1glitch0 posted:

Tammy Duckworth on CNN: "America has never been on the side of ethnic cleansing."

Prester Jane posted:

Ypur metaphor is missing a couple details: the casual dining corporations own all the farms and the fast casual dining corporations own their debt.

twice burned ice posted:

Jesus loving christ that tweet is so lovely

For anyone that didn't click through itvs basically "Danica called herself a mom. Is there a new definition for that word now too?"

twice burned ice posted:

So, uhh, how many cans of soup go you have in your basement? God you lot are weird

twice burned ice posted:

So, uhh, how many cans of soup go you have in your basement? God you lot are weird

twice burned ice posted:

If society collapses I'm offing myself and everyone I care about. Y'all can have fun doing your live reenactment of The Road.

PhazonLink posted:

I thought Griffen and his wife had 2nd thoughts about buying 500$ worth of soup.

Nail Rat posted:

If things fall apart to that point though, a few more months/days/weeks can be precious.

1glitch0 posted:

Tammy Duckworth on CNN: "America has never been on the side of ethnic cleansing."

This is why Trump works. Because the "good guys" have no actual argument.

Griffen posted:

I grew up in Florida, and hurricanes are a natural phenomenon. Come summer, you had the basic essentials on you just in case, or you were a moron, it is as simple as that. I don't have to be a prepper to acknowledge that storms hit, power outages happen, blizzards occur. Having a safety margin is simply being prudent for when you can't predict what will happen in the future.

As for cans of soup, I try to keep one or two cans of Campbell's chicken and sausage gumbo for when I get sick. I don't know why, but that stuff always helps.

Let me guess, you don't have a spare tire/donut in your car, do you?

Jarmak posted:

No, those aren't missing details that's just word salad demonstrating your lack of basic understanding of what that article is talking about.

Bloomberg posted:

More than half of the world’s banks are already in a weak position before any downturn that may be coming, according to a report from consultancy McKinsey & Co.

A majority of banks globally may not be economically viable because their returns on equity aren’t keeping pace with costs, McKinsey said in its annual review of the industry released Monday. It urged firms to take steps such as developing technology, farming out operations and bulking up through mergers ahead of a potential economic slowdown.

“We believe we’re in the late economic cycle and banks need to make bold moves now because they are not in great shape,” Kausik Rajgopal, a senior partner at McKinsey, said in an interview. “In the late cycle, nobody can afford to rest on their laurels.”

Jarmak posted:

No, those aren't missing details that's just word salad demonstrating your lack of basic understanding of what that article is talking about.

Prester Jane posted:

friendbot2000 posted:

drat straight. This kid was in loving sixth grade. A loving sixth grader is being tossed around and assaulted by the pigs.

It gets worse too. She was a special needs kid that took one too many milk cartons from the school cafeteria. But yes, lets put more cops in schools so they can beat minority children before they get too uppity and demand equal rights.

https://twitter.com/SueBeeHun/status/1187027555037171717

The cop claims she "assaulted" school staff...she brushed past them. All cops are bastards

Griffen posted:

The article was talking about how current financial entities are struggling to make a profit off of their enterprises due to competition from new paradigm financial institutions. The obvious point that the article didn't address, since its Bloomberg, was what is going to happen to these struggling institutions (all those big established banks) when the coming downturn strikes. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if they're not profitable now, they're going to crash and burn once a large enough portion of their investment portfolio collapses. The failure of your analogy is that the declining casual dining establishments have most of our deposits, so when they go under the fast-casual places aren't going to take their place. The new financial services entities are not standard banking services but creative investment vehicles (i.e. stuff like credit default swaps and other hazy math products). If this was a case of a new bank replacing an old one, fine, your point stands and I would agree - it's what should have happened in 2008. Instead, if I'm reading the article correctly, the new competition is in the investment services sector or stuff like credit cards, not basic banking services, so the new companies wouldn't replace these basic services if the older institutions fold. Likewise, I'm not sure if these newer entities have been stress tested either. If they are following a Silicon Valley start-up mindset, they might be just as fragile and over-extended too.

twice burned ice posted:

There's nothing wrong with being prepared for natural disasters. It's the apocalypse prepping that most of us here are making fun of.

Having supplies for a few days without power is a good idea. Having two years worth of food and 10,000 rounds of 7.62 is .

FlamingLiberal posted:

I remember when this forum kept wanting her to run for President because she’s disabled like FDR, but nobody really checked to see what she’s ever done

Jarmak posted:

Also the banks being unprofitable is not the same thing as being insolvent, that's not what that means at all

Prester Jane posted:

Jarmak posted:

This is not the case, the reasons for declining profitability as stated by the article is the loss of customers to other financial services companies.

Also the banks being unprofitable is not the same thing as being insolvent, that's not what that means at all

edit: the newer companies are a valid concern but there's nothing in this article that gives us insight on that.

Prester Jane posted:

If the banks* are over-leveraged then being unprofitable is effectively the same as being insolvent.

*they are, hilariously so.

Griffen posted:

The article states that "a majority of banks globally may not be economically viable because their returns on equity aren’t keeping pace with costs." This probably has nothing to do with how many customers they have (though maybe there is some factor about economy of scale) but that the way the banks are structured, their operating costs are higher than the returns they are getting from their equity. Either this means they have too much bloat and they either need to trim down or are zombie banks, or this means the economic sector (mortgages and other loans) is generating less returns than it previously did. Either way, it means that there is a large part of the world's economic system that is on very shaky grounds even before a full downturn has started. There's not enough information in the article to definitively state what the problem is, but we learned from 2008 that the financial system is not able to respond quickly enough on its own to absorb shocks from failing institutions. Even if the newcomers could fully replace them (which it is not clear that is the case) there would be massive instability in the transition ala 2008.

Prester Jane posted:

I'm getting some real 2007 era D&D vibes from this discussion. ("The Housing market is experiencing a natural and expected correction, a few bad loans present no risk to an economy this sophisticated")

Jarmak posted:

It's clear from the rest of the article that "economically viable" in this sentence is standing in for "not profitable".

ryde posted:

If you look at the source material at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...ate-cycle-moves you can see that they don't claim that the banks are economically inviable. Thats Bloomberg editorializing. Whats happening is that banks in emerging and some other markets have revenues that are not keeping up with costs, thus squeezing their profits. The US financial system is not outlined as a concern in the report either.

Jarmak is correct. This is not a financial collapse scenario and what is actually said by McKinsey is being misinterpreted.

syntaxrigger posted:

So now I have more questions. I am economic idiot. If the "banks" were "too big to fail" but you are saying "lol failure can't happen" then what did the tax payers actually do in 2008?

syntaxrigger posted:

So now I have more questions. I am economic idiot. If the "banks" were "too big to fail" but you are saying "lol failure can't happen" then what did the tax payers actually do in 2008?

ryde posted:

My take from the source material is that "economically viable" here means "investors aren't going to get real returns" and is not about the banks literally losing money.

ryde posted:

If you look at the source material at https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...ate-cycle-moves you can see that they don't claim that the banks are economically inviable. Thats Bloomberg editorializing. Whats happening is that banks in emerging and some other markets have revenues that are not keeping up with costs, thus squeezing their profits. The US financial system is not outlined as a concern in the report either.

Jarmak is correct. This is not a financial collapse scenario and what is actually said by McKinsey is being misinterpreted.

Prester Jane posted:

I'm getting some real 2007 era D&D vibes from this discussion. ("The Housing market is experiencing a natural and expected correction, a few bad loans present no risk to an economy this sophisticated")

Jarmak posted:

The actual report appears to be down at the moment, I'll defer to your judgement until I can actually read it for myself. The article made it sounds like a loss of revenue to competitors combined with increases in costs has put them in the position where their profit's are extremely squeezed. Making their profitability vulnerable to an economic downturn.

syntaxrigger posted:

So now I have more questions. I am economic idiot. If the "banks" were "too big to fail" but you are saying "lol failure can't happen" then what did the tax payers actually do in 2008?

Jarmak posted:

The actual report appears to be down at the moment, I'll defer to your judgement until I can actually read it for myself. The article made it sounds like a loss of revenue to competitors combined with increases in costs has put them in the position where their profit's are extremely squeezed. Making their profitability vulnerable to an economic downturn.

VH4Ever posted:

Yeah sorry but, this. I'm a fat gently caress with flat feet and zero survival skills. I can be man enough to be honest. I'm the guy that dies in Act 1 of the zombie movie because he can't run fast enough. I know my fate in such a scenario. No thanks.