Thursday, January 28, 2010

State of the Union

Okay, I typically avoid making fun of politics because it's weak, but if you watched the sotu + rebuttal last night, you're probably ready to fist a dick. (Maybe your own)

First of all, wtf is up with scapegoating "bankers" for the economic crisis? No fucking banks wanted to give poor people loans to buy houses -- it was government policy that the GSEs had to provide mortgages for shitbag home buyers. The banks' involvement in the mortgage crisis is downstream and certainly not causal. (Though certainly exacerbated the problem) OH LOOK WHEN YOU LOAN PEOPLE WITH NO MONEY AND NO ASSETS $$ TO BUY HOMES, SHIT DOESN'T WORK OUT? WTF BRO.

This was a product of a retarded American policy/philosophy that "everyone should own a home" regardless of whether or not it makes fiscal sense.

And the whole "Banks are taking bets with your money"? If by "your money", you mean deposits, well, no they fucking don't. And if by "your money", you're talking shareholders, than yes, but that is what it fucking means to invest a company, you implicitly back their management and their decisions/choices.

The finance industry, particularly "banking" even though nobody even knows what a banker is, thx American education, is singled out by Obama only because it's unpopular not because it, as a sector, behaved unethically.

And the bailout figures he mentions? THE BANKS BY AND LARGE REPAID THEIR LOANS. The US gov't not only got their $$ back on "rescuing" the banks but generally profited to the tune of 30B from the process. What about the 50B given to shitbag US auto companies? GOOD LUCK GETTING THAT BACK. Fannie and Freddie? LOL. Are people upset that the money lent to banks actually enabled them to not fail?

All of this is secondary to Washington's total failure to grasp primitive economic concepts. Quantitative Easing does nothing. It doesn't "print money" nor does it weaken the dollar. There's not a fixed amount of dollars. No such thing as money supply. Or money multiplier. Classical economics is dead. Get the fuck over it. Taxing isn't necessary to "raise money" (pay as you go is retarded and simply reduces output) and "trying to balance the budget" is absolutely retarded. Once output is restored and is growing, tax revenues will surge as tax policy needs always necessarily lag, and deficits will shrink. (Or potentially go negative)

MORE RANTING TO COME

PS The GOP dude, McDonnell, sounds like Chingy. RIGHT THURR RIGHT THURR. HEALTH CURR. HEALTH CURR. (He also probably has downs)

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

first - i win

Anonymous said...

awesome as always, keep posting! love your shit

jordan said...

thoughts on committees trying to scapegoat bernanke?

Cory said...

"This was a product of a retarded American policy/philosophy that "everyone should own a home"

idk,
by this you sound like you are in support of an economic system that limits the necessities of life to people..

Should people also starve in india because they don't have money to buy food?

Should children receive inferior education because a nation/state doesn't have enough funds to support it?


Our government seems to want these progressive goals but don't have the balls to reform monetary policy. I really feel the majority of elected leaders are so brainwashed into preserving capitalism that they try to find solutions inside the capitalist model such as Keynesian theory instead of saying, "fuck it, were starting this shit over so we can reach the needs of humanity"

Raddy said...

@jh - Personally, I think we could do better than Bernanke, but I think blaming him for what's happened is pretty ludicrous. (I also think it would have been disastrous for equity markets had we failed to reappoint him as who the fuck could replace him in the near future)

@cory - awesome points ^^

I can't really respond to all of them easily here, but:

1) Owning a home isn't a necessity, nor is owning 2 cars and 2 HDTVs and a bluray.

2) I don't think people should starve anywhere. I think education both domestically and in emerging nations is nearly equally critical. The rich should pay. (They already do)

3) I believe in FULL employment for all Americans. If you don't have a job, the governement should give you one. (Paying say 10$ an hour) These jobs should focus on improving internal infrastructure.

4) I don't see what monetary policy has to do with foreign aid, education, or "necessities of life" unless you mean that capitalism inevitably creates a wide wealth gap between rich and poor and has only a "few winners." (I don't believe this is true either way)

Anonymous said...

radikal,

I have enjoyed reading your blogs for a while, even though you don't post often anymore. But I must say that I think I enjoy your business rants the most.

I have a very heavy science background and know very little about business, banking, and other important facts about this sector. These blogs are always fun and have cool facts in them that help me learn about stuff I should know about, but have no time to learn atm. You should do this more often :)

shifty803 said...

I like this article. The press makes me so angry the way they sensationalize every damn thing.

In all honesty, don't you think we have some right to anger at the banks? Yes, the government precipitated the whole mess in the first place with the Equal Housing nonsense. Can you sign your name to some paper? Congratulations! Here's a house! But I digress...

Derivatives are not going away, and I don't think they are "bad". However, banks were taking on far too much risk in certain sectors like mortgages. No matter what all the crap was rated, they had to know better.

Buffet himself said in '02 that he can go over a bank's business in detail and not be able to understand the amount of risk they've taken on. Yes, the government should share a large part of the blame, but shouldn't the banks as well?

I am not saying at all the government was wrong to recapitalize most of the companies they did, but that doesn't absolve blame.

LordVir said...

First of all, wtf is up with scapegoating "bankers" for the economic crisis? No fucking banks wanted to give poor people loans to buy houses -- it was government policy that the GSEs had to provide mortgages for shitbag home buyers. The banks' involvement in the mortgage crisis is downstream and certainly not causal. (Though certainly exacerbated the problem) OH LOOK WHEN YOU LOAN PEOPLE WITH NO MONEY AND NO ASSETS $$ TO BUY HOMES, SHIT DOESN'T WORK OUT? WTF BRO.


So true, and if you try to say this in the media you're called a RACIST.