Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (103125)	10/15/2011 9:21:37 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

HOW THE BANK BAILOUTS REDUCE OUR STANDARD OF LIVING 10 OCTOBER 2011 BY CULLEN ROCHE 89 COMMENTS John Hussman takes the big banks to task in his latest missiveand writes some important comments on how the bank bailouts negatively impact our society. These banks and their bondholders should have been forced to accept the massive losses they were on the hook for, but the losses were socialized and bad behavior goes unpunished. We are all paying the price. Hussman elaborates on the way the bailouts are helping to destroy our standard of living: ------------ “Background: If you think about the “standard of living” in a country, you can roughly define it as the amount of goods and services that individuals are able to consume in return for their work. If you think about the “productivity” of a country, you can roughly define it as the amount of goods and services that individuals are able to produce for their work. Clearly, over the long-term, the productivity and the standard-of-living of a country go hand in hand. The best way to create both, over the long-term, is for an economy to build a stock of productive capital (inventions, new technologies, plants, equipment, public infrastructure, etc), and human capital (labor skills, education). Still, even a generally productive economy can produce a skewed distribution in the standard of living enjoyed by its citizens. In a competitive and undistorted economy, the distribution of wealth is determined by the ability of each individual to a) provide a useful service, b) distribute the services they provide over a large number of “units”, and c) maintain the scarcity of what they provide. So for example, professional football players earn more than teachers not because playing football has more virtue, but because professional football players are among a very small group, and distribute their “services” over millions and millions of spectators, each which implicitly pays a few cents to each player per game. Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook is able to distribute his services across hundreds of millions of users, each which implicitly pays him a tiny amount by viewing advertising. Bill Gates distributed his services over every computer that ran Windows, while the factory workers who built those computers were each able to distribute their skills over a smaller number of units. Teachers represent a large professional group, but are typically able to distribute their services over a limited number of students, each which implicitly pays a portion of their family’s income to the teacher. One-on-one aides tend to earn less, despite often being extremely skilled, because in order for them to earn a high income, their earnings would have to capture much of the income of their single student’s family. The distribution of wealth has become increasingly skewed as trade has become more globalized and technology has allowed the innovations of a single person to be spread across millions of consuming “units.” At the same time, the economic emergence of China and India has brought forth literally billions of new workers who dilute the scarcity of the existing labor force. An economy where capital is scarce, protectable, and can easily be distributed over numerous units, while labor is plentiful, homogeneous and can only be applied to a smaller number of units, is an economy that is prone to an enormously skewed distrbution of wealth. This process takes on a grotesque character when it becomes possible for a company to distribute its impact over a very large number of units, and government policy protects that ability even when the impact of the company reflects not skill but ineptitude. This is essentially what has happened with the “too big to fail” institutions. Despite inflicting massive damage on the economy, they are afforded a protected status that allows them to extract “rents” that don’t reflect the cost they have imposed. From that standpoint, the Occupy Wall Street protests are a welcome reflection of public frustration over Washington’s slavish coddling of reckless financial institutions.” --------------- By bailing these firms out we ignored the markets natural clearing process that allocates capital to those firms that are not only highly productive, but sound stewards of the risks they must manage in their everyday business operations. Instead, we have promoted continued imbalances in the US economy by encouraging even greater financialization of the US economy. pragcap.com

To: RetiredNow who wrote (103125)	10/15/2011 11:29:01 AM
From: steve harris	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Hey Steve, we're back on the same side. How did that happen? Looks like we don't agree on social and environmental policies, but we're both free market, fiscal and monetary conservatives. Go figure. It happens from time to time when people are not totally partisan. Some are so partisan, the problems today are only considered problems if it's the opposing party at fault. I think that's what you're seeing in reaction to your posts. Bush blowing billions is bad, Obama blowing trillions is good. Bush and Obama reimbursing WallStreet for their investment losses is no different than the govt cutting me a check on my investment losses. People should be in jail. Of course we'll never see an audit. I'd settle for voters looking at what politicans are doing instead of what they are saying. There's a huge disconnect right now, outright lying and misrepresentation, including the media not going any farther than distributing the rhetoric. My view is Cain is like Perot. He's not a politician which is a plus unlike the media repeating all the talking heads saying Cain is bad because he has no political experience. We have enough political experience screwing up things right now don't we?