My mistake. I apologize.

It was in fact – as pointed there rightly – much more boring gaming the ever falling real interest rates – for the last 25 years – the outcome »insured«, the cost of capital (thus capital itself) to go with the cost of labour (thus labour »itself«) lowered to destruction points and then the latter bails out parts of the suddenly quadrupling debt »interest« that came in late in that game as if “collaterlized” – all courtesy of fed – repeatedly, just before the end…

Of that cycle.

(with some “sophisticated” threads to go with and without even mentioning the schizophrenic pattern of the nominal one and thus corresponding behaviour / misallocation)

10 print: “we lend to those with valid banking license only (gambling and insurance excl) at 3% against the non asset backed only over collateral”
20 go to 10

Gaming that would be so boring.

Not really. First define “banking” and “banking license.” Who issues the license? What are the criterion for issuing the license? Are licenses transferable? Revocable?

Who values the collateral? What happens when collateral is impaired? What can the collateral holder do the the collateral? What is the payment structure of the loan? Is it callable? Putable? Can the loan be resold?

Trouble here is two fold:

1) I have no particular reason to think that my grandkids will be living in the United States. Given that I don’t know in what country my grandkids will be living in, policies that benefit the United States at the expensive of Argentina aren’t obviously in their interest, should they end up living in Argentina.

2) With something as large as the United States, it is often really difficult to define what exactly the national interest is. The problem here is that if there is consensus that something is in the US national interest, then we aren’t arguing about it. The fact that we are arguing about something means that it’s not clear where the national interest is.

This is a very old argument. Adam Smith used it to point out how arguements in support of trade barriers to imports were phrased in the public interests but really were based on selfish motives.

People listened to Adam Smith. Today, we have extreme irrational prejudice against anything that can be labelled “protectionism” because of the realism behind Smiths’ position.

However, because people are selfish does not mean that all arguments in favor of restrict imports into the U.S. are based on a selfish PERSONAL motive. The arguments I make are based on a selfish motive for the U.S. as a whole, including Twofisn’s Grandchildren.

The existence of self-serving interests I take for granted. The existence of an interest in protecting the future of the U.S. I also take for granted.

Arguments in defense of a legitimate public interests are very difficult to develop and defend. That does not mean that the interests of the U.S. as a whole does not exist. It just means that the U.S. interests is elusive, hard to pin down.

Why not employ a basic program?

10 print: “we lend to those with valid banking license only (gambling and insurance excl) at 3% against the non asset backed only over collateral”
20 go to 10

it ll save the mm , be more friedman-compliant + much cheaper (pr wise incl.). regulation and oversight will both need to leave the conflict here.

Gaming that would be so boring.

It won’t, but you will still be dealing with people who are subject to the sins and flaws that flesh is heir to.

ReformerRay: I have seen private sector people out-manuver public employees again and again. But I say that is because the ultimate decision makers (elected officials) have been infected with the Ronald Reagan disease (if its public sector, kill it). I think arguments in support of the public interest will get more public interest in the future.

The motive behind most arguments in the public interest involves private gain. If you pay someone enough money, they can come up with a very nice sounding argument explaining why what they are doing is in the public interest. All of the expansion of credit in subprimes for example was justified as bringing home ownership to low income households.

The problem with rejecting all arguments that are self-interested is that from time to time, they may be correct. A small businessman that argues that governments should promote business friendly policies for the public good is really interested in making more money, that doesn’t mean they are wrong. The other problem is that we can talk about the “public interest” all you want. The fact remains that any non-trivial economic policy will help some people more than others, people ultimately define “public interest” as what is good for me and people that are close to them.

You may be doing something that you think is good for your grandchildren, but can I or should I really expect you to support a policy that is obviously great for someone else’s grandkids but obviously horrible for yours? Not really.

People hate thinking that they are doing something selfish, which means that there is a great demand for people that make people feel non-guilty about what they want and feel.

Twofish has history on his side. But the future does not have to replicate the past.

I have seen private sector people out-manuver public employees again and again. But I say that is because the ultimate decision makers (elected officials) have been infected with the Ronald Reagan disease (if its public sector, kill it). I think arguments in support of the public interest will get more public interest in the future.