Sentences (#41)

Charles Hugh Smith on the perverse effects of (understandable) macroeconomic panic:

What NIRP communicates is: this sucker’s going down, so sell everything and hoard your cash and precious metals.

Oh, look

20160211_goldoil_0

Expect the war on cash, in all its forms, to massively intensify.

ADDED: Fernandez, on the road to NIRP. “While NIRP and $4.1 trillion budgets may represent the last throw of the Keynesian dice, John Maudlin warns that even failure will have no effect. Like negative interest rates itself, orthodoxy is prepared to venture into negative sanity rather than admit to error.”

February 12, 2016admin 118 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Collapse

TAGGED WITH : , ,

118 Responses to this entry

  • Different T Says:

    Do you have any idea what NIRP means Nick?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You mean beyond the acronym (“negative interest rate policy”)? Mandatory consumption engineered through macroeconomic policy.

    Japan and Germany have already done it in nominal terms (ditto, previously, Switzerland with a little more reason). With realistic inflation adjustment, it’s rampant. It’s the next step. Everyone is seeing that ZIRP wasn’t enough, and they’re responding accordingly. That’s CHS’s point.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Mandatory consumption engineered through macroeconomic policy.

    Can you explain how the policy operationally works?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    By punishing saving.

    Different T Reply:

    By punishing saving.

    Can you explain how it operationally works?

    Does someone come to your house and break your arm if you don’t spend everything that’s in your wallet at the store? If not, can you explain how it operationally works?

    (This is the place that claims intelligence optimization is a transcendental value, correct?)

    admin Reply:

    You’re going to have to make the problem more explicit, if you’re going to continue pumping. It’s not difficult. Negative interest rates operate as a tax on saving — your principal is systematically and explicitly eroded over time. How is that not punishing saving? Where’s the complexity? I’m totally failing to see what your question is about.

    “… how it operationally works?” — Anyone attempting to save sees their principal attenuate predictably over time. Mechanism: Central financial authorities set those rates under their control for a negative (first real and, then increasingly, nominal) yield. Capital is programmatically devalorized (the leading trend of macro — i.e. fascist economics — since its inception).
    Desired consequence: “Might as well spend it at Walmart instead.”
    Actual consequence: “Those goldbugs were clearly on to something…”

    Kgaard Reply:

    This is the debate to have. I am wrestling with this problem around the clock. There are lots of things one could buy: real estate, metals, art, Escalades etc. One could put cash in the bank and watch it lose nominal value, but in theory the decay relative to CPI should be no worse than normal. For instance, in “normal” times you put cash in the bank and get 2% while CPI is 3.5%. Under NIRP you put cash in the bank at -1% while CPI is 0.5%. What’s the difference?

    The operational difference is that buying a safe and stuffing it with $100 bills becomes a better option than putting money in the bank. This is why bank stocks are getting smashed. They are worried about disintermediation.

    So … somebody needs to come up with a good idea here. I think NIRP is probably functional down to about -1% and maybe that is enough to get the job done. Or maybe it isn’t. The central banks need to dig deeper into their toolbox.

    Here is a good bloomberg piece on some of the tools central bankers are thinking about:

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-12/there-are-still-a-few-tricks-seen-up-central-bankers-sleeves

    admin Reply:

    “I think NIRP is probably functional down to about -1%” — it says a lot about Different T that this actually appears as a sane comment by comparison. How can capital being valued at less than nothing (“I’ll look after it for you, if you pay me”) be anything other than a sign of radical economic malfunction?

    Different T Reply:

    There is no need to “to make the problem more explicit.”

    Your response is evidence that you do not understand how NIRP actually operates. For instance, which deposits are being “punished?” Is Joe Blow in Japan, Europe, and Switzerland seeing his bank balance decline because of CB NIRP?

    Your ignorance would be understandable if you weren’t obsessed with intelligence optimization.

    admin Reply:

    Put something on the table, or stop ankle-biting. Of course Joe Blow is getting screwed by financial repression, and knows it. Don’t you talk to anyone with a positive bank balance?

    Different T Reply:

    One could put cash in the bank and watch it lose nominal value, but in theory the decay relative to CPI should be no worse than normal.

    You’re telling your clients this?

    Kgaard Reply:

    @Different TDude why all the hostility? This is complicated stuff. The bigger picture here is that the collective mind is wrestling with very difficult concepts. Negative IOR is the monetary equivalent of quantum physics. Relationships get weird when you go below zero.

    And yes, in theory, the point can come where putting your money in the bank generates a negative nominal return. That is precisely why PM Abe came out last night and said Japan WOULDN’T go to a situation where depositors in banks would get a negative return. Personally I think it was a premature statement but whatever.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Nick … I don’t know that dysfunction is the right word. It’s functioning exactly as one would expect: I feel a perverse sort of debt to Hurlock for drumming up that Ouroboros piece, with its quote, “Your fear is not that your profit margin will decline. No, your fear is that you will starve.” The heart of capitalism is a perpetual motion machine. It CAN’T stop or we all starve. But when fertility goes below 2.0 and life becomes less stuff-intensive, well, demand for widgets declines. So naturally to avoid complete debt implosion nominal GDP must be pumped up via some mechanism — inflation being the most logical. Now … that can be done via banks if banks can be compelled to take reserves and spew them out there in the form of loans, but if they don’t believe a higher CPI target will be SUSTAINED they won’t make the loans. That’s the problem we’re at now. Central bankers have lost creditbility because they’re not really trying to hit their 2% CPI target.

    Now … one could disintermediate the banks, but of course bankers don’t like that.

    admin Reply:

    What would they do to seriously try and hit their inflation (or — with more sophistication — NGDP) targets? Hasn’t the Japanese central bank been focused dementedly on exactly this?

    Different T Reply:

    Of course Joe Blow is getting screwed by financial repression, and knows it.

    You were asked a very simple question: Is Joe Blow in Japan, Europe, and Switzerland seeing his bank balance decline because of CB NIRP?

    You then felt the need to change the standard to “is Joe Blow getting screwed,” a standard so subjective as to render it meaningless.

    Don’t you talk to anyone with a positive bank balance?

    Yes, I have. I have also searched the internet for articles were “Joe Blow” is receiving a negative interest rate at his retail bank. None were found. If you have counter evidence, I would very much appreciate the link.

    Put something on the table, or stop ankle-biting.

    Let’s clear something up. I have no interest in offering suggestions to the mess that has become our political-economic-financial system. That obligation is where it should be; with the billionaire capitalists and the employees of the Federal Reserve, US Government and its various agencies, and the state governments and their various agencies.

    I do, however, have an interest in ensuring future iterations not throw away the lessons of modern economic and financial thought.

    Your ignorant claims, descriptions, and predictions (or maybe you’d rather call them “intuits”) are harmful.

    And laughable given your supposed transcendental value of Intelligence Optimization.

    admin Reply:

    If “the lessons of modern economic and financial thought” are Keynesian fascist macro, stating your defense of them explicitly would count as ‘putting something on the table’. If not, I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

    “You were asked a very simple question: Is Joe Blow in Japan, Europe, and Switzerland seeing his bank balance decline because of CB NIRP?” — What planet are you living on?

    Kgaard Reply:

    Well we are entering a period of experimentation toward precisely that end. That’s why that Bloomberg piece linked above is interesting. There are a whole bunch of ideas tossed out there. I mean, conceptually, the easiest thing in the world is for a government or central bank to make prices go up. Just print money. So really the issue is structural and political. A lot of brainpower is now going to be put to these questions. I don’t have the answers but I am working on it. Or should say I am relentlessly following the debate so I can crunch the potential answers as they are thrown out and try to determine which ones might work and which ones might be adopted. It’s exhausting. Just this negative IOR debate has been really intense.

    Different T Reply:

    Dude why all the hostility? This is complicated stuff. The bigger picture here is that the collective mind is wrestling with very difficult concepts.

    And ignorant claims, like Admin’s and your own, complicate things more.

    And yes, in theory, the point can come where putting your money in the bank generates a negative nominal return. That is precisely why PM Abe came out last night and said Japan WOULDN’T go to a situation where depositors in banks would get a negative return.

    No. He came out and used the term “WOULDN’T” because of ignorant masses. To state that they have an option is the operational equivalent of stating “We won’t cut off our arms in order to win at baseball.” While ridiculous, it’s very telling of what the speaker thinks of his audience.

    Kgaard Reply:

    DAMMIT Different T … How about some substantive explanation of your arguments here? This Snarkratic method stuff is infuriating.

    admin Reply:

    “This Snarkratic method stuff is infuriating.” — Thank you. It totally is.

    “Everyone is ignorant except me, and I’m not going to tell anyone what I think.”

    Different T Reply:

    stating your defense of them explicitly would count as ‘putting something on the table’

    That has (partially) already been done. Nor is there any indication of benefit, since you still refuse to admit your ignorance on such matters and the system itself offers no incentive for its defense. Optimal strategy is, therefore, to point out the absurdities and ignorance in the other’s position.

    admin Reply:

    Even by your standards, that’s pathetic. If you’re not prepared to make a positive case, you’re not even playing. I’m not answering another “snarkratic” question until you show some willingness to put some skin in the game.

    Telling us ignorant folks exactly where Hazlitt went wrong would be a start. But choose your own battlefield, just so long as there is one.

    Kgaard Reply:

    I used to think you were smart. You have said intelligent things before. But I am starting to think you actually don’t understand this debate and the snark is a smokescreen — i.e. the Hurlockian rhetorical style when under attack.

    Gentile Ben Reply:

    This whole exchange reminds me of the coin toss scene in “No Country For Old Men.” You need to call it, friendo. Why? Just call it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 4:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Grahf Says:

    I’ve been buying gold, but I have little pretense of it saving me. It’s like flailing your limbs in icy waters, trying to stay afloat for a little longer. A primitive reaction to attempt survival. Will it help in the end? Maybe, but you’re still going to be at the mercy of the other side of collapse.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    when last war begins in Irak, gold prices drops sharply. imo in case of seriouse calamities gold prices will collapse too. but still one can buy some bread on gold. bitcoins may be better option as it more easy to transfer and conceal.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 4:52 pm Reply | Quote
  • Sentences (#41) | Neoreactive Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 4:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • mdc Says:

    @Different T

    Inflation aka debasement of the currency. You don’t have to spend it but if you don’t it will be silently given to others.

    Not that I necessarily endorse this or any other doomsday prediction(tm). I think neoreaction has a lot that is new and true to say about political philosophy and history, but not convinced it has originated any new economic ideas. I caution that political radicals of all stripes – neoreactionary, libertarian, commie, whatever – have successfully predicted 20,001 out of the last zero ends of the world economy.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There are only two possibilities:
    (a) Fascism works
    (b) “This sucker’s going down”

    [Reply]

    D. Reply:

    (c) Fascism works poorly, but it has such a prolonged decline — punctuated by crises but without a single terminal crisis — that by the time total collapse occurs there is no hope of recovery.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I only wish that didn’t sound plausible.

    Different T Reply:

    Fascism works poorly, but it has such a prolonged decline — punctuated by crises but without a single terminal crisis — that by the time total collapse occurs there is no hope of recovery.

    Hence, efforts should be focused on creation, not redemption.

    From my perspective, this is one of the few things NRx considers thoughtfully compared w/ MM’s version of reaction.

    mdc Reply:

    Imagine you live in Brazil. You’re probably aware that your country is a bit shit, because you can probably visit better countries like the USA, and even if not see them on TV and the internet.

    But Brazil 2015 is still much better than Brazil 1950 and, in pure material terms, also than USA 1950.

    If the whole world were Brazil you probably wouldn’t be aware that there is anything better than Brazil, would not be aware that the world is a bit shit.

    The world has been becoming more and more Brazil for about 250 years. I see that trend continuing. I am sure Brazil will have its periodic financial crises, as it has had in the past, which do little to affect the trend, and in the scheme of things aren’t that important. I don’t think Brazil is going back to the stone age.

    D. Reply:

    “Imagine you live in Brazil.”

    God forbid!

    I agree with you that the gradual brazilification (or if one prefers, mexicanization or zudafrikanization) of what used to be the first world is a possible end state for the trends currently in motion. However, I think you’re rather overoptimistic about it. First, Brazil today is not remotely as prosperous as the United States in 1950 even in the purely materialist and ultra-conventional terms of per-capita GDP, where the US in 1950 about doubles today’s Brazil. Second, I think you severely underestimate the social dysfunction in Brazil, which has been getting worse over time, and which has an impact on living standards beyond that captured by conventional accounting measures such as GDP (e.g. crime rates). Third, any improvement in living standards that Brazil has enjoyed over the last seven decades has been highly dependent on the United States and other advanced nations providing international security for world trade, providing markets for Brazil’s goods, providing their own goods and services imported by Brazil, and providing technological advances that ultimately filter down to Brazil. Fourthly, the economic crises endured by Brazil (and similar countries) over the last seven decades have been mitigated by lingering economic strength in the advanced economies, as well as first world institutions designed to contain financial contagion after crises.

    If the entire world becomes Brazil, this would not necessarily imply an immediate “return to the stone age”, but it would indicate technological stagnation at best, and more likely some amount of regression, with the rate of decline increasing over time. And if the entire world is Brazil, then there isn’t hope of any civilization persisting in some part of it. The world ends with a whimper rather than bang.

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 5:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Democracy creates endless growth though what Linkola called “the society based on individual desire.” The problem is that the choices made for these desires are in the hands of the same Bell Curve that makes democracy stable through perpetual decline. When the reckless growth creates a hiccup, mass panic results because everyone knows this is a house of cards!

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 6:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    “You were asked a very simple question: Is Joe Blow in Japan, Europe, and Switzerland seeing his bank balance decline because of CB NIRP?”

    — What planet are you living on?

    Wow. You cannot even believe your lying eyes. What use does Intelligence have for you?

    Your seriously claiming that you “value intelligence optimization transcendently” when you

    1) Refuse to answer an incredibly simple yes/no question with a yes/no answer
    2) Imply the incorrect answer in order to avoid actually stating said incorrect answer and openly demonstrating your ignorance.

    What. The. Fuck. Happened. To. You.

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Different T and Kgaard going at it is the most amusing thing that I’ve seen in this comment section in a while.

    Especially considering that they pretty much share the same views on the issue at hand.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    “Especially considering that they pretty much share the same views on the issue at hand.”

    A swing and a miss. Hurlock keeps his streak alive!

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    What do you do for a living that you have so much spare time to flood these comment sections so much these days?

    Different T Reply:

    What do you do for a living

    These days, live off the supposed “negative interest bearing” accounts I own.

    Further evidence of your conceptions that have no relation to reality:

    Hurlock: Yes, but to do that you also need to produce, if you don’t produce anything you have no purchasing power, therefore you cannot buy anything to consume.

    Different T: No.

    You need a claim to production (if we are operating under a system of property rights [clarification is a must since fantasy-land is also being contrasted]), such as a trust-fund baby, stay-at-home mother, child with paying parents (which you approve of), a disabled person, or child with the state paying (which you disapprove of).

    you have so much spare time to flood these comment sections so much these days?you have so much spare time to flood these comment sections so much these days?

    Don’t fret. There will be a pause soon enough to ensure those like you don’t drown.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    @Hurlock,

    I work nine hours a day, 3.5 hours of that being actual productive labour and the other 5.5 trawling edgy blogs and occasionally commenting. There are many in the workforce who manage their time this poorly or even worse.

    If you are surprised by the capacity of the indentured cubiclecuck’s ability to shitpost in industrial volumes, I’m guessing you are either a man of independent means or someone whose boss forces them to actually work, so I am either very impressed or very sympathetic.

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 7:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    You have said intelligent things before. But I am starting to think you actually don’t understand this debate and the snark is a smokescreen — i.e. the Hurlockian rhetorical style when under attack.

    That feeling has been mutual since our last exchange 12/31/14. Since then, I’ve monitored your postings optimistically. And the current exchange has been a vast improvement; you’ve yet to insinuate I am some Austrian “free-market” libertardian.

    So let me ask you this: What is the value of an asset that needs to be spoon-fed.

    My answer is to look at an instance of said asset, eg. a baby. We do not spoon-fed babies because we like to spend our time spoon-feeding things. Rather, we expect them to grow and become capable of feeding themselves and productive.

    You may perceive what I write to be “a smokescreen,” it is not. To use Land’s terminology, “cognitive write protection” prevents what you appear to desire, an instantaneous conceptualization and understanding.

    In other words, you must put in the work. Investigate your conception of money.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 7:56 pm Reply | Quote
  • Mr. Archenemy Says:

    @Different T

    Can I politely suggest you remain in orbit for a few more decades and continue your study of human interaction before attempting meaningful communication with the natives? It can really only help.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 8:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Sentences (#41) | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 9:28 pm Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    NIRP only means negative rates for savers if those savers happen to be member banks who are holders in *overnight balances* at the Fed.

    [Reply]

    vimothy Reply:

    That’s the answer to Different T’s question, by the way: “How does NIRP operationally work?”

    I’m not sure if this is his (of her) point; however, there is nothing there that warrants the level of excitement attached to the OP. NIRP affects a quantitatively tiny and (evidently) completely obscure sliver of the money market. It is not the same as the general return to capital.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    To be accurate, the Fed doesn’t have NIRP; Japan and Europe do.

    And to pre-emptively illuminate the likely reply, some of those countries also have negative T-bill and bond rates. And some banks in those countries are charging negative rates on certain depositors money.

    So the question becomes, will Land and other Austrian’s continue their ignorant exclamations that these rates are evidence of “capital being valued at less than nothing.”

    [Reply]

    existoon Reply:

    “Negative interest rate proponents ignore the most basic tenets of double-entry accounting.

    Because there are two sides to a bank balance sheet, negative interest rates are the mirror image of positive rates. The move to negative rates imposes new costs on the banks, unlike low positive or zero interest rates, which reduce bank costs.”

    http://hotstocks.nyc/2016/02/02/the-mindless-stupidity-of-negative-interest-rates/

    Different T Reply:

    Is this supposed to have some message?

    What you described is the stated reason for the policy.

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 9:45 pm Reply | Quote
  • existoon Says:

    NIRP is a form of demurrage.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_%28currency%29

    Demurrage could be compared to a controlled fission. It works well in a closed system. Planetary Freiwirtschaft …

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freiwirtschaft

    But this is not the world we live in. We’re adding radioactive decay to planet-sized stockpile of financial plutonium. We’re also throwing out the control rods for good measure.

    Invest in fallout shelters.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 12th, 2016 at 10:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Valuable explanation of NIRP in action C/C.

    I don’t endorse or think it will work this time but valuable explanation. Financially repress the debt away.

    We don’t have the 1945 West or the 1945 rulers of course. We have the 1860/1933 crowd.

    Meanwhile STFB. Short The Fucking Banks.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    I don’t have money to do it.

    Spent all on fam.

    As to posterity….we shall see…

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2016 at 12:44 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Time for Taleb’s Convexity.

    Small is beautiful. Especially in gangs.

    Picks: Steel, Lead, Gold, MIL ID, Badges, Uniforms, Guns.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Russia and China greatly appreciate your contribution, comrade.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2016 at 12:47 am Reply | Quote
  • ballard Says:

    Different T tries explaining NIRP to Lola Stone:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UklB1_FxFTc

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2016 at 1:10 am Reply | Quote
  • existoon Says:

    The stated reasons for NIRP are quite different, comrade T. And if you had at least skimmed the linked article you’d have some idea of the consequences.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    The stated reasons for NIRP are quite different

    I disagree; however, you are correct.

    And if you had at least skimmed the linked article you’d have some idea of the consequences.

    It was read multiple times. I enjoyed it. Especially: “But this is the Great Stagnation Middle Class Elimination. You can bet that the “General Jack D. Ripper” faction at the Federal Reserve is thinking the unthinkable – and thinking about it incorrectly.”

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2016 at 8:29 am Reply | Quote
  • SVErshov Says:

    seems like this anti human centiment got under skin of some. it is only sane departure point, leave all this humanity sicknes behind. it is impossible to negate your own status as an integral part of human solidarity and not be ‘depressingly hopeful’. future does not belong to humans as we know it. one is free to explore some other emancipatory ways of thought, many capable thinkers (Brassier and Negarastani) done just that and got nowhere. future does not contain sockets to plug these rudimentary ideas in. AI been officially recognised in USA as legal entity which can drive car. humanity diagnosys quite simple – ‘perseption delay’. what last 50 years demonstrates, to see future clearly 50 years in advance is not enough.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2016 at 9:16 am Reply | Quote
  • mdc Says:

    Off topic: I am currently listening to Mike Duncan’s ‘Revolutions’ series of podcasts. It’s of course a topic of political interest and moderate for our times, i.e. raving progressive. At the moment he’s talking about the Haitian Revolution, which is interesting because it seems to be describing the birth of the third world in the 18th century, with Haiti being the world’s first third world country (i.e. a failed state despite being at least on paper a democracy and adherent to all the trendiest progressive memes). So I’m interested what really happened rather than just what 21st centuroids think happen. Anyone know of a good NRx history of the Haitian Revolution? Failing that, any such history whatsoever from e.g. before the First World War?

    [Reply]

    Erebus Reply:

    The book you’re looking for is Sir Spencer St. John’s “Hayti or The Black Republic”. It’s definitely NRx approved, and reprints are now available on Amazon quite cheaply.

    Froude, in “The English in the West Indies”, mentions it in passing a couple of times:

    “We were to have one more glimpse at Hayti ; we were to touch at Port au Prince, the seat of government of the successors of Toussaint. If beauty of situation could mould human character, the inhabitants of Port au Prince might claim to be the first of mankind. St. Domingo or Espanola, of which Hayti is the largest division, was the earliest island discovered by Columbus and the finest in the Caribbean Ocean. It remained Spanish, as I have already said, for 200 years, when Hayti was taken by the French buccaneers, and made over by them to Louis XIV. The French kept it till the Kevolution. They built towns; they laid out farms and sugar fields; they planted coffee all over the island, where it now grows wild. Vast herds of cattle roamed over the mountain; splendid houses rose over the rich savannah. The French Church put out its strength; there were churches and priests in every parish; there were monasteries and nunneries for the religious orders. So firm was the hold that they had gained that Hayti, like Cuba, seemed to have been made a part of the old world, and as civilised as France itself. But French civilisation became itself electric. The Revolution came, and the reign of Liberty. The blacks took arms; they surprised the plantations; they made a clean sweep of the whole French population. Yellow fever swept awajr the armies which were sent to avenge the massacre, and France being engaged in annexing Europe had no leisure to despatch more. The island being thus derelict, Spain and England both tried their hand to recover it, but failed from the same cause, and a black nation, with a republican constitution and a population perhaps of about a million and a half of pure-blood negroes, has since been in unchallenged possession, has arrived at the condition which has been described to us by Sir Spencer St. John. Republics which begin with murder and plunder do not come to much good in this world. Hayti has passed through many revolutions, and is no nearer than at first to stability. The present president, M. Salomon, who was long a refugee in Jamaica, came into power a few years back by a turn of the wheel. He was described to me as a peremptory gentleman who made quick work with his political opponents. His term of office having nearly expired, he had re-elected himself shortly before for another seven years and was prepared to maintain his right by any measures which he might think expedient. He had a few regiments of soldiers, who, I was told, were devoted to him, and a fleet consisting of two gunboats commanded by an American officer to whom he chiefly owed his security.”
    (Italics added.)

    “We English are in bad favour just now; no wonder, with the guns of the “Canada” pointed at the city; but the chief complaint is on account of Sir Spencer St. John’s book, which they cry out against with a degree of anger which is the surest evidence of its truth.”

    Froude, whose book is also well worth reading, goes on to describe Hayti as “the most ridiculous caricature of civilisation in the whole world.” And in some detail, at that.

    This was kinda funny. (Who to trust: A man who lived for nearly a decade as a colonial administrator in 19th century Haiti, or a late 20th century progressive academician who probably never set foot in the country?!?)

    [Reply]

    mdc Reply:

    Thanks for the reply, that’s exactly what I was looking for.

    Here is the book for free, if anyone else is interested:

    https://archive.org/stream/haytiorblackrep00johngoog#page/n9/mode/2up

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    If you’re on a history kick, this appears to be a model of historical exit (trust that you can understand the proper “Cathedralites”/”non-s”, etc).

    Some applicable analysis of strengths from here:

    “At the start of the nineteenth century, many people viewed the coexistence of blacks and whites in America as a formidable social problem. Some people, who were not fond of slavery, nonetheless opposed emanicipation because they could not fathom the comingling of free blacks and whites.”

    ” Forbes (1990) argues that “the American Colonization Society was not interested in abolishing slavery, but in preserving it.””

    ” Some of these, embarrassed by the question ‘What further is to be done with them?’ join themselves in opposition with those who are actuated by sordid avarice only” – Thomas Jefferson

    ““Many liberal citizens had voted for the African’s liberty but nobody wanted his company.” These citizens viewed the colonization of freed blacks as an acceptable solution to the problem.”

    “Regarding the ACS’s appeal to Ohio Protestants, Matijasic (1985) writes that besides providing “them with a way to combat the evils of slavery without the risk of offending traditional prejudices … the Liberian project was seen as part of a larger movement to spread Christianity to ‘unenlightened’ portions of the world.”

    “Proponents of slavery viewed free blacks as potentially disruptive and dangerous. The ACS used fear of free blacks to garner support. Streiford (1979) writes, “the ACS struck hard at the manifest fears of the white population. The fear of slave insurrections and race war served as one such strong appeal.” Appeals for support based on fear typically incorporated rascist rhetoric. For example, Henry Clay, one of the leaders of the ACS, proclaimed, “Of all classes of our population, the most vicious is that of the free coloured … they extend their vices to all around them, to the slaves and to the whites” (Streiford 1979).”

    and some of the limitations and warnings about this model:

    “With the ACS making statements such as these, it is no surprise that many free blacks opposed the colonization movement. Forbes (1990) gives an overview of black opposition to colonization. Opposition was concentrated in Northern cities, such as Philadelphia and Boston. Many influential black leaders, such as Frederick Douglass and David Walker, were vocal opponents of colonization.”

    “Allen (1982) argues that many, if not most, colonizing slaveowners sent their slave to Liberia because of moral qualms about slavery and humanitarian feelings toward their slaves.”

    If colonization supporting slaveowners were selfishly motivated by economic or racist considerations, one would expect them to be more likely to free infirm or otherwise unproductive slaves for colonization.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    @ Admin

    Can you edit that to include the proper after “here”? Thanks.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 13th, 2016 at 11:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Grotesque Body Says:

    Although I haven’t decided whether admin or DifferentT is correct w/r/t and therefore can’t decide the outcome of the dispute for you as yet, NIRP as a general phenomenon seems irrelevant to NRx (Xenosystems iteration) if “Exit > Voice” is still axiomatic.

    Your bank starts pozzing you with negative interest rates and raping your savings? Move your capital to another bank that doesn’t.

    Just as a postscript, kind of disappointed that NIRP is turning out to not quite entail bankers paying me to take free money. Alas, I now must seek gibsmedats elsewhere.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    A systematic barring of the economic exit gates is macro.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    In the event of such a comprehensive blocking of the exits, any money one has in one’s bank account is in any case Monopoly money in the Cathedral’s funtime reality simulation. Complaining about having X fewer dollarydoos in one’s Monopoly kitty in such a situation would, to me, seem to be missing the forest for the twigs.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 1:51 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    Although I haven’t decided whether admin or DifferentT is correct

    You “haven’t decided” whether deposits at retail banks are being charged NIR? What the fuck does that mean?

    Ask admin if they are. If past actions are the least bit correlated with future actions, Admin has since researched it. Given his statement “intelligence optimization is desirable as a transcendental value to be pursued regardless of its cost to all other values,” it’s very telling to watch him apply his value hierarchy in action and not correct himself which leads to further confusion and lower “intelligence optimization.”

    Grotesque Body, given your claimed philosophical influences; do you really think you have a right to “decide the outcome of the dispute?” Do you even know what “Time Value of Money” is? Do you know what it applies to? Do you know what it states about monetary values given changes in interest rates?

    Only you know if you require google to “answer” to those questions.

    Again; given your supposed philosophical influences, do you even take the concepts of rights, privileges, and obligations into consideration before you speak?

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Different T, Different T … relax! You are correct that retail depositors are by definition not charged interest to deposit money in a bank under Negative IOR, because IOR by definition is the rate for commercial bank reserves.

    The real issue here is that you are getting high, mighty and hostile over what is a minor aspect of a confusing issue.

    The area is generally pretty gray: Long-term government bonds have negative yields in many places. Banks get negative yields on their reserves with central banks … and a not-illogical NEXT step COULD be negative rates on deposits. Even if that is not happening anywhere yet, the mere fact of it … the possibility of it … IS having a heavy impact on the debate. That’s because the central banks, when they consider how low they can take negative IOR, have to bear in mind that banks can’t charge negative interest rates on savings and checking account deposits without risking losing those deposits. I mean, maybe they can charge -0.5% but anything over -1% and people put their money in safes.

    So … effectively … even though for the moment it’s only negative IOR, the spectre of negative rates on savings accounts and checking accounts absolutely is part of the debate. If banks can’t attract deposits, they won’t have a base from which to loan money and won’t have anything to put on reserve with the central banks in the first place.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    over what is a minor aspect of a confusing issue.

    No. It betrays a significant ignorance, made even more significant if the speaker is claiming “intelligence optimization is transcendentally valuable.” You, of all the people here, know what the mandate of a CB is and relates to.

    And you, of all the people here, should understand the stakes. It would be quite illuminating to look overlay the wealth accrual to the very top after the crises pointed at in the first chart. It is well known, even to the point of being the basis of regulation, that individual investors are relatively ignorant and relatively large losers when they try to actively manage their own funds. Precisely because they buy in to bullshit analysis similar to what Admin has posted. The analysis doesn’t suggest some sort of risk rotation, it is blatantly claiming economic ruin and collapse.

    Again, this sort of ignorant analysis is not only immediately harmful to those who take action based on it; it also causes future harm towards, what I may still naively consider as our mutual goal, ensuring future iterations not throw away the lessons of modern economic and financial thought.

    You are correct that retail depositors are by definition not charged interest to deposit money in a bank under Negative IOR, because IOR by definition is the rate for commercial bank reserves.

    It doesn’t appear you really understand the policy. The CB’s are trying to “encourage” lending by putting negative rates on excess reserves as they believe it will help them accomplish their mandate and it is illuminating to note where those huge sums of excess reserves actually came from). As member banks with the CB’s, whether they “like” it or not, “private” banks are part of this mandate. This is the world we live in, to say nothing of the efficacy of any CB’s actions.

    If banks can’t attract deposits, they won’t have a base from which to loan money and won’t have anything to put on reserve with the central banks in the first place.

    Does this make sense yet?:

    He came out and used the term “WOULDN’T” because of ignorant masses. To state that they have an option is the operational equivalent of stating “We won’t cut off our arms in order to win at baseball.” While ridiculous, it’s very telling of what the speaker thinks of his audience.

    Sure, you could say you’re real concern is that they “will cut off their arms in order to fit through a small hole and into a bunker after they intentionally light a bomb in middle of the baseball stadium.” But by the time that analysis appears reasonable to you, economics and finance don’t really matter. VXXC would be an example of this.

    And I’m curious, have you done any investigation into your conception of money?

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    It’s capitalism, dude. Fractional banking. Paradox of thrift. Starvation as the core driver. You cannot have a contracting nominal economy in a country with 100% voter participation for any length of time. Banks are quasi-state enterprises from the get-go. Negative IOR during times of low nominal GDP growth is the price you pay to play …

    I am not sweating it myself. When we get some seasteads working, well, a different model can be conceptualized …

    admin Reply:

    “You cannot have a contracting nominal economy in a country with 100% voter participation for any length of time.” — Totally correct, except that’s Democracy, and pretty much the exact opposite of Capitalism.

    Different T Reply:

    What? Are you going back to claiming this is an “Austrian “free-market” libertardian” analysis?

    Does any person besides kgaard understand how his reply in any way relates to what it’s a response to?

    Kgaard Reply:

    DT — I am responding to your moral bewailment of negative interest rates and how they somehow represent a Rubicon we have crossed, whereby the authorities are now putting a gun to banks’ heads and forcing them to loan at penalty of having their $$ sucked away. That is in fact kind of what’s going on … but my response is … so what? Banks are quasi-state enterprises. They are about as far from being morally pure Ayn-Randian heroic-capitalist entities as you can get anyway …

    Different T Reply:

    @ Kgaard

    You quite literally re-write what I post and then act like you’re making a point.

    Idiocy wins another battle:

    “That’s my girl,” said George. He winced. There was the sound of a rivetting gun in his head.

    “Gee – I could tell that one was a doozy,” said Hazel.

    “You can say that again,” said George.

    “Gee-” said Hazel, “I could tell that one was a doozy.”

    Kgaard Reply:

    DT — If you don’t want people to misunderstand what you’re saying WRITE SO PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT rather than slathering on all these riddles and arcane references.

    Different T Reply:

    @ Kgaard

    From my perspective (formed after a number of interactions), you are a leech. You have no desire to learn anything, only to confirm your initial thoughts. This is evidenced by the fact that if someone disagrees with you; you argue with them to find where you disagree and then 1) if you still disagree, argue your point 2) if you don’t see an effective difference, you blabber on about unrelated non-sense.

    It is also evidenced by the fact that if someone disagrees about the causes and understanding of an issue, but agrees with you on the effects (in this discussion, that NIRP isn’t some new “financial plutonium) you happily move on with your view of the effects confirmed and your causes/understanding unexamined. Confirmation bias is a bitch. I pity your clients.

    I no longer perceive any mutual goals between us and am done assisting you.

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    “VXXC would be an example of this.

    And I’m curious, have you done any investigation into your conception of money?”

    Not sure where I fit into the armless bunker in ticking baseball stadium metaphor but..

    I know in the past I basically talked around corners intentionally to point out war is inevitable.
    [that’s Feinian caution].

    I’ve moved on past that and am candid about it as balanced judgment that it’s time. Also others have accepted it as well. At a certain point of conflict candor is duty.

    As far as ” And I’m curious, have you done any investigation into your conception of money?”

    I have asked that question recently and repeatedly over last few months – whether or not that was a quote from me.

    I’ve concluded our dollar is risk formula based fiat.

    I may be wrong. But certainly it’s hardly on solid ground.

    BTW when I say short the banks that’s because they’re basically evil instruments now and harmful, nothing to do with greed, profit or ideology.

    Still believe in fighting evil when you must, and so we must.

    Different T Reply:

    Not sure where I fit into the armless bunker in ticking baseball stadium metaphor but..

    You fit the metaphor precisely because your perspective of “the banks” is “they’re basically evil instruments now and harmful, nothing to do with greed, profit or ideology.” IOW, if you’re worried about NIRP because you consider it a tool for banks to inflict harm, you’re past considerations of finance and economics and, as you state, in the realm of “good vs. evil.”

    Maybe kgaard is correct that “PEOPLE CAN[‘T] UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT,” but it appears altering the content would in fact debase it. Therefore, making it “easier” for the ignorant to understand is not optimal.

    Kgaard Reply:

    DT … I was going to write that “To say you offer assistance is to say Norman Bates is a helpful hotelier.”

    But in reading your explanations above … I will allow that your understanding of NIRP is actually good. Upon prodding from me and others, you have reverted to clear english and made helpful points.

    Now that wasn’t so hard, was it?

    I should say that in my 20s I was a newspaper reporter for four years. At that time, in that industry, one lived and died clarity, brevity and declarative sentences. I’ve maintained aggressive biases in favor of those things …

    Different T Reply:

    At that time, in that industry, one lived and died clarity, brevity and declarative sentences. I’ve maintained aggressive biases in favor of those things …

    And those things also have drawbacks, they allow the appearance of knowledge and understanding through imitation. IOW, you can now state what I wrote and appear to others to have the knowledge and understanding that lead to said conclusions; when you in actuality do not. If you say them in my presence, I can further interrogate you to check your understanding. Those others mentioned, who are at an even lower level of understanding than you, have no such defense.

    Your position is understandable as I’ve never seen you claim “intelligence optimization as transcendentally valuable.” Nick Land’s ignorance on such issues is not excusable.

    Different T Reply:

    I will allow that your understanding of NIRP is actually good.

    [Don’t be rude.]

    Different T Reply:

    Put my post back Admin.

    Kgaard Reply:

    I am rechristening you Different Tool.

    vimothy Reply:

    Banks can simply swap out negative interest rate reserve balances for cash at any time. If the Fed sets the negative rate above the marginal cost of holding vault cash, that’s exactly what will happen. It’s not exactly “financial repression”.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    No. The article that “existoon” linked from hotnycstocks or something does an ok job of discussing the issue.

    vimothy Reply:

    “No” – no to what?

    Member banks at the Fed can swap reserve balances for cash at any time. That’s a simple fact. The theory behind negative interest rates is that the marginal cost of holding vault cash is small but non-zero. Hence, rates can go below zero before participants cash out.

    Different T Reply:

    Member banks at the Fed can swap reserve balances for cash at any time. That’s a simple fact.

    Apologies, it could have been clearer.

    What you say only holds with a regulator (ie. the CB) that is incompetent. The Bank of Japan (who actually implemented a NIRP) addressed exactly this issue here (it’s on page 6).

    If the bank increases it’s cash holdings, the amount of increase is deducted from the member banks reserves, not the member banks excess reserves that are subject to the NIRP.

    Does that make sense?

    Different T Reply:

    The theory behind negative interest rates is that the marginal cost of holding vault cash is small but non-zero. Hence, rates can go below zero before participants cash out.

    Again, no. The theory behind NIRP is the same as that for any policy we term “monetary loosening.”

    Earlier, I stated that increasing the cost to banks of holding what the CB has determined to be reserves is the stated reason for NIRP. (reserves aren’t a “natural” product, they are a product of regulation. That is, the amount to be held is not up to the risk assessment of the owners of the financial institution, it is set by regulation)

    Existoon disagreed, saying that the stated reason is not to increase the cost (by which he means the stated reason is “encouraging” lending, I think). He is correct with that assessment, however I disagree with it.

    Suffice it to say that when a CB says they are going to “encourage” lending, any banker with a clue knows that “encouraging” means the CB will:

    1) On the supply side: increase the opportunity cost to banks of not lending by decreasing the rate they receive on their reserves. When the rate is already zero, the only way to increase this opportunity cost is a penalty

    2) On the demand side: decrease the cost of borrowing with the goal of increasing consumption through lower financing cost; and perhaps more importantly, lowering the discount rate businesses use to determine the net present value of their potential projects resulting in increased investment in said projects.

    Again, while you could argue Existoon is correct and the stated reason is “encouraging” lending, I consider this shallow superficial and a relic of his non-involvement in the industry.

    vimothy Reply:

    Does that make sense?

    Sure. I was not familiar with the BoJ’s system (although I disagree that CBs with alternative implementations are incompetent).

    The BoJ’s paper states that,

    In order to prevent a decrease in the effects of a negative interest rate due to financial institutions’ cash holdings, if their cash holdings increase significantly from those during the benchmark reserve maintenance periods, the increased amount will be deducted from [reserve balances not subject to NIR].

    Note that “if”. Why would that be subject to any doubt? Precisely because the marginal costs of holding cash are greater than zero, so it is not a given that anyone would want to trade their balances with he BoJ. The paper does not explain whether they expect to be above that rate, but 0.1% is very low and one can easily imagine that the marginal cost of holding excess reserves as vault cash is above it.

    admin Reply:

    I knew there were people who thought financial repression was a damn good thing. That there’s at least one person who denies it’s even happening is more surprising.

    [Reply]

    Kgaard Reply:

    Okay … let’s work from that thesis. If zero rates are financial repression, then raising rates is financial liberation, no?

    So … Yellen raises rates. Aaaaand … the 10-year bond yield PLUMMETS. Long-term interest rates get even lower. Elderly virtuous savers are even more “repressed.”

    This was easy to foresee — we saw the same chain of events when Trichet did a Yellen back in 2012 (ish). He decreed that it was time to “normalize” rates. So he raised them. The Eurozone went into recession, the PIIGS blew up (depression) and long-term bond rates for Germany cratered.

    Moral of the story: The Fed really doesn’t have all that much control over things. They do not “set” interest rates in any meaningful way. There is a natural rate. The Fed can fuck up by being over or under that rate. But if they err from the correct rate on the short end, the long end of the curve will call them out. If the Fed sets the short rate too high, the long end of the curve collapses. And vice versa.

    So this concept of financial repression is just a non-starter. Sorry …

    [Reply]

    Hurlock Reply:

    Come on Kgaard, this is one of the laziest straw-men of something that Admin has said that you have ever come up with.

    And don’t you get tired of blatantly contradicting yourself?

    “So … Yellen raises rates. Aaaaand … the 10-year bond yield PLUMMETS. Long-term interest rates get even lower. Elderly virtuous savers are even more “repressed.”

    Then:
    “Moral of the story: The Fed really doesn’t have all that much control over things. They do not “set” interest rates in any meaningful way. There is a natural rate. ”

    So let me get this straight. By what you have just said, I conclude that the FED can directly manipulate short-term interests rates, and obviously somehow long-term ones as well, yet you also claim that they “do not “set” interest rates in any meaningful way”.
    I am not injecting any of my theoretical assumptions here, just analyzing what you have said.

    So which one is it, do the actions of the FED affect where short and long-term rates go, or do they “really don’t have all that much control over things” and “they do not set interest rates in any meaningful way”?

    Kgaard Reply:

    Hurlock … Yes … you are asking the right question. What I avoided bringing up, in order to keep things simple, was the concept of the Wicksellian equilibrium rate. There exists a natural equilibrium rate of interest. It changes depending on various factors. The Fed, to do its job correctly, needs to be near that rate and needs to guide expectations near that rate. Over the past few months they’ve been guiding to FOUR quarter point hikes. This has terrified investors and caused risk-taking to contract. As a consequence, the Wicksellian equilibrium rate has actually fallen. That’s why long-bond yields have gone down even as the Fed has talked up the short rate (and then actually followed through with a quarter-point hike).

    It seems confusing at first but it’s all very logical. When I say the Fed only has the power to fuck up, this is basically what I mean. They thought they could move the yield curve … but they couldn’t.

    Kgaard Reply:

    Clarifying that last sentence: “They thought they could move the yield curve HIGHER … but they couldn’t.”

    Different T Reply:

    Quick question, Nick. How many people do you know that followed you all the way down the rabbit hole to even understand your conceptions regarding “write protection?” Yet, by all appearances, you do not extend such courtesy and credit; either because you’re unwilling or not capable or not allowed.

    I knew there were people who thought financial repression was a damn good thing. That there’s at least one person who denies it’s even happening is more surprising.

    This is the best response (whole thread is of value to seeing the perspective, if that even interests you):

    Rasputin: But the subordination of economics to politics is a cancer, which needs to be cut out, kemophized, cremated, shot out into the stratosphere, etc, etc.

    Different T: Why do you think politics is superceding economics. That’s rhetorical, I know it is due to your “insistence that the goal of the economy is to “maximize production” or “utility” or whatever.”

    Economics is about power and control. It is a question of who, not what. “What” is a fantasy until realization, at which time the question solely becomes “whom.”

    And, btw, I have a comment from about twelve hours ago apparently stuck in moderation due to it containing two links. Can you approve it?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Greater China” muddies the water. I’ve certainly never suggested that Mainland China is a refuge for capital. Given just the capital-flight from the place, that would have been preposterous.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    ‘You “haven’t decided” whether deposits at retail banks are being charged NIR? What the fuck does that mean?’

    The fact of the matter, “retail banks are being charged, yes or no?” isn’t the whole of the argument. As you’re well aware if you’ve been reading admin’s replies, there are various tacit rhetorical figures at work. I will decide the victor of the dispute shortly, I promise. I would be more prompt but it is a complex issue.

    “given your claimed philosophical influences”

    On the contrary, my good fellow. I repudiate all that calls itself ‘philosophy’, in favour of the body.

    “…do you even take the concepts of rights, privileges, and obligations into consideration before you speak?”

    I haven’t been in the presence of this many spooks since yesterday’s Scooby Doo marathon. Yes, you have rights and I have obligations. I know. You will invoke rights when we’re talking about your rights, and obligations when talking about my obligations. Heads, you win, tails, I lose. The rights/obligations rhetorical bait and switch is old news to me.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 2:46 am Reply | Quote
  • vimothy Says:

    Banks can simply swap out negative interest rate reserve balances for cash at any time. If the Fed sets the negative rate above the marginal cost of holding vault cash, that’s exactly what will happen. It’s not exactly “financial repression”.

    By the way, this suggests that the zero-interest rate floor on excess reserves is above the market rate, given the current preponderance of liquidity in the system – to say nothing of positive interest paid on excess reserve balances (since 2008 in the US), which constitutes a subsidy to the banking system.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    By the way, this suggests that the zero-interest rate floor on excess reserves is above the market rate, given the current preponderance of liquidity in the system – to say nothing of positive interest paid on excess reserve balances (since 2008 in the US), which constitutes a subsidy to the banking system.

    Wow, nice, you are moving along V.

    Next question, why do you think there is such a thing as a “market rate” for bank reserves at the Fed ?

    [Reply]

    vimothy Reply:

    By “market rate” I simply mean the *hypothetical* market clearing rate for reserve balances (which would plummet to zero and stay there, in the absence of a floor maintained by the Fed).

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Good.

    Who are the participants in the market you are addressing?

    vimothy Reply:

    Banks of various sizes and types, savings and loans, GSEs, some IBs, etc, etc.

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 10:03 am Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Some people don’t take well to the notion of setback or living rough it seems.

    In an odd way this cheers me up – not other’s discomfort, just the perspective of my trifling setbacks could be worse: I could be a portfolio manager. Or living off investments instead of skilled wage earner.

    This has been a great thread. Really.

    NIRP=Financial Repression, except it doesn’t and Voldemort & Partners bring more Harry’s along….

    “On the contrary, my good fellow. I repudiate all that calls itself ‘philosophy’, in favour of the body.”
    —>I’m stealing that but substituting “real” for body.

    “….haven’t seen this many spooks since Scooby Doo Marathon.” Love it.

    I’m also apparently the arch-type armless bunker in ticking baseball stadium Holy Warrior.

    And thank you for noticing my question earlier: What is our money? What is your concept of it?

    I say it’s risk formula based fiat.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    I’m also apparently the arch-type armless bunker in ticking baseball stadium Holy Warrior.

    What?

    There is no way my words are that cryptic.

    You, VXXC, believe bankers are purposely inflicting harm. Therefore, your perspective is not that NIRP is economically or financially ineffective. Your perspective is that an evil madman is intentionally inflicting harm.

    Eg. You are not concerned with whether a baseball player would cut off his arms in order to win at the game baseball, that would be ridiculous. You are concerned that an evil, insane baseball player would cut off his arms in order to fit into a bunker after intentionally lighting a bomb in the middle of the stadium.

    Is this still cryptic?

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Thank you for the clarification.

    Actually it was ambivalent. I really couldn’t tell until clarified. Now it’s not cryptic at all.

    Listen I – me VXXC – has a problem. Deadly sin. WRATH. More than once it’s made my writing unclear.

    [Just a self deprecating note of caution. when I’m pissed off I become less than clear. Me. ]

    Yes you have my perspective correct. I’m not an ideologue for many years. If it works it works.

    There is no tool or policy or reform of evil madmen. Nor is there for otherwise good men caught in a madman’s web – and the latter category fits so many people who would otherwise not do harm.

    If someone means harm they must be caged or destroyed. Failure to do so is what is trapping us all.

    ZIRP, NIPR, QE

    Thanks for the clarification and good luck.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Appreciate your response. Do you have any idea why you didn’t understand the analogy at first?

    Completely off-topic: Do you see a large post with a bunch of quotes from me about Liberia where the majority of text is hyperlink (blue in color)?

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    Money is flesh.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Diff T,

    It was worded and inserted at a point where tough to follow thread until explained.

    Of course that happens in comments thread.

    Grot B,

    “Money is Flesh.”

    Holy Shit. He’s right. That would define our risk formula nation collateral Fiat.

    Money is Flesh. Ours.

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    Money is Flesh
    when it is fresh

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 5:19 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    “On the contrary, my good fellow. I repudiate all that calls itself ‘philosophy’, in favour of the body.”

    That one opens so many doors.

    We at present are at a historical point where our worship of brains is dying…and dying badly.

    Of course for all time men have worshiped comely fertility, women brawn.

    For a time the nerds had their revenge and brains were worshiped – in the sense of clever and glib.

    The peak of glib is of course Chomsky. He’s glib squared, tautology incarnate.

    At other points in history of course the stomach was revered – to be Fat meant to be wealthy, comfortable, safe.

    Frankly the stomach makes as much sense to worship as the head, the brain being essentially Tripe in terms of how it’s constructed, smells, cooks and tastes. Nature could have pointed the eyes, ears and other senses at the stomach and gotten the same result. Might be more efficient for all we know. Perhaps AI will make the improvement.

    But the worship of an overstimulated, aqueous semi gelatinous ball of Tripe will seem indeed foolish to posterity.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 5:26 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    cont’d…

    Any and all policies could work under certain circumstances. Also it could fail and we’d recognize that the best effort was attempted. Communism is ideal for instance in Lifeboats or plane crash sites low on food.

    However when open or exposed malice, evil is not caged or destroyed then it continues to harm.

    No systems approach or reform saves us a cent or a life now, we must remove the evil from power.

    cheers all.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 6:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    BTW now I need to clarify.

    I don’t think Bankers per se are harmful or that banking, capitalism is evil.

    Nor do I think a social safety net is evil.

    The real problem is 50 years ago a hidden cancer* suddenly manifested openly in Western and particular American elites and it was never excised. So it metastasized into every area and institution. *

    Let’s call it the Treason of the Highborn. Once the birthmark of high birth it’s now practically a pass into the elite club – even the price of admission. Others may call it Leftism.

    We’re learning the timeless lesson the hard way that the punishment of betrayal is so high because it rewards at ratio’s and ease of commission with such devastating consequences that the harsh old school penalties are being proven true.

    * No not the Joos.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 6:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    @diffT

    No.

    “Completely off-topic: Do you see a large post with a bunch of quotes from me about Liberia where the majority of text is hyperlink (blue in color)?”

    No, sorry

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 6:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Ah wait. I do see it.

    About halfway up.

    See the Liberian highlighted blue links now.

    Just observing now I see it.

    I don’t think Exit can be done, no convincing needed.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Thank you. I appreciate it very much.

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    You’re welcome.

    Good luck fighting evil.

    Or bringing over the wavering good.

    Which far outnumbers evil.

    You can fit evil in any city into a decent sized living room, their retainers into maybe a large cellar.

    A workable problem.

    Cheers

    [Reply]

    TexasCapitalist Reply:

    Let me just say, reading the comments here got me kicked out of my middle school library for laughing too much. This blog’s comment section is better popcorn than the 2016 election cycle at times.

    [Reply]

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    NRx – better than meth.

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 14th, 2016 at 6:59 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment