[HN Gopher] Banking-Crisis Interventions, 1257-2019 [pdf] ___________________________________________________________________ Banking-Crisis Interventions, 1257-2019 [pdf] Author : monort Score : 124 points Date : 2021-10-01 14:15 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (som.yale.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (som.yale.edu) | qwertyuiop_ wrote: | "The Bank "never goes broke." If the Bank runs out of money, the | Banker may issue as much as needed by writing on any ordinary | paper. (in the direction of the arrow) the number of spaces | indicated by the dice. After you have completed your play, the | turn passes to the left." | | Monopoly - | http://richard_wilding.tripod.com/monorules.htm#:~:text=The%.... | specialist wrote: | Graeber's book Debt: The First 5000 Years documents that cycles | of debt crisis and subsequent forgiveness is historically normal. | And probably necessary. I mean, think about it: What other | remedies do we have to winner-takes-all? Progressive taxation? | Government largess? | | Made me rethink all the bailouts, etc. Especially with the | renewed scholarship on Keynesian 2.0 (MMT). | | I'd probably be ok with bailouts, jubilees if they were more | fair, more bottom up. | | Financiers gobbling up all the cheddar, abandoning all their | victim's, really pisses me off. | | Insult to injury is lack of consequences, acting aggrieved when | their malfeasance is examined. Just one example being Jamie Dimon | clutching his pearls when Obama Admin merely suggesting the | optics of huge bonuses for execs during a meltdown was a bad | look. | rossdavidh wrote: | "I'd probably be ok with bailouts, jubilees if they were more | fair, more bottom up..." | | I think it is not so much the bailout that bothers me, as the | "ok, crisis over, back to normal" that happens immediately | afterwards. If it was something like "bailout, then break up | into 50 smaller institutions immediately afterwards", I would | not be so upset about it. | faustlast wrote: | I think the course "economics of money and banking" might be of | your interest. Really good insights there. | aazaa wrote: | From the conclusion: | | > In the historical record, crises are like fires and the | government interventions in those crises are firefighting. ... | | There's a brilliant quote from James Grant to the effect that the | US Federal Reserve acts as both firefighter and arsonist: | | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-08-27/fed-s-funct... | | It's not clear that the paper even considers this perspective. | Instead it seems to take the position that banking crises | naturally evolve, rather than get spawned by policy missteps to | correct the previous crisis. | HPsquared wrote: | To extend the analogy, wildfires also evolve naturally but can | be exacerbated by firefighting policy: extinguishing small | fires too much, allowing an accumulation of flammable materials | which eventually lead to a much bigger fire. | jjoonathan wrote: | Fires evolve according to fuel availability, wind, water and | so on. They aren't active, intelligent agents commanding vast | resources in a constant search for newer and better ways to | socialize the losses and privatize the gains. | | Have you ever known a fire to intentionally cultivate moral | hazard? | HPsquared wrote: | It's not just fire, there is an organic component of my | analogy: the ever-growing and adaptive forest, which will | take any opportunity it can to accumulate biomass. | Aunche wrote: | The difference is that fires predictable, and you can have | controlled wildfires. There's no such thing as a controlled | financial collapse. I agree that the fed intervened too | heavily during the pandemic, but I think that 2008 struck the | correct balance of intervention. Several financial | institutions went bankrupt and most others lost over 90% of | their market cap. | throw0101a wrote: | The James Grant that, in 2010, was one of the co-signers of the | Open Letter to Bernanke: | | > _We believe the Federal Reserve 's large-scale asset purchase | plan (so-called "quantitative easing") should be reconsidered | and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or | advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset | purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not | think they will achieve the Fed's objective of promoting | employment._ | | * https://economics21.org/html/open-letter-ben- | bernanke-287.ht... | | The same James Grant that, in 2011, thought we should go back | to the gold standard to head off the looming debt catastrophe? | | > _How does America, looking up from the bottom of a $14.3 | trillion sinkhole, claw its way out of debt? For starters, says | perennial Wall Street bear James Grant, go back to the gold | standard._ | | > _In an interview with_ The Fiscal Times, _the editor of | investment newsletter_ Grant's Interest Rate Observer, _says: | "No other reform would accomplish so much to hasten the return | both of growth and fiscal balance. The reserve currency | franchise, which America uniquely possesses, is a kind of | global credit card on which the outstanding balance never seems | to come due and payable. This country needs a debit card--and | the gold standard is that debit card."_ | | * | https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/28/A-Solid-G... | chollida1 wrote: | > The James Grant that, in 2010, was one of the co-signers of | the Open Letter to Bernanke: | | Not sure if you are asking but yes that was him, and you can | make a very good argument that those people were correct that | QE should have been discontinued back in 2010. Lots of | economists thought so at the time and yet here we are 15 | years later and that QE is still on going. | | At what point do you con sider him to be correct that its | time to end QE, unless you think that continuous QE is a good | thing? | | I mean, like another poster pointed out, like him or not, | What he writes get read by some of the most influential | people on the planet. | | If you are in government monetary policy you read his news | letter, if you work for any sort of macro hedge fund you read | his news letter. IF you are on the sell side you read his | news letter for nothing more than to understand what your | clients are thinking about. | | You may not like him, but the top people at investment banks, | hedge funds and central banks all read(and pay for that | privilege) what he has to say. | | In finance there are alot of people who have limited success, | those who are good tend to have prolonged success and stick | around. He's been writing for 4+ decades, in finance where | the average career is 7 years or so that like 6 generations | of traders who listen to him. | | So if you are asking if its that James Grant then yes, one of | the single most successful and influential people in finance, | then yes that guy:) | OscarCunningham wrote: | QE is neither a good or bad thing. Low stable inflation is | a good thing. | hogFeast wrote: | The same James Grant that predicted the junk bond meltdown, | the same James Grant that predicted the dot-com bust, the | same James Grant that predicted the housing crash, the same | James Grant that predicted the meltdown in Chinese resi...if | you have experience in markets, you will learn two things: | everyone makes wrong predictions, and you can be wrong | now/right later. | | Also, you appear (for some reason, have you ever read | Grant's?) not to mention any of the numerous calls on | individual stocks they have got right. The macro is only part | of what they do. | | When you are read by pretty much every hedge fund manager in | the world, when they will pay $2.5k to come to your | conference, and $1.3k/year for a subscription...you are doing | something right (also, as someone who studied economic | history, his book are first-rate...compare his books to | Philip Coggan, a columnist at the Economist who has written | books on economic history, it is night and day...Grant's | books are academic tier quality, people who work in finance | today still read books he wrote three decades ago). | throw0101a wrote: | > _The same James Grant that predicted the junk bond | meltdown, the same James Grant that predicted the dot-com | bust, the same James Grant that predicted the housing | crash, the same James Grant that predicted the meltdown in | Chinese resi.._ | | He's a permabear. When you predict (for possibly years) | that things will go down, and then they _finally_ do... | | > _The macro is only part of what they do._ | | Macro/monetary is the focus of this discussion. | | > _When you are read by pretty much every hedge fund | manager in the world, when they will pay $2.5k to come to | your conference, and $1.3k /year for a subscription...you | are doing something right_ | | Robert Kiyosaki (of _Rich Dad, Poor Dad_ ) also charges | quite a lot and is financially successful. Is he doing | something right? :) | hogFeast wrote: | He isn't. And the standard of proof in finance for claims | is slightly higher than that...he isn't predicting | "things will go down", he is making specific predictions | that occurred (again, you seem to have these very | specific views about someone whose work you have never | read...interesting). | | No, it isn't. Bank stocks aren't macro. There are macro | consequences but Grant's wrote extensively about | individual stocks pre-08. | | How many hedge fund managers are paying Kiyosaki for | resarch? :) | alexpotato wrote: | From the movie Margin Call: | | "So you think we might have put a few people out of business | today. That its all for naught. You've been doing that everyday | for almost forty years Sam. And if this is all for naught then so | is everything out there. Its just money; its made up. Pieces of | paper with pictures on it so we don't have to kill each other | just to get something to eat. It's not wrong. And it's certainly | no different today than its ever been. 1637, 1797, 1819, 37, 57, | 84, 1901, 07, 29, 1937, 1974, 1987-Jesus, didn't that fuck up me | up good-92, 97, 2000 and whatever we want to call this. It's all | just the same thing over and over; we can't help ourselves. And | you and I can't control it, or stop it, or even slow it. Or even | ever-so-slightly alter it. We just react. And we make a lot money | if we get it right. And we get left by the side of the side of | the road if we get it wrong. And there have always been and there | always will be the same percentage of winners and losers. Happy | foxes and sad sacks. Fat cats and starving dogs in this world. | Yeah, there may be more of us today than there's ever been. But | the percentages-they stay exactly the same. " | arthurcolle wrote: | Legendary movie + Jeremy Irons is a treasure. "It's just money, | it's made up!" one of my favorites. | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAqAl292ozs | cs702 wrote: | The authors compiled data for 1886 interventions in 20 categories | across 138 countries going back to the 13th century. Fabulous | work. Looking forward to reading it. | | In the meantime, please do yourself a favor and take a look at | Figure 6 on page 31, which shows that the number of interventions | to rescue financial institutions around the world _has been | increasing consistently since the 1600 's_. | | As the authors put it in their abstract, "intervention | frequencies and sizes suggest that the crisis problem in the | financial sector has indeed _reached an apex during the post- | Bretton Woods era_ - but that such trends are part of a more | deeply entrenched development that saw global intervention | frequencies and sizes gradually rise since at least the late 17th | century. " | | And it's not only the frequencies and sizes of interventions that | have increased, but also their _scope_. From the abstract: "The | data shows a gradual shift over the past centuries from the | traditional interventions of a lender-of-last-resort, suspensions | of convertibility, and bank holidays, towards a much more | prominent role for capital injections and sweeping guarantees of | bank liabilities." | | In short, over the course of at least five centuries, the | financial system has grown more and more dependent on | governmental support. | dannyw wrote: | My interpretation is that society has been increasingly | dependent on the financial system. Who keeps cash anymore? It's | almost illegal on many jurisdictions. | | It's no longer something you can opt out of, especially since | the covid pandemic. | bserge wrote: | So fucking nationalize them when they fail. Resell them after | instating jail time for all the chief executive gamblers. | | Would it really be worse than bailing them out with public | money? | soperj wrote: | It wouldn't be such a long build up if that were the case. | waihtis wrote: | > In short, over the course of at least five centuries, the | financial system has grown more and more dependent on | governmental support. | | More like: over the course of the last five centuries, | financiers have grown more and more adept in outsourcing their | losses to the government. | tehjoker wrote: | True, but you also have to ask if they can actually function | without government support in the current environment. The | masters of the universe are the walking dead. | cudgy wrote: | Why do they need to function if they are inherently | dysfunctional? Poor decisions should not be rewarded with | top heavy bailouts. | elliekelly wrote: | > In the meantime, please do yourself a favor and take a look | at Figure 6 on page 31, which shows that the number of | interventions to rescue financial institutions around the world | has been increasing consistently since the 1600's. | | Is this necessarily a bad thing? I mean that as a genuine | question. The number of interventions to rescue people having | asthma attacks has probably increased significantly over the | same period. | | If a financial institution is about to go under isn't it better | to have a process by which we can mitigate the pain it causes? | To be clear, there is definitely a lot to be desired with the | way a lot of bank bailouts have been handled (where Main Street | absorbs the downside on behalf of Wall Street) that I think is | largely down to politics and "elite" connections but I really | don't think the frequency of intervention is an accurate metric | by which to judge the effectiveness of the outcome. | crisdux wrote: | I think it's bad from a moral hazard point of view. These | institutions increase their exposure to risk. The | interventions exacerbate inequality and other issues. These | centralized intuitions are resistant to reform. Reform that | does happen increase government reliance. | | I don't think serious people are advocating for zero | interventions. We want a more resilient and fair system by | design. Our centralized financial system has made | interventions more common and larger in scale. Centralized vs | decentralized is a cost/benefit and risk trade off. I | personally think we've gone too far in centralizing our | financial system. | lottin wrote: | What do you mean by centralised? The financial system is | not centralised. It's regulated and overseen by a central | authority, but the financial system itself isn't | centralised. | throw0101a wrote: | > _In short, over the course of at least five centuries, the | financial system has grown more and more dependent on | governmental support._ | | Governments have become a more and more important part of | people's lives. Back in the day your contact with "government" | would be the local squire/sheriff. | | Nowadays you have general defence by a standing army, coast | guard, air traffic control, health inspectors, health care, | actual police officers / law enforcement (which only came into | being as a standing bureaucracy in the 1800s IIRC). | | Is it any surprise that they've grown into financial fields as | much as they have in other areas of society? As civil society | and civilization has grown bigger and complex so has the | infrastructure around it. | hyperion2010 wrote: | That dip centred around 1954 in figure 6 is one of the clearest | examples of just how exceptional the experience of the boomer | generation is compared to all the rest of human history. | throw0101a wrote: | One of the co-authors, Paul Schmelzing, published a paper on how | interest rates have been on a general downward trend for a few | centuries: | | * https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2020/eight-cen... | | Interviewed recently on the _Finance & History_ podcast: | | * https://twitter.com/FinanceHistory1/status/14351707554326241... | | * https://anchor.fm/carmen-hofmann/episodes/Interest-Rates-e16... | | His hypothesis (23m) is that capital stock is fairly long | lasting, so except for (mostly) wars and revolutions (and | plagues), there isn't much demand: people want to rebuild after | disasters, and so demand for capital goes up. When things are | quiet then there's more just sloshing around with not much to do. | | The oil shock of 1970s, which caused the most recent spike in the | last 40 years (which is tapering), was a fairly unique event for | rates. | nonameiguess wrote: | I would think there has to also be some trend whereby lending | to untrusted third parties has actually become cheaper and less | risky. As in, creditors have recourse to a court system and | police they don't have to personally fund, rather than paying | enforcers to find people and break knees. And wages these days | are far more stable than hundreds of years ago, so whoever you | loaned money to is a lot less likely to suffer drastic life- | changing events that leave them unable to pay in a way you | didn't anticipate. We also have better data and better | predictive models. Insurance is more widespread. Some insurance | is directly provided by the government with nearly zero chance | of not paying. All of these factors should be expected to make | it cheaper to borrow money. | dnautics wrote: | I agree with everything except the courts and police: they | don't really do any debt-related enforcement activities | anymore. | | On the other hand I suppose you can cynically note that the | police make discriminating between a high credit risk and a | low credit risk "easy" by having a (possibly unfair) | ultrafilter: "did you spend time in jail" | bserge wrote: | In some smarter countries. The rest of the world goes to | prison for unpaid debt. | lotsofpulp wrote: | I have never seen a credit application ask if you have been | incarcerated, nor have I heard of lenders searching | people's criminal records. | dnautics wrote: | even so, incarceration makes servicing recurring payments | much harder, not to mention bail... So (cynically | speaking) it's even better because if you are rich you're | likely to have your credit unhurt by going to jail. | pvarangot wrote: | It's definitely there on some mortgages and I saw it a | few months ago on a friends car loan. | xyzzyz wrote: | That interest rates were on downward trend for centuries has | already been observed by Adam Smith in "Wealth of Nations" in | 1776. He claimed that governments can borrow at 2%, and private | borrowers of good repute at 2.5%. Considering that inflation at | the time was almost 0%, these were basically real rates, and | would today correspond to nominal rates of 4-4.5%. Point here | is that in England, rates were already very very low in 18th | century. | shrubble wrote: | British baron, industrialist and prominent banker Josiah Stamp... | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Stamp,_1st_Baron_Stam... | | A quote attributed to Stamp is: | | "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The | bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the | power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will | create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away | from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes | like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this | would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish | to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own | slavery, let them continue to create money." ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-10-01 23:01 UTC)