Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Do you still have money in your bank account? You might want to withdraw it until after October 18th. You see, the thing with bank runs is you don't want to be the last one there   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 234
    More: Scary, bank accounts, Sen. John McCain, Christine Lagarde  
•       •       •

18456 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Oct 2013 at 5:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



234 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-08 11:19:09 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Adjusted for dollars in 2000? So, your sh*t is 14 years old.


Wut?
 
2013-10-08 11:22:24 PM  

Ricardo Klement: NewportBarGuy: Adjusted for dollars in 2000? So, your sh*t is 14 years old.

Wut?


NewportBarGuy is well informed, so I think he's joking. I have to admit, though, that I was taken aback when I first read his response.
 
2013-10-08 11:23:40 PM  

Atomic Spunk: Ricardo Klement: NewportBarGuy: Adjusted for dollars in 2000? So, your sh*t is 14 years old.

Wut?

NewportBarGuy is well informed, so I think he's joking. I have to admit, though, that I was taken aback when I first read his response.


Ah - sarcasm. I was gonna say: either he needed caffeine or I did. Looks like I did.
 
2013-10-08 11:24:49 PM  

Atomic Spunk: NewportBarGuy is well informed, so I think he's joking. I have to admit, though, that I was taken aback when I first read his response.


We're beyond comparison points.

There is no definite metric. We are threatening to shoot ourselves. Numbers don't matter.
 
2013-10-08 11:24:59 PM  

Ricardo Klement: KIA: Ricardo Klement: You are right that Clinton got to be president during arguably a golden age of growth, but that shouldn't take away from him too much, as the expected value would be to just overspend that much more.

And you had a Republican House to thank then too.

Yes, well, people tend to put it all on the president.

/Actually, they tend to put it on whoever is convenient for the argument.


Actually, it was Clinton's presidency and the subsequent Bush debacle that showed me that the economy tends to fluctuate pretty independently of who happens to be sitting in the Oval Office. If everything had been exactly the same, but the men had been reversed...chances are the economy would have done just about the same thing: Up in the 90's, down in the 2000's.
 
2013-10-08 11:28:47 PM  

Necessary: Bank of America is going to be out of cash on the 18th, so withdraw yours now because BoA won't be able to survive it



That's just crazy talk. You're a madman!
 
2013-10-08 11:30:26 PM  

Ficoce: They can take it to another country, cash in and buy a whole lot of dollars though. Then come back and buy your booze and drugs for pennies on the dollar - and the dollar might not be worth much by then.


Imagine if, overnight, the US lost $2.5t. Overnight. Not spent on a war, not huge stimulus that, say, only returned $0.96 on the dollar (meaning we only lose $200b). I mean GONE.

If the US simply didn't pay any of its debt, that's what would happen to China. (Half that, but it has half our nominal economy anyway.)

If the US screws up, this is a problem for the entire world, not just here. Going to that other country won't help.
 
2013-10-08 11:39:05 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Atomic Spunk: NewportBarGuy is well informed, so I think he's joking. I have to admit, though, that I was taken aback when I first read his response.

We're beyond comparison points.

There is no definite metric. We are threatening to shoot ourselves. Numbers don't matter.


I don't think we're beyond comparison points. We can hold up the past budget surpluses as an example that we may one day hope to emulate. Of course, we have to wait until the economy is on solid ground before we look at making substantial cuts, so that may take a decade or two to happen, but it's not like it's unimaginable - we've done it before. I think we'll get there again, if we don't manage to mangle it all up in the meantime like the direction we're headed in now.
 
2013-10-09 12:10:23 AM  

cman: Why do we still have bank runs?

Besides those who have over 100k in the bank, people don't have to worry one bit


fear makes people do weird things.

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
 -Edmund Burke

Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.
 -Bertrand Russell
 
2013-10-09 12:19:05 AM  

what_now: Nabb1: I've spent years hoarding canned food and shotgun shells just for this scenario. I will rule this new world.

I have penicillin and a working uterus. I will be your overlord.


how are YOU doing?
 
2013-10-09 12:29:04 AM  

jake3988: cman * * Smartest * Funniest 2013-10-08 05:17:00 PM Why do we still have bank runs? Besides those who have over 100k in the bank, people don't have to worry one bit
=========================================================

A) It's 250k now.

B) Sure, it's insured by the FDIC, but when you can't print new money to cover the debt, you can't really insure it.


I think the Federal Reserve is still open.
 
2013-10-09 12:41:12 AM  

Gimli_Gloin: Eff it, raise the debt ceiling for Obama. As high as he wants and let him spend what he wants.

Kick the can down the road and let our children and grandchildren pay it off.

We will all likely be dead by then of natural causes.


Obama has been cutting spending, in fact.

images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2013-10-09 01:07:11 AM  

RexTalionis: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I plan on eating my gold.

[firstworldfacts.com image 850x1084]
Incidentally, this sundae costs $1000.


Yum!
 
2013-10-09 03:16:34 AM  

Nabb1: I've spent years hoarding canned food and shotgun shells just for this scenario. I will rule this new world.


I've been baking cakes and pies for my next-door neighbors so they're fat and slow. And probably delicious.
 
2013-10-09 06:16:32 AM  
You have to wear a hat to run the banks.
fiatplanet.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-10-09 08:50:10 AM  

Mrbogey: gund: Under Clinton there was a budget surplus.... the government actually "made money".... the federal debt actually dropped adjusted for inflation. Happened after ww2 and during clinton. Twice in our history.

That is a lie.
[www.brillig.com image 474x471]

Clinton's deficit trick was to be president during one of the largest economic bubbles we'd ever had.


It's half true. While the debt, adjusted for inflation, went down, there never was a surplus and the nominal debt went up every year that Clinton was in office (you can't have a surplus and a deficit at the same time; it's one or the other).

farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2013-10-09 08:54:38 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Ficoce: They can take it to another country, cash in and buy a whole lot of dollars though. Then come back and buy your booze and drugs for pennies on the dollar - and the dollar might not be worth much by then.

Imagine if, overnight, the US lost $2.5t. Overnight. Not spent on a war, not huge stimulus that, say, only returned $0.96 on the dollar (meaning we only lose $200b). I mean GONE.

If the US simply didn't pay any of its debt, that's what would happen to China. (Half that, but it has half our nominal economy anyway.)

If the US screws up, this is a problem for the entire world, not just here. Going to that other country won't help.


96 cents on the dollar? That's not bad. Especially when it's possible most of the world would be trading in Yuan the next morning. I do know what you mean, but in the end game the macro implications of our fiscal policies make it very difficult for our allies to support. When you're the rich kid in a company town, you have lots of friends. When Dad loses the business and you end up middle class - the cool kids don't suck up anymore. Ask the leaders of countries that have tried to work around the dollar by trading in gold. Oh that's right, they aren't alive anymore. If the US lost $2.5t, China would be the new rich kid and they like gold - it'll be where all the parties will be happening - and you can take gold to the party.
 
2013-10-09 09:22:16 AM  

DrPainMD: Mrbogey: gund: Under Clinton there was a budget surplus.... the government actually "made money".... the federal debt actually dropped adjusted for inflation. Happened after ww2 and during clinton. Twice in our history.

That is a lie.
[www.brillig.com image 474x471]

Clinton's deficit trick was to be president during one of the largest economic bubbles we'd ever had.

It's half true. While the debt, adjusted for inflation, went down, there never was a surplus and the nominal debt went up every year that Clinton was in office (you can't have a surplus and a deficit at the same time; it's one or the other).

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 457x715]


Technically speaking, if someone in 1850 had a $100 debt, they'd be considered in more debt than someone today who had a $150 debt. You have to use a constant measure - nominal ones are meaningless. For example, if you doubled our debt to $32t dollars, but you made them Zimbabwe dollars, you would be hard-pressed to convince anyone that the debt went up when a yuppie food-stamp would cover it. Comparing US $ from different years is like comparing it to a foreign currency.

In addition, once you're talking total government deficit that's that small, you're out-growing your debt, meaning, effectively, a surplus. Maintaining $20b a year deficit for the last 13 years would have resulted in the total debt going from almost 50% of GDP to around 35% of GDP, even as the nominal amount increased.

In short, in any economically meaningful way, that's a surplus.
 
2013-10-09 09:29:39 AM  

Ficoce: Ricardo Klement: Ficoce: They can take it to another country, cash in and buy a whole lot of dollars though. Then come back and buy your booze and drugs for pennies on the dollar - and the dollar might not be worth much by then.

Imagine if, overnight, the US lost $2.5t. Overnight. Not spent on a war, not huge stimulus that, say, only returned $0.96 on the dollar (meaning we only lose $200b). I mean GONE.

If the US simply didn't pay any of its debt, that's what would happen to China. (Half that, but it has half our nominal economy anyway.)

If the US screws up, this is a problem for the entire world, not just here. Going to that other country won't help.

96 cents on the dollar? That's not bad. Especially when it's possible most of the world would be trading in Yuan the next morning. I do know what you mean, but in the end game the macro implications of our fiscal policies make it very difficult for our allies to support. When you're the rich kid in a company town, you have lots of friends. When Dad loses the business and you end up middle class - the cool kids don't suck up anymore. Ask the leaders of countries that have tried to work around the dollar by trading in gold. Oh that's right, they aren't alive anymore. If the US lost $2.5t, China would be the new rich kid and they like gold - it'll be where all the parties will be happening - and you can take gold to the party.


You didn't read that right. China's the one that's losing the money. If a guy who owes you a shiat-ton of cash goes bankrupt, YOU just lost a shiat-ton of cash. Remember how the economy crashed in 2008? What happened to the banks? The people who owed them money couldn't pay (bad mortgages are bad because, well, the people can't pay). So the banks went belly-up (or should have, but the government stepped-in).

China's the bank. We're the bad loan. There's no government to save China's ass.

So, yeah, your parents can't pay their mortgage. Saying you're going to get a job at Lehman Brothers as your escape plan isn't such a great idea.
 
2013-10-09 09:56:32 AM  
I read it right. China has been gearing up since '08. If the Yuan loses 4% short term in trade for becoming the world's preeminent economic superpower - not a bad trade. If we have a problem with it, China will just tell us the bankers motto - fark you.
 
2013-10-09 10:17:26 AM  

Ficoce: I read it right. China has been gearing up since '08. If the Yuan loses 4% short term in trade for becoming the world's preeminent economic superpower - not a bad trade. If we have a problem with it, China will just tell us the bankers motto - fark you.


How'd that work out for Lehman Brothers - one of the most powerful banks in history?
 
2013-10-09 11:04:00 AM  
Not too well for Lehman - went really well for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. We aren't doing all that well at the Bankers Olympics this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks
 
2013-10-09 11:24:36 AM  

Ficoce: Not too well for Lehman - went really well for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. We aren't doing all that well at the Bankers Olympics this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks


Lehman held mortgages. When people were unable to repay their mortgages, Lehman died.

China holds US debt. When the US is unable to repay its debt, _____________.
 
2013-10-09 11:44:55 AM  

LoneWolf343: highendmighty: mediablitz: highendmighty: 12349876: No it's not

I was thinking more along the lines of unnecessary, one-sided, rhetoric that the authors feel adds to the meat of the story, when all it does is detract from the main point of the article, undermining their credibility as journalists and solidifying their roles as partisan hacks.  Both sides do it equally shamefully.

Oh please. Show me one story on Think Progress with HALF the hyperbole and bullshiat of WND's "Obama the secret Muslim" crap.

Pretending they are the same shames you, not Think Progress.

It's all in the tone.  The two are equivalent.  You seem to have mastered and revel in it.

Ah, "tone," that arbitrary mechanism that morons fall back on when they can't make a rebuttal based on substance.


Ah, reading comprehension - something at which you consistently fail.  I shall quote my original point to you - that which you requoted in your response - in the hopes that your rebuttal is something more than the weakest ad hominum I have found on Fark in many days (which is truly saying something about your level of rhetoric). 
"I was thinking more along the lines of unnecessary, one-sided, rhetoric that the authors feel adds to the meat of the story, when all it does is detract from the main point of the article, undermining their credibility as journalists and solidifying their roles as partisan hacks.  Both sides do it equally shamefully." <-- THIS is my point.  This defines the "tone" of which I spoke.
 
2013-10-09 11:48:41 AM  
so invest in bitcoin!
 
2013-10-09 12:05:43 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Ficoce: Not too well for Lehman - went really well for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. We aren't doing all that well at the Bankers Olympics this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

Lehman held mortgages. When people were unable to repay their mortgages, Lehman died.

China holds US debt. When the US is unable to repay its debt, _____________.


Umm, China hold less than 10% of the US debt. We hold most of it. Consumers still have to buy cheap "stuff". If the dollar tanks - what will be the definition of cheap?
 
2013-10-09 12:18:49 PM  

Ficoce: Ricardo Klement: Ficoce: Not too well for Lehman - went really well for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. We aren't doing all that well at the Bankers Olympics this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

Lehman held mortgages. When people were unable to repay their mortgages, Lehman died.

China holds US debt. When the US is unable to repay its debt, _____________.

Umm, China hold less than 10% of the US debt. We hold most of it. Consumers still have to buy cheap "stuff". If the dollar tanks - what will be the definition of cheap?


I never said they hold all of US debt. You think Lehman held most of the mortgages out there?
 
2013-10-09 12:19:49 PM  

Panatheist: so invest in bitcoin!


Quiet, you.
 
2013-10-09 12:32:29 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Ficoce: Ricardo Klement: Ficoce: Not too well for Lehman - went really well for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. We aren't doing all that well at the Bankers Olympics this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

Lehman held mortgages. When people were unable to repay their mortgages, Lehman died.

China holds US debt. When the US is unable to repay its debt, _____________.

Umm, China hold less than 10% of the US debt. We hold most of it. Consumers still have to buy cheap "stuff". If the dollar tanks - what will be the definition of cheap?

I never said they hold all of US debt. You think Lehman held most of the mortgages out there?


US debt to China is less than 10% of their GDP. totals less than $1B. China uses almost 40% of it's GDP to pay down their own debt every year, while we print money. We are the Lehman of which you speak.
 
2013-10-09 12:41:12 PM  

Ficoce: Ricardo Klement: Ficoce: Ricardo Klement: Ficoce: Not too well for Lehman - went really well for the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China. We aren't doing all that well at the Bankers Olympics this year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_banks

Lehman held mortgages. When people were unable to repay their mortgages, Lehman died.

China holds US debt. When the US is unable to repay its debt, _____________.

Umm, China hold less than 10% of the US debt. We hold most of it. Consumers still have to buy cheap "stuff". If the dollar tanks - what will be the definition of cheap?

I never said they hold all of US debt. You think Lehman held most of the mortgages out there?

US debt to China is less than 10% of their GDP. totals less than $1B. China uses almost 40% of it's GDP to pay down their own debt every year, while we print money. We are the Lehman of which you speak.


China holds ~$1.2 trillion of US debt 2011 and their GDP in 2011 was $7.3t So 1.2 isn't 20% of GDP, but it's 16.5%. Not exactly "less than 10%".

China's public debt is north of 40% of their GDP in 2011. That's better than ours, but it's not exactly falling.
I'm not saying China is worse off than the US.

But let's take your assertion that we are Lehman. How'd the rest of the US economy do when Lehman et al crashed? That's what's going to happen to China. Only worse, because there's no one to save at least SOME of the banks.
 
2013-10-09 01:36:21 PM  

what_now: Nabb1: I've spent years hoarding canned food and shotgun shells just for this scenario. I will rule this new world.

I have penicillin and a working uterus. I will be your overlord.


I've got shotgun shells *and* shotguns. I will rule this world and own all the uteruses.

If you sign up now, you can get one of the 1st spots in my harem and get the best food and benifits.

My first 10 girls get hot Dinty Moore beef stew and a bed. Around girl 20 they start getting Lunchables and an old Army cot. At 50 you get slightly moldy bread and an old skeet blanket. You really don't want to be girl 200.
 
2013-10-09 01:52:06 PM  
That was last year - this year it's $8.2T. They use 38% of that to pay their debt. Problem is their debt is a little over 40%. Not the best position to be in - but, I agree, a lot better than we are. Of course they are nervous, but do you really think they have a problem making people suffer to pay the bills?

They haven't been printing money to inflate their GDP numbers. The US economy is still isn't over 2007, so I can't really say how we did after Lehman.

I really hope we can pull this out, but we don't have much of a parachute either.
 
2013-10-09 02:18:28 PM  

Ficoce: That was last year - this year it's $8.2T. They use 38% of that to pay their debt. Problem is their debt is a little over 40%. Not the best position to be in - but, I agree, a lot better than we are. Of course they are nervous, but do you really think they have a problem making people suffer to pay the bills?

They haven't been printing money to inflate their GDP numbers. The US economy is still isn't over 2007, so I can't really say how we did after Lehman.

I really hope we can pull this out, but we don't have much of a parachute either.


We haven't been printing money. Had we done so, inflation wouldn't have been so low.

/They also own more of our debt than last year. So the point about how much they have at stake still stands.
 
2013-10-10 06:01:43 AM  

dustman81: FDIC operates under the Full Faith and Credit of the United States. If no one has faith and credit in the ability of the United States to pay its obligations, game over.

/Then again, if no one has faith in the US paying its obligations, the US Dollar becomes worthless anyway


That's what you get with a fiat currency. There's nothing but smoke and mirrors behind it.
 
Displayed 34 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report