Injin Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 More cryptic nonsense. Really? I thought it was quite clear. So, it's impossible for a entity like the competition commission to be created and given a remit to limit UK bank balance sheets? I think it is entirely possible without the creation of a Federal Reserve type organisation. Yes, well done. The competition commision only exists because there is a mechanism that is more powerful than the things is controls (obviously) This is the government. By definition if you are creating a regulator of an indutsry you are creating a monpoly. Does the competition commission seek the break up of the state into smaller bits which can be set in competition with each other? No. Does it ******! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DissipatedYouthIsValuable Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Really? I thought it was quite clear. Yes, well done. The competition commision only exists because there is a mechanism that is more powerful than the things is controls (obviously) This is the government. By definition if you are creating a regulator of an indutsry you are creating a monpoly. Does the competition commission seek the break up of the state into smaller bits which can be set in competition with each other? No. Does it ******! My left eye scooped out my right eye because it didn't like the competition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Really? I thought it was quite clear. Well, good for you. Yes, well done.The competition commision only exists because there is a mechanism that is more powerful than the things is controls (obviously) This is the government. By definition if you are creating a regulator of an indutsry you are creating a monpoly. Tee-hee. Back to abolition of the state are we? How long until state failure, next Tuesday, or the week after? Just because you aren't doing too well with the current arrangement of an elected government doesn't mean we are going to toss it out of the window and start living in anarchy. Does the competition commission seek the break up of the state into smaller bits which can be set in competition with each other?No. Does it ******! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly Not always perfect, but infinitely preferable to hundreds of competing organisations with duplicated bureaucracy and administration (see British railways, energy/water supply, etc. for details), where you can quickly end up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Well, good for you. Ta. Tee-hee. Back to abolition of the state are we? How long until state failure, next Tuesday, or the week after? Just because you aren't doing too well with the current arrangement of an elected government doesn't mean we are going to toss it out of the window and start living in anarchy. No, actually, I was making the point that you cannot remove monopoly by creating a body that has power over all players in an industry, because that is inherently a monopoly position. It's a logical thing - I didn't advocate anything at all, just offered logic. That breaking up monopolies by appointing a great big one is retarded and leads to the obvious conclusion of not doing it is why I am an anarchist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopolyNot always perfect, but infinitely preferable to hundreds of competing organisations with duplicated bureaucracy and administration (see British railways, energy/water supply, etc. for details), where you can quickly end up with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons Neither of those is anything but an excuse to hurt people. There are no natural monopolies and the tragedy of the commons is a simple poor allocation of property rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone baby gone Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Ta.No, actually, I was making the point that you cannot remove monopoly by creating a body that has power over all players in an industry, because that is inherently a monopoly position. It's a logical thing - I didn't advocate anything at all, just offered logic. That breaking up monopolies by appointing a great big one is retarded and leads to the obvious conclusion of not doing it is why I am an anarchist. Neither of those is anything but an excuse to hurt people. There are no natural monopolies and the tragedy of the commons is a simple poor allocation of property rights. I think you have ably demonstrated why we are reading Taleb's points in the FT and not your own. Thank you and good day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I think you have ably demonstrated why we are reading Taleb's points in the FT and not your own. Thank you and good day. Definitely. The chance of reading any consistent, rational, empirically verifiable stuff in the FT that advocates anything approaching the truth or an anti state position is close to nil Guff that advocates big government and control over things you will read all day. Still, I am pleased to see you agree with me completely. When you can deal with it emotionally, let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bagsos Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I have read and re-read Talebs points above (and am half way through Fooled by Randomness - a bit tedious TBH). They are total nanny state hogwash in my opinion. I dobn't think I will bother with the rest of his book after reading this nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adham Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Taleb speaks with such clarity its hard to understand why his critique is not being listened to. Hes been banging on about the structural problems for some years and its interesting that he has become so prominent recently. Quite brilliant Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Taleb speaks with such clarity its hard to understand why his critique is not being listened to.Hes been banging on about the structural problems for some years and its interesting that he has become so prominent recently. Quite brilliant His critque is brilliant, his solutions less so. like Roubini did with housing, the problems are outlined well but the solution is all to ****. It's also in favour of the current PTB, which is why roubini, taleb and others are getting coverage. p.s. Basos - read Taleb, his outlinign of the problems are fantastic and his books ciontain none of the solutioneering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 The world badly needs not just tighter banking regulations but, more fundamentally, money reform. Even analysts such as Taleb and Roubini baulk at this, perhaps it is not even on their radar. For as long as humanity is forced to borrow into existence from profit-motivated commercial moneylenders its very means of exchange, there can be no long-term financial stability. The money-issuers/lenders will have too much power, too strong a stranglehold on all economies. One possible alternative money system: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...c=77410&hl= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hywel Dda Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 "Don't trust anyone that doesn't contradict themselves" Norman Mailer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Spaniard Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 Have you read 100% money by Irving Fisher published in 1935? I regret to report that I have not. I couldn't find it on Amazon but I did find this, presumably by the same author (?): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Money-Illusion-Irv...9072&sr=8-1 His early work seems to be now quite valuable, £500+ for this 1934 hardback: http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Reflation-Wh...127&sr=1-12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaspers Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I regret to report that I have not.I couldn't find it on Amazon but I did find this, presumably by the same author (?): http://www.amazon.co.uk/Money-Illusion-Irv...9072&sr=8-1 His early work seems to be now quite valuable, £500+ for this 1934 hardback: http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Reflation-Wh...127&sr=1-12 London Banker Unfortunately not posting anymore Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jocohen Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 The thing about Taleb he keeps changing his mind. This is him in 1970. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pldzo1Elz0...feature=related He's certainly riding that Black Swan for all its worth. its interesting how mediocre intellects are really jealous of brilliant minds. I have heard about him for some time as he's a derivatives trader who's not scared to expose the industry for what it is. His ability to simplify things also scares many of the mathematicians who like to cloak their work with the magic of complexity. Taleb strips that away and shows how many aspects of our 'rational' systems fall prey to complexity and therefore unpredictability. His points are clear and consistent - we need bankers to have his clarity of thought rather then the muddle headed buffoons who work in finance or related conman industries such as estate agents and financial advisers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ride_on Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 I don't disagree with the individual points but they are all just patches aswell. The real problem is the growth based system caused by interest on debt, everything stems from that, services cost outstipping value, banking salaries etc. Sooner or later we will run out of people, land or resources to take part in the giant pyramid banking scheme. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jocohen Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 His critque is brilliant, his solutions less so.like Roubini did with housing, the problems are outlined well but the solution is all to ****. It's also in favour of the current PTB, which is why roubini, taleb and others are getting coverage. p.s. Basos - read Taleb, his outlinign of the problems are fantastic and his books ciontain none of the solutioneering. His books are about philosophy and probability. The limits of linear systems; the fact he applied it to his previous profession is why everyone got interested. It always funny as he always been clear - its the intellectual aspect of choas applied to medicine and science which interests him. Everyone else wants 'shares' advice with him. He always been clear about that. His solutions are fairly significant -unlikely to be adopted unless we suddenly find competent politicians! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cygnus Alpha Posted April 8, 2009 Share Posted April 8, 2009 His solutions are fairly significant -unlikely to be adopted unless we suddenly find competent politicians! I think some of 'his' solutions have been adopted. You may have noticed the nationalisation of some banks. I should know I have Northern Rock shares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubbleBlower Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 Points 1 and 6 contradict.Ponts 2 and 6 contradict. points 2 and 4 contradict. Etc Point 1 - Hidden risks = fragile. If something is fragile it should break while small. No large fragile things. Point 2 - Large fragile things should be nationalised. Things remaining in the private sector should be small enough to fail without danger of systemic collapse Point 4 - Do not run critical parts of financial infrastructure on bonuses. Point 6 - Ban complex hidden risks So the contradiction between 1 and 6 would be? They state the same thing - limit hidden risk to small private enterprises. Don't allow large private enterprises with hidden risks. Between point 2 & 6 (actually was this a typo?). Again it is simply stating that we should not allow large private enterprise with complex hidden risks. Can't see any contradiction between these points. Points 2 and 4 don't actually say the same thing, but there is no contradiction there. Taleb has made a much simpler version of this proposal a few weeks back. It boils down to: if you allow a large enough bank that it's failure could trigger systemic collapse then take out all trading activity and make it a low-risk (ie deposits and loans) state-run enterprise. Don't reward people in the enterprise for taking risks by paying them bonuses when the risks come off. So where are the contradictions - are they actually in what Taleb said, or are they in the private internal anarchistic free money dreams of Injuin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jocohen Posted April 9, 2009 Share Posted April 9, 2009 I think some of 'his' solutions have been adopted. You may have noticed the nationalisation of some banks. I should know I have Northern Rock shares. i think we need the whole package, revolution in finance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.