Cafe Hayek - Latest Comments in Tiny Tim

Re: Tiny Tim

MWG — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:51:01 -0000

"Given the currency dumping situation, he did what few others in his position would do: stand up to China and accuse them on dumping in person."

-SS

...and the US subsidizing agriculture? Not dumping?

Re: Tiny Tim

Sam Grove — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:46:28 -0000

Methinks, such thinking is subliminal, more of a motivating force than a rational process.

And you know there are women that look at the bulge in a man's wallet.

Re: Tiny Tim

SheetWise — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:37:43 -0000

"All the aides in the world wouldn't make any difference. It's an impossible task."

It's a fool's errand.

At least Obama found the right man.

Re: Tiny Tim

Pluranomics — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:02:13 -0000

With labor and land prices in a perpetual free-fall we should be investing our capital not stimulating our credit.

As Schumpeter reminded us many times, Credit is the creation of purchasing power and the demon of economic equilibrium.

The stock market will break apart into mini-stockmarkets that are regionally or locally based and secured by renewable energy and real estate. Many unaffiliated mini-stockmarkets, as opposed to one Monopolistic Stock Market, would compete against one another, which should theoretically, based on greater competition, help stabilize land rent and energy inflation (Is there any other kind?).

At the end of the day, local residents through their retirement and savings will own stock and receive dividends from their mini-stockmarkets, which also increases local trade and employment opportunities.

I know its just a theory, but it is a starting point.

The utility and rent dividends will provide a current dividend to investors, which also stabilizes inflation. Leon Walrus described such dividend as a "Desired Cash Balance".

P.S. The last chapter called "The Business Cycle" in The Theory of Economic Development is a mind-boggling read right now.

Re: Tiny Tim

sethstorm — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:57:46 -0000

Posted by: Methinks | Mar 9, 2009 7:22:29 PM

Given the currency dumping situation, he did what few others in his position would do: stand up to China and accuse them on dumping in person.

Re: Tiny Tim

Methinks — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:39:30 -0000

Sam,

I actually burst out laughing when I thought of looking at Bernie "with desire".

Bernie is very very sick. Turns out the extent of the losses are much much lower than what he confessed to. That guy is such a psycho that I don't think his thinking is anywhere near as rational as you think.

Re: Tiny Tim

Sam Grove — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:51:54 -0000

A similar thing can be said for Madoff.

See! I am an important man.

I command resources (have lots of money) and people.

I am important to others.

Men will look to me for decisions.

Women will look at me with desire.

See how important I am?

There's not much you can do with a house of cards; wait for it to collapse or knock it over.

Re: Tiny Tim

indianajim — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:16:09 -0000

Yes Methinks, Bravo! As I said above Evan Bayh is stereotypical in asserting that they are "moving forward aggressively" blah blah blah. Evan is, like our pres., a pretty boy who can speak eloquently while selling basic freedom down the river. Like Thomas Sowell said in a recent column, talk can be very expensive when people, en masse, are persuaded to act in ways that are counter to economic and personal freedom. Sowell cites Hitler of an example of how expensive talk can become. Sowell has rationally persuaded me to be very careful about using the phrase: "talk is cheap."

Re: Tiny Tim

Methinks — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:50:13 -0000

And they MUST do SOMEthing. That's what superheros do!

The "logic" of government.

"Something must be done. This is something, so we must do it."

Re: Tiny Tim

Crusader — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:31:05 -0000

Vat vee need is da strrrrrrrrrrrong hand!

Re: Tiny Tim

Methinks — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:22:29 -0000

I'll give him respect for being able to tame China.

Huh?

Re: Tiny Tim

Methinks — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:21:49 -0000

Madeoff was in pure survival mode when he committed these so-called crimes.... Madeoff was limited by fed regulations in the types of investments he could make. Given these limitations, he could not fairly meet the return expectations of his investors. Therefore, since Madeoff was barred from pursuing those investment options which he normally would have exercised but-for prohibitory federal regulation, Madeoff had toâabsolutely had to â turn towards a so-called Ponzi scheme. I might add that but-for the down-turn in the economy..., Madeoffâs so-called Ponzi scheme would have continued, with happy investors, and continuing solid investment returns.

Frank,

No. No. No. No. NO.

Madoff was not prevented from exercising a trading strategy. If he was, he should have given the money back to his investors. Period.

No amount of regulation prevents the manager from being honest with his investors. The manager sets investor expectations by estimating an expected return and it is his responsibility to inform investors if his expectations change. If new regulation prevents him from trading his strategy, then it is the manager's job to inform investors and/or to switch strategies to another suitable strategy as per the operating agreement.

All such arrangements are subject to operating agreements which outline mutual responsibilities and the activities which the manager may or may not perform. NEVER have I seen an operating agreement which allows old investors to be paid off with the funds of new investors while no trades take place. Never mind the regulators. Bernie was in violation of his contract with his investors.

Regulations can be blamed for a great many things. Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme is not one of them.

Re: Tiny Tim

mark — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:13:10 -0000

Hi!

Re: Tiny Tim

sethstorm — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:51:13 -0000

Timothy Geithner

I'll give him respect for being able to tame China. That's something that hasn't been done legitmately in ages from the US.

Re: Tiny Tim

vikingvista — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:38:57 -0000

Geithner could do some good by announcing a predictable nondestructive long term government policy that investors could rely on when estimating investment risk.

But since that is not in the cards, I think government paralysis may be our best option. We should probably look favorably upon Geithner's ineffectiveness.

Re: Tiny Tim

indianajim — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:40:05 -0000

Frank wrote:

"Madeoff had toâabsolutely had to â turn towards a so-called Ponzi scheme"

Or else? The notion that there were no alternative actions available, "absolutely" NONE, is generally false, and particularly odd in this context.

Re: Tiny Tim

Frank — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:19:56 -0000

Bill, my free market viewpoint is absolutist, that is for sure.

That you think my opinions mere sarcasm perhaps reveals that deep down you disagree with purist free market principles. I am fully committed to the idea that individuals, when left to themselves, and when operating solely in self-interest, create the best possible human society. Period. If you would make certain exceptions, let me warn you: Once you make exceptions, you put yourself on a slippery slope down to socialism and from there, down you'll go to the absolute bottom pit of communism.

CRC -- you hit the nail right on th head, and I say to you and your views: Amen, brother.

Re: Tiny Tim

Bill — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:33:37 -0000

Frank: Your not so clever sarcasm is becoming tiresome.

Re: Tiny Tim

CRC — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:25:27 -0000

Look, politicians (and their employees) are, at their core, narcissists. They NEED the admiration and praise that comes from being superheroes. They crave power (and crises) for this purpose, to "prove" their heroic nature.

Obama is only the latest (and perhaps the most grandiose) in this line and those around him feed on the grand, heroic mission they must accomplish to save the country...even the WORLD from collapse.

In the vein of superhero-dom...they have an evil arch nemesis (well a few I suppose)...Bush and the Republicans ("the problems we inherited"), free-market capitalism, et al.

And they MUST do SOMEthing. That's what superheros do!

This all fits into the grand and dominant themes of crisis, urgency, collapse, tragedy...and, ultimately...RESCUE of the "damsel in distress" (the country and its people) by the true and noble superheros.

Sadly, Obama's (and his administration's) "kryptonite" is Kenyesianism but it is wrapped in the lead of superficial sensibility, reasoning, plausibility and Nobel laureate-ism, so he can't see it to stay away from it until it is too late and it weakens and kills him (and perhaps us too).

Re: Tiny Tim

Andrew_M_Garland — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:25:05 -0000

The Government Bailout IS the Problem

02/29/09 - Angry-Economist by Russ Nelson

The economy is bad because no one can predict the future with a big government elephant stomping around. The elephant can't solve the problem, and it scares away the elves who can solve the problem. The elves are small, but they are smart and there are a lot of them. The economist Paul Krugman has spun a theory for recovery. Will he bet on its success?

[edited]
The problem here is simple: credit is scarce because nobody wants to lend and nobody wants to buy. The Federal Government is threatening to borrow and spend a TRILLION dollars.

If you are bank, would you loan money if you knew that an A-grade customer was going to be spending a TRILLION dollars soon? Of course not. Even if they choose not to get their loan from you, the price of lending is going to go up. It must go up when a TRILLION dollar buyer is showing up. So nobody is lending now.

Re: Tiny Tim

Sam Grove — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:19:23 -0000

Geithner told his friend: âWe live for this kind of emergency. This is when we feel most important, most needed as a central banker, regulator. Itâs the crises that make our jobs worthwhile.â

See! I am an important man.

I command resources and people.

I am important to others.

Men will look to me for decisions.

Women will look at me with desire.

See how important I am?

Re: Tiny Tim

Sam Grove — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:05:39 -0000

Well then Sam, what do you think about Bernie? Do you think that when Bernie made off with mega millions it was about survival?

Are you serious?

I was thinking of the rest of us after climate change regulations, etc. are placed on us.

I've thought about the deer wandering the woods and the price of food skyrocketing, keeping chickens in the yard for eggs to barter, etc.

Are you worrying more about Madoff than your own future?

Sure Madoff is/was motivated, at root, by the survival/reproductive urge, just like the rest of us. He just happened to be in a circumstance and situation that tempted him to go for a big score, and he was obviously unconstrained by moral principles, as is typical of the political class in general.

That's one shortcoming of law, there has to be a fair assurance of getting caught for it to work.

How many criminals think about getting caught at the time they commit their crimes?

Re: Tiny Tim

OregonGuy — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:04:40 -0000

I appreciate what Michael Smith has attempted, and I'm always tempted to provide links, too.

I spent the weekend with most of my state's Republican legislators. Overall, I guess I'd have to give them a B+ grade. But several, even one with an aspiration to the governorship, have very weak financial and economic fundamentals. They view themselves as having to act heroically in our behalf. That is, they must choose how best to achieve our future proserity by defining the state's economic goals in terms of what products we should be developing for future markets...Green tech. So, not just Keynes. But a complete ignorance of David Ricardo.

I remember the Business school guys that "had to" take macro. And I enjoyed being a TA. It was my opportunity to give these guys a sense that the future would be more than golf and customer service. In the future, you're going to have to make a choice.

Re: Tiny Tim

Oil Shock — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:56:38 -0000

Given these limitations, he could not fairly meet the return expectations of his investors.

Why was he setting unrealistic expectations? He could have not taken the money from those with unrealistic expectations.

Re: Tiny Tim

Guest — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 10:51:47 -0000

"Madeoffâs so-called Ponzi scheme would have continued, with happy investors, and continuing solid investment returns."

What investments? Ponzi schemes don't make investments.