(Thread IKs:
skooma512)
|
Matt Levine's most recent Money Stuff newsletter is frustrating. They essentially blame bank regulators for causing the SVB bankrun through inadequate supervision. They also note that since all US bank deposits are now effectively guaranteed by the Federal govt there is an incentive for bank executives to take even more bad risks. However they again conclude that the govt simply needs to regulate banks more effectively. There's no acknowledgement that govt regulatory oversight was systematically undermined by the industry's own lobbying efforts, or that there's no realistic prospect to effectively regulate the financial industry in the current political system. Presumably a former banker writing for Bloomberg isn't likely to be making those points but they're obvious omissions. They do have a point that apparently the current US banking system effectively requires all deposits to be insured. Apparently rich people will threaten to knock over the financial system if they risk losing their uninsured deposits and will inevitably be made whole, so might as well treat all deposits as insured going forward. No idea if that's tenable though.
|
# ¿ Mar 15, 2023 02:12 |
|
|
# ¿ May 17, 2024 18:41 |
|
From an off-the-record interview with a FDIC aide about the BTFP: quote:'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create a new deposit insurance program. And while you're studying that program—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new insurance programs, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do'.[2]
|
# ¿ Mar 15, 2023 15:38 |
|
Mr Hootington posted:Ah the the $2trillion (not qe) is theoretical. If all the bonds currently on the books as a loss are traded in then it is a $2trillion injection. Not sure I understand this objection. Why would any eligible financial institution with unrealized losses in bonds not take advantage of the program? Even if they're not in any real financial distress it's free money, and not participating is leaving money on the table. According to the Federal Reserve eligible institutions have until at least March 2024 to apply, so it will be a while before the full amount "loaned" is known: quote:Program Duration: Advances can be requested under the Program until at least March 11, 2024.
|
# ¿ Mar 16, 2023 15:00 |
|
Mr Hootington posted:https://twitter.com/democracyatwrk/status/1638719714817118208?t=aMW3mTKhTrkV70m-Q_B1yg&s=19 quote:The Iowa legislation is particularly dangerous because it would exempt employers from civil liability in the event of a youth’s injury or death on the job — even in cases of employer negligence — if the teen was participating in a school-approved “work-based learning program.” Here's the actual text in an earlier version of the proposed bill for reference: It looks like the liability immunity was weakened in later versions of the bill but it's clear what they want.
|
# ¿ Mar 24, 2023 18:17 |
|
Mr Hootington posted:Happy Easter. Neat site. The wealth distribution plot is fun: TBH this is a little more static than I though it would be? The US has always been deeply unequal, but would have thought the top 10% would have gained a larger share of total wealth over the last 50 years of destroying labor. edit: I suppose the top 1% managed to grab an extra ~10% of total wealth over that period, that's a lot Also interesting to see how the bottom 50% went negative total wealth after 2008 and when they just barely got back to net positive after 2020 the Fed's decides to declare war on excess savings. Weird coincidence. Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 18:36 on Apr 9, 2023 |
# ¿ Apr 9, 2023 18:24 |
|
net work error posted:https://twitter.com/unusual_whales/status/1645398974562734080?t=-x_zKlIn54jdjunygMsTFw&s=19 Matt Levine touched on a potential factor causing this in a recent newsletter on the subject of "narrow banking": quote:... And apparently money market funds have been seeing huge growth over the past few year, slowly at first due to rising rates and then more quickly recently as bank stability became an issue: quote:Bloomberg All that money and no-where to go.
|
# ¿ Apr 10, 2023 14:06 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:the uber goon (trad.): neckbeard, insatiable appetite, hypochondriac, hated the church, overconfident in his gaming, fickle with babes (he killed some folxx, and many people) I saw a set of his armor just today and when you're right you're right: quote:Field Armor of King Henry VIII of England (reigned 1509–47) edit: this is technically thread relevant btw: quote:Second invasion of France and the "Rough Wooing" of Scotland Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 01:06 on Apr 14, 2023 |
# ¿ Apr 14, 2023 01:00 |
|
Haha isn't this a big poke in the eye for the SEC?
|
# ¿ Apr 24, 2023 22:06 |
|
Orvin posted:First was the Volt, then came the Bolt. So figure out _olt for the next vehicle and win a prize. The article says exactly that: quote:Barra said a suburban Detroit plant that has produced Chevy Bolts since 2016 will be retooled in preparation for production of electric Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra trucks scheduled for next year.
|
# ¿ Apr 25, 2023 15:36 |
|
Animal-Mother posted:why not build bridges over the often used train tracks This occurred to me as well but reading the article it says the trains regularly obstruct several intersections all at once in a typical American sprawling car-centric suburb. So if you built a bridge over a single intersection it would still be way out of the way for most people and probably not help much, and presumably building them at every intersection would be too costly. You can search for "Hammond, Indiana" on google maps, the tracks really do cross through a bunch of streets. You can see how constantly parked trains would be obnoxious and effectively cut the community in half: Possibly relevant the school mentioned in the article is right beside a 10-lane highway.
|
# ¿ Apr 26, 2023 18:36 |
|
Stereotype posted:according to the earnings report that everyone is freaking out about they have double the cash / liquid cash equivalents than they have uninsured deposits. normal people with checking accounts also aren't doing the bank run, it's just rich people whose money isn't FDIC insured, though maybe now that will change since they are in the news. They don't actually have a crazy about of old treasuries according to this thing Matt Levine had a plausible sounding explanation: quote:But First Republic reported a profit. The problem, for First Republic, is that lots of its low-interest deposits have fled, and it has had to replace their funding by borrowing from the Fed, the FHLB and the big banks at much higher rates. Meanwhile it still has lots of long-term loans made at low interest rates. If you borrow short at 0% to lend long at 3%, and then your short-term borrowing costs go up to 5% while your loans stay the same, you will be losing 2% a year on your loans, and that is roughly the state that First Republic finds itself in. But it is not exactly the state that First Republic finds itself in: It still has some cheap insured deposits, some short-term assets, some floating-rate assets, some fee income, and in fact it has managed to scrape out a profit even as rates have moved against it. Can that last? I mean, maybe not:
|
# ¿ Apr 29, 2023 01:02 |
|
Father Wendigo posted:https://twitter.com/CNN/status/1653750037065658368?t=mtvfnz__1aTKdxthf_sJ0Q&s=09 I have a kid around that age and this is horrifying. The US Dept of Labor has a webpage summarizing the number of child labor violations over time and the fines have been laughably small for years: The number of violations involving minors in hazardous occupations doubled over the past several years.
|
# ¿ May 3, 2023 16:33 |
|
The US threatening to default on its debt probably isn't slowing down de-dollarization.
|
# ¿ May 3, 2023 19:44 |
|
I'm (very) slowly reading through Graeber's "Bullshit Jobs" and agree with the premise that a sizable fraction of American and western jobs are self-evidently unnecessary. Interestingly Graeber's definition of a bullshit job doesn't include ones where the worker themself believes the job is necessary or important, so doesn't include the vast number of tech sector workers that think they're doing useful things but are in fact non-essential. Given all this, it's hard to reconcile this to claims that the current inflation issues are due to a fundamental shortfall in the labor supply. There is in fact a huge reserve army of labor, but it's largely doing useless busy-work instead of being jobless. I'm sure this is probably simplistic and demonstrates my ignorance on this topic. OTOH what makes people so sure that it's a limited labor supply that is causing high inflation?
|
# ¿ May 5, 2023 15:54 |
|
Thank you for the responses regarding what evidence is there that a labor shortage is driving inflation.my bony fealty posted:what's the best way to buy a car in the doomsday economy. is there a SA thread that will tell me what to do. skooma512 posted:I'd also like a guide with the secret goon meta to get a car for cheap.
|
# ¿ May 5, 2023 18:33 |
|
Willa Rogers posted:a bunch of democrat governors allowed those p.e. ghouls who own nursing homes to write their emergency orders during covid & the ghouls put in indemnity clauses that exempted their liability for malfeasance that occurred even before covid. My rudimentary understanding on this issue is that you do not want to be in a nursing home funded at the level that Medicaid pays out, the reason being that the quality of care will be very poor. To have a chance at a good quality of life you really need to be in the type of home that costs more than >$10000 per month, as unaffordable as that is. Is this correct? Makes sense that you generally don't want to be in a for-profit elder care setting at all if you can avoid it. Esp during a pandemic or even just a bad flu year.
|
# ¿ Jun 3, 2023 16:20 |
|
Hubbert posted:the full book review article is an INCREDIBLE read Yes it definitely moved me to check out these books at some point. A general question regarding private equity's impacts: my understanding is that what these PE firms are doing is not fundamentally different from normal private sector capitalist behavior, correct? PE owned nursing homes badly mistreat residents to make more money, but that isn't new. The major difference is these PE takeovers typically involve saddling the purchased company with large debts from bank loans used to fund the takeover itself or payouts, on top of the new owners looting everything. It's these new debts that drive the worst of the cost cutting and abuses.
|
# ¿ Jun 3, 2023 18:13 |
|
I think in America to be considered rich you need enough money to not be financially ruined by a health care emergency, developing an expensive medical condition or by requiring long-term care. Not to mention having adequate shelter + food etc. Amazingly $2 million doesn't seem quite enough to cover those kinds of potential expenses. Can you even buy a marketplace health plan that won't ruin you in the event of developing a serious medical condition requiring expensive treatment? edit: to be clear potential health care and long term care expenses aside, yes $2 million is rich.
|
# ¿ Jun 17, 2023 13:57 |
|
Mr Hootington posted:The company went under because it was found out the executives had never paid into the pension fund like they were obligated too and when we're ordered too they just did a company closure lol If I'm understanding the reporting correctly it looks like Yellow had only missed one payment of $50 million to the pension fund? It doesn't seem to have been a long term thing. They also didn't make their employee health insurance payment. America!
|
# ¿ Jul 31, 2023 15:45 |
|
Xaris posted:
That looks familiar: Interesting that you can so clearly see the various financial crises on the wealth graph, then the rate of accumulation resuming at a faster pace afterwards. Looks stable.
|
# ¿ Sep 26, 2023 11:27 |
|
My silly pet theory is that the indoor smoking bans only got through because it made restaurant dining/bars more palatable to people that otherwise wouldn't want to deal the smoke. The idea being that it was ultimately better for business and only incidentally aligned with public health considerations. Very possibly wrong about this. The USDA points out that US food spending has recently been at an all-time inflation adjusted high, and that non-home spending took the lead over the past two decades: Not sure it supports this hypothesis but that switch seems significant. Mr Hootington posted:The nukes are going to be launched and for 25 minutes the stock market will climb to ATHs
|
# ¿ Mar 24, 2024 18:35 |
|
MAID makes some sense as most people understandably want to avoid being an Alzheimer's patient in a long term care ward. However the reality as to how it's implemented in the current context with non-existent social support and a lot of incentives to remove "unproductive" people makes it truly awful. It causes more harm than it prevents, as the early Canadian experience demonstrates. To be clear the default option of slowly dying under the level of inadequate long term care provided by the state, if any is even available, is also not acceptable but also clearly inevitable under the current system. It is ridiculous to believe the average worker could ever save enough for the costs involved, but that's exactly the expectation in most places. SirPablo posted:It is socially beneficial to let people Die With Dignity. Using that as a way to pressure people to die would be hosed up. Painting the fact that the allocation of your remaining resources would be done in a "positive" way isn't by itself bad, really depends on the motive. Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 15:35 on Apr 1, 2024 |
# ¿ Apr 1, 2024 15:32 |
|
You can't discount the random MAID horror stories as isolated incidents. They are an inevitable, incentivized and logical outcome of the current provision of social support and end of life care. It's like seeing a cop murder a black person and concluding it was just a single bad apple. I used to think MAID was in principle a good idea, in part due to spending too much time volunteering in a lovely retirement/long term care home. The actual implementation in Canada has been so disastrous and I don't support it now. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is even at the personal level, because as mentioned you don't want to end up senile in long term care but a just MAID system isn't possible in our society.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2024 16:10 |
|
loquacius posted:Insurance already does this in many circumstances. The only difference is they generously give you the option of paying for it out of pocket if they decide they won't Yes, MAID is generating a lot of headlines and gets a lot of attention for obvious reasons but the alternative is really not much better. Dying painfully with inadequate long-term care is also unacceptable but also a very real possibility for any non-rich person in the current system. Even in places with UHC like Canada or the UK the conditions in the kinds of care homes that can be afforded without significant private savings are terrible. The average worker cannot save enough to guarantee good quality end of life care out of savings. You can imagine the ideal system from a capitalist perspective is one that will drain any savings from an older person then swiftly dumping their care on the state or pushing MAID when they've run out of money. This appears to be largely what we're getting.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2024 16:53 |
|
PoundSand posted:something I sort of wonder with end of life care stuff is what countries with better health systems are doing. Cause like in america the conventional knowledge is that unless you're just perfectly healthy after you retire up until the point you die peacefully in your sleep overnight it's a crippling amount of money that none but the richest can afford. So if it does realistically cost a gajillion dollars per month for however many years it takes for you to die getting in home care or spending it at a facility how do nationalized places afford it? It seems like particularly with populations skewing older it could get prohibitively expensive. I understand the whole for profit nature of the american system is inflating costs of everything so I'd assume it's cheaper elsewhere, but at the same time I imagine a lot of the costs of those sorts of facility are staffing so presuming it's professionals making a reasonable wage there's somewhat of a floor that's probably pretty high regardless of meds/equipment being more reasonable. Not an expert but did do a superficial review of this at some point, as unfortunately the cost of long-term care are increasingly relevant. As far as I can tell there are no good examples in the English speaking western world. It's not like Canada is uniquely terrible among western countries, the state + social support system just as threadbare as any other for the usual reasons. The main innovation in Canada is they formalized a process that frankly informally occurs in many places when for example someone requiring long-term care runs out of money or insurance denies coverage etc. In almost all cases end-of-life and long term care is expected to be paid from private savings, and in only some cases will govts step in to provide the cash for a totally inadequate level of care. Here were my main observations comparing different English-speaking countries: -United States: individuals must pay, medicare/medicaid will pay an inadequate amount if someone doesn't have enough income or assets -Canada: province dependent, individuals generally pay costs but for example in Ontario the "co-payment' costs are capped -UK: people generally must pay for their care themselves but local councils will cover the costs if someone doesn't have enough assets -Australia: individuals must pay but the govt will cover the costs if someone doesn't have enough income or assets -New Zealand: individuals must pay for care but the maximum amount any care home is capped and district health boards cover the outstanding costs. Also support for low income, assets people. It seems like New Zealand is "best" in that they apparently cap the amount that care homes can charge people. I know nothing about how this works out in practice.
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2024 17:55 |
|
Yes, implementing an effective maximum income has been done. Not anymore though A 100% wealth tax over a certain threshold seems more straightforward to be honest, also about as likely going forward edit: I see this chart lists the tax rate for the richest as 40% currently, lol
|
# ¿ Apr 1, 2024 19:04 |
|
I was genuinely confused reading reports that the Disney+ streaming service was losing a lot of money. How could they possibly lose money streaming Disney content, they already made most of it decades ago. Maybe most people know already but this Forbes article explained it well, though they took way too many words when it was essentially:quote:Instead of being satisfied with its spellbinding performance, Disney doubled down and commissioned dedicated Disney+ shows and movies, spending $33 billion on content in 2022 alone. Driven by ego in a bid to attract more subscribers than Netflix, Disney upped the ante and it didn't pay off.
|
# ¿ Apr 16, 2024 21:43 |
|
mawarannahr posted:lol Let them fight. However this will likely be a thread-relevant topic going forward as there's some preliminary evidence that using GLP-1 agonists to "cure" obesity might require long-term if not lifelong prescriptions. From a recent Nature news article: quote:NEWS FEATURE Also someone posted the rising obesity rates earlier itt and the GLP-1 agonist revolution is a great example that public health problems tend only to be addressed via technical solutions vs addressing the underlying social factors driving and exacerbating the problems in the first place. People talk about how we finally have a miracle cure for obesity and we've always had a cure for obesity (for most people), it's eating healthy food and getting enough exercise. For some reason it seems like a large and rising proportion of the public can't do those things, must be due to individual moral failings but fortunately there's a pill they can (maybe) buy now. edit Acelerion posted:House Nocturtle has issued a correction as of 17:29 on Apr 18, 2024 |
# ¿ Apr 18, 2024 17:21 |
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:It's unironically a shame that liberals, including the lib-left can only engage with this in terms of No Body is Illegal or whatever, rather than seeing what's actually going on here. This is an important topic that will get lost in this thread, too bad the immigration thread is defunct IMO the main problem with this piece is it ignores the reality that we are and will continue to see large scale mass migration into the west over the next few decades no matter what policy the "left" decides. It's already happening and will continue to happen on ever larger scales, climate change ensures this without even accounting for globalization. The only question is whether these migrants are treated humanely or declared illegal. It's also disingenuous to say conservatives love immigration as a weapon against labour. They absolutely do for all the reasons the author summarizes, but what conservatives love much more is the current situation of mass migration WITHOUT legal status. That's far more corrosive to labour than treating migrants humanely and letting them work legally. As mentioned we are getting mass migration no matter what, it's not up for debate, and these are the two options. In particular this part annoyed me: quote:With respect to illegal immigration, the Left should support efforts to make E-Verify mandatory and push for stiff penalties on employers who fail to comply. Employers, not immigrants, should be the primary focus of enforcement efforts. These employers take advantage of immigrants who lack ordinary legal protections in order to perpetuate a race to the bottom in wages while also evading payroll taxes and the provision of other benefits. Such incentives must be eliminated if any workers are to be treated fairly.
|
# ¿ Apr 19, 2024 01:15 |
|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/philippilk/status/1782409654519128497 Is this really true? For example Canada uses the low energy Canadian dollar and living standards for normal people are similar to the US. Uncritically interpreting the average national income as a quality of life indicator for non-rich people when the income distribution is highly unequal also seems misguided. Don't disagree with the main point that the decline of the petrodollar will likely puncture a lot of America's various bubbles.
|
# ¿ Apr 23, 2024 13:21 |
|
Father Wendigo posted:FED'S DALY: No more sunrises until the streets run red with the blood of the unemployed. It's helpful that Federal Reserve officials explicitly state that they raise rates with the express purpose of putting people out of work, and rates aren't going down until that happens. Here's a Yahoo Finance article with slightly more detail, though I haven't found any kind of transcript of Daly's remarks: quote:Fed's Daly favors waiting to gain confidence that inflation is dropping
|
# ¿ May 10, 2024 04:51 |
|
|
# ¿ May 17, 2024 18:41 |
|
loquacius posted:Couldn't they fill similar jobs in the single payer bureaucracy A different version of this plot gets posted every few years and oddly the numbers keep getting larger. This one is from this Forbes article: There's a lot of graft embodied in that discrepancy of US costs wrt other countries. Single-payer bureaucracies aren't nearly so bloated as the US system so moving to one would cut out a lot of bullshit jobs. It's not like things are going super great in single-payer countries though, on my last visit back to Canada I was a little shocked at the number of private health insurance television commercials. The UK NHS is self-destructing in real time. The US probably has it worst though as the health care is simultaneously both poor quality and one of the most expensive.
|
# ¿ May 17, 2024 01:25 |