Perhaps we should show US 8-15 y/o’s videos like this so they know who they will be shooting at in 10 years.
Isn’t it more like Wall Street was slipped some PCP? Between the Federal Reserve, Congress and the executive branch we’ve got inflation, wars, deficit spending, subsidies, regulation, artificially low interest rates and other interventionist policy. All of which distort market reality and now we are in the comedown and it sucks a lot more then a hangover.
Redirect blame.
The government seizure of IndyMac Bancorp Inc. late Friday may set off more concern about other banks failing under the weight of the mortgage implosion and credit crisis, but few seem to be in danger, according to Richard Bove, a banking analyst with Ladenburg Thalmann Inc.
Bove said there was likely some truth to accusations that comments from “a prominent senator” that IndyMac was in danger hurt the thrift, one of the largest mortgage lenders in the country.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., raised concerns about the bank in a letter June 26 that has been widely criticized as undercutting investor confidence in IndyMac. The senator defended his actions in a news conference on Sunday, saying his letter merely pointed out problems that regulators allowed to build up for years.
“There are no benefits by having prominent officials claiming that large financial institutions are failing, are insolvent; are incapable of raising funds; or that they should be allowed to fail,” Bove wrote in a note to clients. “This grandstanding does nothing to create confidence in the American financial system.”
“Additionally, there can be no doubt that this recent era of regulation-lite allowed excesses to develop in the financial system. The unwillingness of the supposed protectors of the system to actually protect it is also inexcusable,” Bove said.
Let us look at these two statements separately and together.
There are no benefits by having prominent officials claiming that large financial institutions are failing, are insolvent; are incapable of raising funds; or that they should be allowed to fail.
BS. Prominent officials are just human beings, likely investors, and their opinions matter just as anyone else’s in the market. They may be ignorant of economic theory, they may be completely talking out of their ass but the MSM has thousands of economic gurus doing that every day and few complain.
Additionally, there can be no doubt that this recent era of regulation-lite allowed excesses to develop in the financial system. The unwillingness of the supposed protectors of the system to actually protect it is also inexcusable.
I would hardly call this an era of regulation-lite. There are lots of regulations. The problem is government intervention. As for unwillingness to regulation. I simply don’t believe that. Politicians will do whatever will get them the most power. If regulation is it they will. Economic law be damned.
Together now. Bove should be complaining about politicians interfering and regulating and not them talking. Is it really that difficult to see that cheap money and other market manipulations are the primary causes for this all? The cheap money dumped into the housing market? The unfair advantages given to the GSEs. The evidence seems to scream off the paper/monitor. These guys like Bove want to keep this fascist system going. They are going to blame those who are competitors. And it’s likely to work… like the many times before… and we will all suffer because of it.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/…
Back in the 1960s, Castonguay chaired a Canadian government committee studying health reform and recommended that his home province of Quebec — then the largest and most affluent in the country — adopt government-administered health care, covering all citizens through tax levies.
The government followed his advice, leading to his modern-day moniker: “the father of Quebec medicare.” Even this title seems modest; Castonguay’s work triggered a domino effect across the country, until eventually his ideas were implemented from coast to coast.
Four decades later, as the chairman of a government committee reviewing Quebec health care this year, Castonguay concluded that the system is in “crisis.”
“We thought we could resolve the system’s problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it,” says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”
Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.
In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It’s as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.
What would drive a man like Castonguay to reconsider his long-held beliefs? Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.
Interesting. I like MikeS’s of MooreWatch.com line: “Somehow, I rather doubt this will be a part of Sicko II: The Search For More Money.” I agree.
Check out the original article for a few Canadian healthcare horror stories.
Remember when Ben Bernanke was a fan of a more transparent Fed, with bright lines on where inflation should be and how to get there?
“Inflation-targeting countries have achieved lower inflation rates and lower inflation expectation,” he wrote in his 1999 book Inflation Targeting: Lessons from the International Experience. “There is also evidence that the use of inflation targeting increases public understanding of monetary policy, improves policy-maker accountability, and provides a discipline-enhancing ‘nominal anchor’ for monetary policy.” In 2003 Bernanke said targeting in the 2% range seemed “the optimal long-run average inflation rate” for the U.S.
But since taking office, you’ll hear no such comments from the chairman. The reason? Reality. While the European Central bank’s primary concern is controlling inflation, the American Federal Reserve has the dual responsibility of maintaining both price stability and employment, making Bernanke’s job a tough one.
No one ever seems to look at those goals and ask why price stability is important and how exactly does what the Federal Reserve do which effects employment.
Read More…
 |
|
Downsize DC Mises Media
