the problem is, even with the cuts, they are spending way too much. If they could, I'm sure the California Democrats would spend even more, but they don't have the money. They are in debt because of a very high unemployment rate and lots of entitlements going around. Too many people, not enough jobs. too much spending.

California, of course, currently sits in-between the big government states of Kansas and Alabama in terms of state spending per capita after those budget cuts.

 

There's really no level of spending that won't get called "too much". A 20% budget cut is too small of a budget cut. The ending of California as a well educated state is not nearly enough of a downgrade, too many people have high school educations.

 

And when the cuts do exactly what we keep saying they'll do, making the economy worse and spurring more cuts and putting more people out of work, why that's exactly the point. It's the only way they'll learn that jobs are for the important people.

California, of course, currently sits in-between the big government states of Kansas and Alabama in terms of state spending per capita after those budget cuts.

 

wow, that website is terrible. I did a simple query change using the interface and got this.

 

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /hermes/bosweb/web033/b335/ipw.usgovern/public_html/rev/state_usgs.php on line 290

 

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /hermes/bosweb/web033/b335/ipw.usgovern/public_html/rev/state_usgs.php on line 314

 

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /hermes/bosweb/web033/b335/ipw.usgovern/public_html/rev/state_usgs.php on line 343

 

You sure it is legitimate? well, anyways, I am convinced you are wrong about spending and revenue.

 

keep spending for all i care, but no bailout for the states. just let it play out i guess. i doubt i can convince you that you are wrong.

Edited May 13, 201213 yr by mr_genius

wow, that website is terrible. I did a simple query change using the interface and got this.

 

 

 

You sure it is legitimate? well, anyways, besides the amateurish site design and coding, I am convinced you are wrong about spending and revenue.

 

keep spending for all i care, but no bailout for the states. just let it play out i guess. no one can convince you that you are wrong, even when your theories prove out to be clearly incorrect with time. i'm sure there it was just the mean old Republicans ruining it all for you.

You can find those numbers elsewhere. California is above average in local spending, but is now below average in state level spending, because of the gigantic set of cuts over the past 5 years. And every time they have to institute $10 billion in cuts, they lose more jobs than they expect, and they wind up with less revenue than they expected because more people are out of work.

They are funding the overnight credit markets in a simple sense.

 

Heads are starting to role at JPM.

 

Is it necessary to allow this specific type of trading to have functional overnight credit markets? Could you still have a functional system with a stronger Volcker rule in place?

 

Heads are starting to role at JPM.

 

Is it necessary to allow this specific type of trading to have functional overnight credit markets? Could you still have a functional system with a stronger Volcker rule in place?

No. Yes.

Heads are starting to role at JPM.

 

Is it necessary to allow this specific type of trading to have functional overnight credit markets? Could you still have a functional system with a stronger Volcker rule in place?

 

It would chase everyone back to the overnight window.

It would chase everyone back to the overnight window.

 

Why not reinstate Glass-Stegall?

Why not reinstate Glass-Stegall?

(Technically wouldn't solve the real issue on its own)

(Technically wouldn't solve the real issue on its own)

 

It separates the highly risky, not-really-well-understood proprietary hedging done by investment banks and the boring ol' commercial banking world.

It separates the highly risky, not-really-well-understood proprietary hedging done by investment banks and the boring ol' commercial banking world.

As far as I can tell though...that's no longer an issue. We're at the point where if one of these investment banks implodes...it doesn't matter if they have customer accounts or not, their implosion takes out everything. The example, of course, is Lehman.

 

If you stripped Chase out of JPM, JPM could still convince itself it knows what it's doing, still make incredibly bad bets, still blow itself up, and then still need to be bailed out by the government, even if it didn't have the boring old commercial banking attached to it.

You'd still be compartmentalizing the damage to some extent. JPM collapsing or Chase collapsing is less bad than JPM Chase collapsing.

 

you could even use all the same risk management and hedging language Dimon loves to justify it.

You'd still be compartmentalizing the damage to some extent. JPM collapsing or Chase collapsing is less bad than JPM Chase collapsing.

 

you could even use all the same risk management and hedging language Dimon loves to justify it.

Yes, GS would be nice, but if it doesn't solve the problem then it doesn't solve the problem.

I'm not trying to solve the problem of traders being stupid and losing money. If JPM wants to be an investment bank and make trades like this and they end up crashing and burning, they won't take the whole banking industry with them because commercial banking will be separate.

I'm not trying to solve the problem of traders being stupid and losing money. If JPM wants to be an investment bank and make trades like this and they end up crashing and burning, they won't take the whole banking industry with them because commercial banking will be separate.

Except...Lehman brothers made trades like that, that they didn't understand, after a decade of telling everyone exactly what Jamie Dimon has spent the last 4 years telling everyone...and they would have taken down the whole banking industry. GS would not have changed that. It might have protected some institutions, and kept Citi and BofA smaller, but the entire financial system still would have imploded and still would have needed to be bailed out.

The scope of the damage would have been far, far less. S&L crisis vs Great Depression 2, CDS Buggaloo

Why J.P. Morgan's Jamie Dimon Should Resign

 

Of all the tricks Wall Street uses to pull the wool over the eyes of regulators, Congress, and everyday Americans, none is more effective than the pretense that the strategies used in finance are so complicated that few outside the banking industry could possibly understand them. Wall Street CEOs ask to be treated like nuclear engineers and say "trust us" when it comes to the complexity of their tasks. In fact, no trust could be more misplaced and no claim to superior knowledge could be further from the truth.

 

Apart from the risk in the trade, a more fundamental question is why it was allowed in the first place? What purpose was served? No new loans were created. No new jobs were created. Absolutely nothing of value to society was derived from this trade. At best, it was a form of gambling for the whale and his colleagues. Next time they should go to Las Vegas and skip the drama.

I think I tried to argue last year that we seriously need to stop trusting nuclear engineers as well.

 

 

So what will the top tick be in the FB IPO? I'm at $117.

I think I tried to argue last year that we seriously need to stop trusting nuclear engineers as well.

 

The Japanese agree with you

The nuclear engineers didn't screw up at Fukishima, it was the mechanical, civil and electrical engineers.

So what will the top tick be in the FB IPO? I'm at $117.

 

The question is will this one have staying power or not. With facebook I say yes.

I'm not sure how big of a buyer they were, but GM announced they wouldn't be advertising with FB any longer.

JPM's loss may be getting much worse than the initial $2B reported

 

The trading losses suffered by JPMorgan Chase have surged in recent days, surpassing the bank’s initial $2 billion estimate by at least $1 billion, according to people with knowledge of the losses.

 

When Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan’s chief executive, announced the losses last Thursday, he indicated they could double within the next few quarters. But that process has been compressed into four trading days as hedge funds and other investors take advantage of JPMorgan’s distress, fueling faster deterioration in the underlying credit market positions held by the bank.

I'm not sure how big of a buyer they were, but GM announced they wouldn't be advertising with FB any longer.

GM had spent about $10 million directly on Facebook ads and $30 million on other types of advertising (presumably FB pages for their brand lines).

That doesn't seem like much in the context of FB's revenue stream.