.

    The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
    John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman >>>>>>>>
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

    has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
    2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

    John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
    models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.

    Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine

    suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
    and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
    economy has crashed.
    "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
    What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
    Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.

    Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.

    China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.

    Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult

    The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.
    I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income

    says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.
    You have to have income to create wealth, Sloman.
    Or make good investments. Having a bigger income can make it easier to invest, but not everybody does.

    Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from?
    Australia now has universal health care. Unexpected illness used to be a drain on many peoples finances - the 1960's Melbourne poverty survey high-lighted it as the most common event tipping people into poverty.

    while the income tax rates are HIGHER:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28 >>> If you've got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US
    doesn't have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don't get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.
    That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth.
    Not to you.

    > Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans.

    None of which stop unexpected illness being the most likely cause for an American to fall into bankruptcy.

    Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it's gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.
    More libtard bullshit - you don't have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it.
    Of course we do. It's just that it's not the only way to pay for your education, and because out primary and secondary education systems are funded on a state by state basis, you can get decent education even if you live in an area of low average
    income. The US system of tiny school districts means that the kids of rich parents grow up going to better-funded schools.

    Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house?
    There is "social housing" - if not enough of it. Nobody gets a free car, but there's quite a lot of public tansport.

    Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation.
    And opportunity, Growing up with rich neighbours generates quite a lot of opportunities.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design

    goes into that.

    Anyone in the US who can't afford college and doesn't want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).
    If you are fit and healthy enough for the military to let you enlist. And the US has a wide range of educational institutions. John Larkin went to Tulane.

     It seems are awfully jealous of John's accomplishments.

    Why don't you quit trying to denigrate him and do something for yourself
    that you can be proud of.

    Readers see your posts and it's always you trying to make yourself look
    better by climbing on someone else.

    Just stop.

                    Mikek


    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sat Jan 29 17:27:42 2022
    On 1/29/2022 2:56 PM, Rick C wrote:
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:10:04 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
    On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in >>>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
    consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
    been a mistake.

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of >>>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to >>>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new >>>> law, just a misuse of one.

    That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

    When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

    It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he
    just let the bubble blow up and burst.

    <snipped the rest>

    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
    somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

    It is absurd. The banks loaned the money because they would not hold the note for more than a few weeks. It would be someone else who actually took the risk. Meanwhile they had met all the requirements so the note could be sold.


    I'm going to tell the local Lamborghini dealership they need to lease me
    one at $299/month or they will be violating my civil rights

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to amdx on Sat Jan 29 18:36:38 2022
    On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 7:11:10 AM UTC+11, amdx wrote:
    On 1/28/2022 2:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:21:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
    On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    <snip>

    Anyone in the US who can't afford college and doesn't want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).

    If you are fit and healthy enough for the military to let you enlist. And the US has a wide range of educational institutions. John Larkin went to Tulane.

    It seems are awfully jealous of John's accomplishments.

    I certainly envy his business model. His accomplishments are less impressive.

    Why don't you quit trying to denigrate him and do something for yourself that you can be proud of.

    Sloman A.W., Buggs P., Molloy J., and Stewart D. “A microcontroller-based driver to stabilise the temperature of an optical stage to 1mK in the range 4C to 38C, using a Peltier heat pump and a thermistor sensor” Measurement Science and Technology, 7
    1653-64 (1996)

    has been cited 25 times so far - twice by me (which doesn't count). I'm fairly proud of that. There's other stuff that I'm equally happy about, but doesn't lend itself to boasting

    Readers see your posts and it's always you trying to make yourself look better by climbing on someone else.

    It's a false perception. John Larkin irritates me by posting a lot of nonsense about a lot of different subject. His ideas about economics are as silly as his ideas about climate change. How he could have got through any kind of tertiary education and
    remained as ignorant as he is is a mystery. He does admit to not paying attention to stuff that he couldn't see as potentially profitable, but Tulane should have tested that knowledge, and clearly didn't.

    Just stop.

    Since that isn't what I'm doing, this is a misdirected appeal. Being "better" than John Larkin isn't an attractive target - it would involve the avid pursuit of flattery and waspish snarking when I didn't get it, which doesn't strike me as being in the
    least attractive.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Jan 29 18:18:57 2022
    On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:45:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:
    On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>> Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
    repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
    to a fixed multiple of their assets.

    At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
    spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
    Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.

    Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
    honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
    or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
    beyond them into the impossible.

    Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in >>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
    consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have >>> been a mistake.

    The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of >>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to >>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new >>> law, just a misuse of one.

    That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.

    When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.

    It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he
    just let the bubble blow up and burst.

    <snipped the rest>

    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were >somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

    They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
    loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
    both ends.

    The fringe banks did a lot of that. The bundled loans were "innovative financial products" and the US ratings agencies labelled them as much more secure than they turned out to be, which meant that they got sold around the world. That's what turned the
    US "sub-prime mortgage crisis" into the "global financial crisis" so the fringe banks weren't the only contributors. I don't think that the feds had any control of the ratings agencies.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/23324880
    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Jan 29 22:03:29 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
    somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

    They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
    loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
    both ends.

    First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is
    mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex
    thinks it's absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them.

    Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill
    them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the
    crisis didn't start there because they weren't forced to make bad loans.

    Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the regulation out of greed. The alternative was to bail out the banks
    instead of bailing out the investment houses.

    Forth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many
    articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can
    still read online. Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them
    all the while.

    Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the
    people who predicted the crisis don't understand what cause it, but
    they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it
    completely.


    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Sat Jan 29 22:12:02 2022
    On 1/29/2022 10:03 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
    somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

    They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
    loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
    both ends.

    First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is
    mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex
    thinks it's absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them.

    I wasn't old enough to vote in 1996.. 8-)

    Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill
    them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the
    crisis didn't start there because they weren't forced to make bad loans.

    Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the regulation out of greed. The alternative was to bail out the banks
    instead of bailing out the investment houses.

    Forth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many
    articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can
    still read online. Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them
    all the while.

    Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the
    people who predicted the crisis don't understand what cause it, but
    they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it
    completely.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Sat Jan 29 20:54:17 2022
    On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 2:03:35 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

    The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
    somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

    They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
    loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
    both ends.

    First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is
    mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex
    thinks it's absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them.

    The banks applied pressure to the Clinton administration, rather than the other way around.
    The banks wanted to be de-regulated, and they got their wish.

    Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill
    them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the
    crisis didn't start there because they weren't forced to make bad loans.

    US banks weren't "forced to make bad loans". The loans to people who in low-income neighbourhoods were carefully regulated to make sure that they wouldn't go bad, and they didn't, even after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

    Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the regulation out of greed.

    That was a large part of the banks' motivation.

    The alternative was to bail out the banks instead of bailing out the investment houses.

    What's that supposed to mean?

    Fourth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can
    still read online.

    Predict crises often enough, ,and you will be bound to be right some of the time.

    Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them all the while.

    Correctly. Using bad theory to predict a crisis doesn't validate the theory when one of the many predicted crises finally happens.

    Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the people who predicted the crisis don't understand what cause it, but
    they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it completely.

    They understood what to do about it, which is why the consequences of the global financial crisis were a lot less devastating than the consequences of the 1929 stock market crash.

    Defund the Thought Police

    Can't see why Tom Del Rosso is so worried about the thought police. He doesn't think for himself at all. What he has posted is pretty much the same right wing nonsense that James Arthur was spouting directly after the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)