Irrational Exuberance again...?

[73Zeppelin]

I'm not trying to suggest nationalization as a remedy for lax regulation. I meant temporary nationalization to make sure that lending takes place and a return of the nationalized institution to the private sector once the economy has recovered. Stocks in most banks are incredibly devalued. Shareholders, who are in some sense part owners of the company, have lost large amounts of wealth as a result. It is in their interest that banks don't lend and instead hoarde capital. That is not what the market needs right now. Banks need to lend, but shareholders have every reason to not want banks to lend. The immediate problem then, is not so much regulation, as it is to get the economy back on track. After that happens, the discussion on regulation can take place. I don't expect there to be any consensus on regulation for quite some time. And besides, it worked for Sweden. The major obstacle for the U.S. is that, unlike Sweden, there are a larger number of distressed banks in the States - that puts even more of a burden on the government to nationalize banks. I can always take the cheap argument and ask: if dumping billions into the banks isn't working, why not at least try nationalizing one bank and see what happens?

[Lost User]

73Zeppelin wrote:

why not at least try nationalizing one bank and see what happens?

Weren't the dealers somewhat relieved that by the statement by the Fed's Chairman [^] of the no intentions for banks to be nationalized which had an immediate upwards effect at the Stock Exchanges. Is it not time to consider researching a new system as the current system is probably irrevocably broken. Scrapping it might be the kindest thing to do.

[73Zeppelin]

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Weren't the dealers somewhat relieved that by the statement by the Fed's Chairman [^] of the no intentions for banks to be nationalized which had an immediate upwards effect at the Stock Exchanges.

Which is actually one of my arguments in favour of nationalization. If the sole aim of shareholders is to preserve their wealth by having banks hoard liquidity rather than lend, then we do indeed need to consider nationalization under the current economic climate. The DOW is currently at levels not seen since the 1990's. I don't think a small upswing in the market accurately reflects the current fundamentals of the economy.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Is it not time to consider researching a new system as the current system is probably irrevocably broken. Scrapping it might be the kindest thing to do.

I'm not convinced that the system is completely broken. I think that financial regulation simply needs to keep up with financial innovation. And, further to that, compensation schemes must be "fair", in the sense that there should be a downside risk for executives if company performance is poor. Under the current system, this is not true (i.e. golden parachutes, free options). This means that there must be appropriate levels of regulation along with appropriate levels of capital requirements. A complete redesign is, in my opinion, unnecessary.

[Oakman]

73Zeppelin wrote:

I meant temporary nationalization to make sure that lending takes place and a return of the nationalized institution to the private sector once the economy has recovered.

I did understand that. I guess the solution beg the question: If it works, why would we go back? (Maybe that's simply another way of asking the question you asked at the end of your post?)

73Zeppelin wrote:

Banks need to lend, but shareholders have every reason to not want banks to lend.

But this takes us back to: what banks are lending is funny money, created with a stroke of Bernake's magic pen. He, by the way, said this morning that there could come a day when no-one would want to buy America's 10 year notes. Of course the way he said it, it had nothing to do with his actions, only with Obama's budget. I keep coming back to my sneaking suspicion that banks have to have capital in order to lend capital - anything else is simply sleight of hand that makes people feel good - and is really more of the same type of behavior that got us into the mess we're in. I'm not saying that we don't need to keep people productive and I don't posit a return to the soup kitchens and breadlines of the thirties. But I am trying to understand why we are not talking about stimulating capital aquisition instead of "the economy." Is it just a dirty word these days? I keep thinking that banks will lend when: A. they have enough people loaning them money via bank accounts; B. When people who are credit worthy have enough capital to pledge some as collateral. Understand that, as near as I can tell, Obama's tax plans will not directly affect me, so I am not simply spouting off out of self-interest. Whether we suddenly return to trickle-down economics or put a bonnet on Uncle Sam and call him "nanny," should not make much of a difference to my lifestyle. It may be that until we start having currency based on something (and won't that changeover be fun!) be it gold, latinum (from StarTrek), energy, or production as you suggest, any and or every solution is simply playing the little dutch boy with a leakier and leakier dike. Do you have any suggested rweadings on the idea of production-backed currency?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to globa

[73Zeppelin]

Jon, I couldn't agree with you more. What you are addressing is a much deeper topic, whether you realize it or not (and I think you do realize it). The real issue is, indeed, fractional reserve banking. The current system of fiat money is not supported by anything and that is truly the source of not just the current problem, but other, deeper issues like the true causes of inflation. The problem with backing a currency with something like gold is that there isn't enough physical gold to go around. Furthermore, the value of gold is affected by supply, extraction costs, purity, etc.. etc... Even the kings of ancient history (e.g. Croesus) knew that diluting the metal content of coins was a nice way to manipulate the economy. So returning to Bretton Woods isn't an option. Do you receive emails if I send you a link from the "send email" thingy in the message window of CP? I'll send you a link, but it will contain things that hit a little too close to home for me if I post it in public here.

[Lost User]

So presumably, Fed Eliminates Compensation Limits for TALF Sponsors [^] alarms you

[73Zeppelin]

Yes, I saw that. Indeed it does trouble me. While competetive compensation packages do attract talent, compensation packages without performance incentives or downside risk send the wrong message. It sends the message of: make money at all costs. That's what got us to where we are today...

[Oakman]

If that isn't working, I can set up a mailbox specifically for you and simply find a months' old messages of yours back on page umpty-ump to send you its address.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[73Zeppelin]

Sent. Hopefully you'll receive it!

[Oakman]

Nope, but you should have just received an address for me. Let me know when you have it, OK?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[73Zeppelin]

Didn't receive it. You can send me an email directly to: I'll reply to that.

modified on Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:13 AM

[Oakman]

Done - strongly suggest you delete the message I am replying to, now.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

[73Zeppelin]

Oakman wrote:

Done - strongly suggest you delete the message I am replying to, now.

Yep.