Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 04:42:26 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: :  (Read 11480 times)
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 01, 2012, 06:39:14 PM
 #81

The Fed didn't ease Smiley.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
1480956146
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956146

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956146
Reply with quote  #2

1480956146
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 01, 2012, 08:14:23 PM
 #82

The Fed didn't ease Smiley.

There is no reason to. QE is a tool to address problems with liquidity. There are no problems with liquidity.

this is true.  there ARE problems with solvency however.
Ukigo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 05:49:26 AM
 #83

I believe cypherdoc speaks about FRS's solvency.  Grin

"...Enemies are everywhere ! Angka is all rage ! Be a good soldiers, blow everything... " <-- Pol Pot (C)
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 05:50:46 AM
 #84

I believe cypherdoc speaks about FRS's solvency.  Grin


Frisch's Restaurants or Family Radio Service?

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
August 02, 2012, 06:16:37 AM
 #85

The Fed didn't ease Smiley.

There is no reason to. QE is a tool to address problems with liquidity. There are no problems with liquidity.

this is true.  there ARE problems with solvency however.

QE doesn't address solvency problems.

It doesn't? Please explain.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Ukigo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 06:52:07 AM
 #86

I believe cypherdoc speaks about FRS's solvency.  Grin


Frisch's Restaurants or Family Radio Service?
No,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System  Tongue

"...Enemies are everywhere ! Angka is all rage ! Be a good soldiers, blow everything... " <-- Pol Pot (C)
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 06:53:43 AM
 #87

QE doesn't address solvency problems.
It doesn't? Please explain.

It's basically assets vs. liabilities. If your assets (income) are greater than your liabilities (expenses), you're fine. The other way around, though - not so good.

Let's say I run a bank, and my reserve is 10% of total assets. As with any business, I have cyclical expenses including employees, property costs, shareholder dividends, etc. To make things easy, let's say that the annual expenses are equivalent to 10% of total assets.

I have 90% of total assets to work with, so I make 9 loans at 10% each. Every one of the loans returns 2% annually for an 18% total return. This means that the bank will be running at break-even if 4 of the loans default and cannot make payments. There may be costs involved with recovering the principal capital which could turn a defaulted loan into a net loss, but let's just assume 5 of the loans have defaulted. In that situation, there is now an annual shortfall of 20% (the 2% out of 10% total asset value necessary to keep the lights on). The reserve now has to be dipped into in order to make up the difference.

What liquidity injections attempt to do is recapitalize the banks to a point where the assets are greater than the liabilities again. However, liquidity cannot make defaulted loans profitable again. Instead of helping directly, liquidity can simply flood the banks and allow them to stay afloat until there are worthwhile loan applicants that aren't likely to fail in repayment. The problem is that there's a very large percentage of defaults, like a swimming pool with dozens of big cracks - pouring water in like liquidity injections just winds up flowing out almost as quickly.

The really dangerous part for the banks comes from any shift away from them as a primary source of business. If the banks start losing potential customers (to Bitcoin!), the solvency problem gets even worse, requiring bigger liquidity injections than before. Since most governments are highly dependent upon the banks, there's an extreme incentive to keep them alive. Without the ability to create productive clients for the banks and fix the solvency issue, and no money or insufficient cashflow (tax revenue) to pump into the banks, let alone keep the government itself going, the only option is to generate funny money and distribute that until nobody wants it anymore.

You can think of buggy whip makers for an easier analogy. If everyone has switched to using horseless carriages and no longer need whips, it doesn't matter how many whips you make - you're going out of business. Economists can be a mind-boggling contradiction with their ability at being intelligently stupid.

That went a little further than solvency, but the cascading effect is important too. And this highlights the especially dangerous nature of Bitcoin and gold for the banks in the current situation Smiley
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 07:12:57 AM
 #88

I believe cypherdoc speaks about FRS's solvency.  Grin


Frisch's Restaurants or Family Radio Service?
No,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System  Tongue

Okay... Haven't heard that acronym before and google was no help.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
August 02, 2012, 12:21:09 PM
 #89

QE doesn't address solvency problems.
It doesn't? Please explain.

It's basically assets vs. liabilities. If your assets (income) are greater than your liabilities (expenses), you're fine. The other way around, though - not so good.

Let's say I run a bank, and my reserve is 10% of total assets. As with any business, I have cyclical expenses including employees, property costs, shareholder dividends, etc. To make things easy, let's say that the annual expenses are equivalent to 10% of total assets.

I have 90% of total assets to work with, so I make 9 loans at 10% each. Every one of the loans returns 2% annually for an 18% total return. This means that the bank will be running at break-even if 4 of the loans default and cannot make payments. There may be costs involved with recovering the principal capital which could turn a defaulted loan into a net loss, but let's just assume 5 of the loans have defaulted. In that situation, there is now an annual shortfall of 20% (the 2% out of 10% total asset value necessary to keep the lights on). The reserve now has to be dipped into in order to make up the difference.

What liquidity injections attempt to do is recapitalize the banks to a point where the assets are greater than the liabilities again. However, liquidity cannot make defaulted loans profitable again. Instead of helping directly, liquidity can simply flood the banks and allow them to stay afloat until there are worthwhile loan applicants that aren't likely to fail in repayment. The problem is that there's a very large percentage of defaults, like a swimming pool with dozens of big cracks - pouring water in like liquidity injections just winds up flowing out almost as quickly.

The really dangerous part for the banks comes from any shift away from them as a primary source of business. If the banks start losing potential customers (to Bitcoin!), the solvency problem gets even worse, requiring bigger liquidity injections than before. Since most governments are highly dependent upon the banks, there's an extreme incentive to keep them alive. Without the ability to create productive clients for the banks and fix the solvency issue, and no money or insufficient cashflow (tax revenue) to pump into the banks, let alone keep the government itself going, the only option is to generate funny money and distribute that until nobody wants it anymore.

You can think of buggy whip makers for an easier analogy. If everyone has switched to using horseless carriages and no longer need whips, it doesn't matter how many whips you make - you're going out of business. Economists can be a mind-boggling contradiction with their ability at being intelligently stupid.

That went a little further than solvency, but the cascading effect is important too. And this highlights the especially dangerous nature of Bitcoin and gold for the banks in the current situation Smiley

Thanks for your explanation, miscreanity.

Why doesn't the fed give the money to the people unable to repay their loans instead of propping up their balance sheets with it? Would that fix the solvency problem? Probably not, right, because you can't borrow yourself out of a debt problem.


PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
August 02, 2012, 01:42:07 PM
 #90

QE doesn't address solvency problems.
It doesn't? Please explain.

It's basically assets vs. liabilities. If your assets (income) are greater than your liabilities (expenses), you're fine. The other way around, though - not so good.

Let's say I run a bank, and my reserve is 10% of total assets. As with any business, I have cyclical expenses including employees, property costs, shareholder dividends, etc. To make things easy, let's say that the annual expenses are equivalent to 10% of total assets.

I have 90% of total assets to work with, so I make 9 loans at 10% each. Every one of the loans returns 2% annually for an 18% total return. This means that the bank will be running at break-even if 4 of the loans default and cannot make payments. There may be costs involved with recovering the principal capital which could turn a defaulted loan into a net loss, but let's just assume 5 of the loans have defaulted. In that situation, there is now an annual shortfall of 20% (the 2% out of 10% total asset value necessary to keep the lights on). The reserve now has to be dipped into in order to make up the difference.

What liquidity injections attempt to do is recapitalize the banks to a point where the assets are greater than the liabilities again. However, liquidity cannot make defaulted loans profitable again. Instead of helping directly, liquidity can simply flood the banks and allow them to stay afloat until there are worthwhile loan applicants that aren't likely to fail in repayment. The problem is that there's a very large percentage of defaults, like a swimming pool with dozens of big cracks - pouring water in like liquidity injections just winds up flowing out almost as quickly.

The really dangerous part for the banks comes from any shift away from them as a primary source of business. If the banks start losing potential customers (to Bitcoin!), the solvency problem gets even worse, requiring bigger liquidity injections than before. Since most governments are highly dependent upon the banks, there's an extreme incentive to keep them alive. Without the ability to create productive clients for the banks and fix the solvency issue, and no money or insufficient cashflow (tax revenue) to pump into the banks, let alone keep the government itself going, the only option is to generate funny money and distribute that until nobody wants it anymore.

You can think of buggy whip makers for an easier analogy. If everyone has switched to using horseless carriages and no longer need whips, it doesn't matter how many whips you make - you're going out of business. Economists can be a mind-boggling contradiction with their ability at being intelligently stupid.

That went a little further than solvency, but the cascading effect is important too. And this highlights the especially dangerous nature of Bitcoin and gold for the banks in the current situation Smiley

Thanks for your explanation, miscreanity.

Why doesn't the fed give the money to the people unable to repay their loans instead of propping up their balance sheets with it? Would that fix the solvency problem? Probably not, right, because you can't borrow yourself out of a debt problem.



Banker Reply; HAHAHAH MUAHAHAhh ROFLMAO, give, give.. money to workers? They do not know how to manage their money or they would not need our loans in the first place..

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 02:12:57 PM
 #91

Thanks for your explanation, miscreanity.

Why doesn't the fed give the money to the people unable to repay their loans instead of propping up their balance sheets with it? Would that fix the solvency problem? Probably not, right, because you can't borrow yourself out of a debt problem.
Banker Reply; HAHAHAH MUAHAHAhh ROFLMAO, give, give.. money to workers? They do not know how to manage their money or they would not need our loans in the first place..

Heh, that's probably not too far from the truth.

This had been attempted early in the crisis - $500-600 was provided to each taxpayer. The problem from a bank/gov't perspective is that there's no way to guarantee that money will go to consumer spending (or the right kind of spending), thereby supporting economic activity. If it goes toward paying debt down, that exacerbates the banks' condition (the loan may be paid off, but there's still a cashflow shortage). Essentially, attempting to herd cats is much more difficult than just putting the funds into banks where it can then be more effectively directed.

At least, that's the gist of the reasoning. In reality, the banks are black holes due to their insolvency and are dragging the entire system down - but because there's no external reference point, it's hard to see what's actually going on. You could picture a family in a house, with each family member representing one of the major world regions. All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.

Now it's a catch-22 where immediate collapse of the banking system as it is today will cause massive disruption because of the extent of dependence upon finance, and continuation of the banks' existence by supplying liquidity is just making the problem even bigger without actually fixing the underlying cause. The central and supranational banks (BIS, IMF, etc) have to decide which course of action will be most effective, and that's direct liquidity infusions into banks. It's like the difference between inhaling a drug or injecting it when you've got a plastic bag over your head and can't breathe.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 04:14:58 PM
 #92

All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.

Sounds like a bunch of shattered knees and ankles when they hit the bottom of that sinkhole.  Maybe a few hips and backs too.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 04:46:55 PM
 #93

All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.
Sounds like a bunch of shattered knees and ankles when they hit the bottom of that sinkhole.  Maybe a few hips and backs too.

Jumper Down!

Hmm... three in one day - connected? Were they bankers?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 02, 2012, 05:13:26 PM
 #94

All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.
Sounds like a bunch of shattered knees and ankles when they hit the bottom of that sinkhole.  Maybe a few hips and backs too.

Jumper Down!

Hmm... three in one day - connected? Were they bankers?

They are all vying for who gets to land on top of everyone else.

sounds like those guys wanted to hit the pavement as hard as they could.
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 05:49:34 PM
 #95

All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.
Sounds like a bunch of shattered knees and ankles when they hit the bottom of that sinkhole.  Maybe a few hips and backs too.

Jumper Down!

Hmm... three in one day - connected? Were they bankers?

They are all vying for who gets to land on top of everyone else.

sounds like those guys wanted to hit the pavement as hard as they could.

They think there is enough hang time to change their position. That's the bet.

Too bad nobody wants to take their position off their hands.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 05:57:16 PM
 #96

All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.
Sounds like a bunch of shattered knees and ankles when they hit the bottom of that sinkhole.  Maybe a few hips and backs too.

Jumper Down!

Hmm... three in one day - connected? Were they bankers?

They are all vying for who gets to land on top of everyone else.

sounds like those guys wanted to hit the pavement as hard as they could.

They think there is enough hang time to change their position. That's the bet.

Too bad nobody wants to take their position off their hands.

Somebody will—for pennies on the dollar.

Me! Me! Does covering shorts for massive gains count?

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
August 02, 2012, 06:00:34 PM
 #97

Thanks for your explanation, miscreanity.

Why doesn't the fed give the money to the people unable to repay their loans instead of propping up their balance sheets with it? Would that fix the solvency problem? Probably not, right, because you can't borrow yourself out of a debt problem.
Banker Reply; HAHAHAH MUAHAHAhh ROFLMAO, give, give.. money to workers? They do not know how to manage their money or they would not need our loans in the first place..

Heh, that's probably not too far from the truth.

This had been attempted early in the crisis - $500-600 was provided to each taxpayer. The problem from a bank/gov't perspective is that there's no way to guarantee that money will go to consumer spending (or the right kind of spending), thereby supporting economic activity. If it goes toward paying debt down, that exacerbates the banks' condition (the loan may be paid off, but there's still a cashflow shortage). Essentially, attempting to herd cats is much more difficult than just putting the funds into banks where it can then be more effectively directed.

At least, that's the gist of the reasoning. In reality, the banks are black holes due to their insolvency and are dragging the entire system down - but because there's no external reference point, it's hard to see what's actually going on. You could picture a family in a house, with each family member representing one of the major world regions. All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.

Now it's a catch-22 where immediate collapse of the banking system as it is today will cause massive disruption because of the extent of dependence upon finance, and continuation of the banks' existence by supplying liquidity is just making the problem even bigger without actually fixing the underlying cause. The central and supranational banks (BIS, IMF, etc) have to decide which course of action will be most effective, and that's direct liquidity infusions into banks. It's like the difference between inhaling a drug or injecting it when you've got a plastic bag over your head and can't breathe.

lmao, your analogies are fucking hilarious!

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
August 02, 2012, 06:24:02 PM
 #98

All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.
Sounds like a bunch of shattered knees and ankles when they hit the bottom of that sinkhole.  Maybe a few hips and backs too.

Jumper Down!

Hmm... three in one day - connected? Were they bankers?

They are all vying for who gets to land on top of everyone else.

sounds like those guys wanted to hit the pavement as hard as they could.

They think there is enough hang time to change their position. That's the bet.

Too bad nobody wants to take their position off their hands.

Somebody will—for pennies on the dollar.

Me! Me! Does covering shorts for massive gains count?

It counts—if you can actually collect.

That's why I have far more in bitcoin than my retirement account.  If my broker doesn't explode, I'll reinvest the profits for the long term once the blood is running thick.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 02, 2012, 07:22:21 PM
 #99

All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.
Sounds like a bunch of shattered knees and ankles when they hit the bottom of that sinkhole.  Maybe a few hips and backs too.

Jumper Down!

Hmm... three in one day - connected? Were they bankers?

They are all vying for who gets to land on top of everyone else.

sounds like those guys wanted to hit the pavement as hard as they could.

They think there is enough hang time to change their position. That's the bet.

aka Wile E Coyote

miscreanity
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


View Profile
August 03, 2012, 03:45:11 AM
 #100

All of a sudden, a sinkhole opens up under the house and it goes into freefall. Unless one of them looks outside, it will just seem like someone forgot to pay the gravity bill, so they try tying weights on themselves to counteract their floating.
Sounds like a bunch of shattered knees and ankles when they hit the bottom of that sinkhole.  Maybe a few hips and backs too.

Jumper Down!

Hmm... three in one day - connected? Were they bankers?

They are all vying for who gets to land on top of everyone else.

sounds like those guys wanted to hit the pavement as hard as they could.

They think there is enough hang time to change their position. That's the bet.

aka Wile E Coyote



Time's up!
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!