The Viral Economy

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Feb 13, 2023 2:40 pm Hey, I know how we can address a worker shortage! Dial back American employment laws to the early 1900s - like they're trying in Iowa:
Iowans are in uproar after Senate File 167 was introduced in the Iowa Legislature, proposing a rewrite of Iowa’s child labor law. One might imagine this rewrite might be to further safeguard minors against hazardous working conditions or protect their educational opportunities, as those who came before us promised with the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. However, that is not the case as the bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. Jason Schulz, pushes for teenagers as young as 14-years-old to work in previously prohibited jobs — like mining, meatpacking and logging — as long as they’re part of an approved training program. And these minors would be permitted to work longer shifts that last late into the evening. What’s more: if a teen gets sick, injured or killed on the job, the company they worked for would be free from any civil liability of negligence. That’s pretty abhorrent stuff.
SOOOO. The liability claim stuck out as making little sense to me. I thought - why would they carve out an exception to limit liability to put children at risk here. This seemed over the top even for the GOP. I thought maybe this was just Iowa law for everyone. So I went and read some of the proposed legislation. And I've concluded this summary is at least on that section not accurate. I won't argue the changes are at all great but distorting the facts does no one a service. The liability carve out seem to be about limiting liability due to negligence on the part of the child or on the drive to/from work as examples.

Here is the text of some of the legislation below - read that and tell me that summary is honest. In fact, the piece uses the words "any civil liability" which is contradicted in the legislation. I haven't looked deeply at any of the other claims but I did skim some of it and nothing was *crazy* on its face. In fact, they prohibit work I did in high school and are adding it. For example, loading equipment on a truck at a garden center appears to be currently prohibited.
A business that accepts a secondary student in a work-based learning program shall not be subject to civil liability for any claim for bodily injury to the student or sickness or death by accident of the student arising from the student’s driving to or from the business or worksite to participate in the work-based learning program.

...

This section shall not be construed to provide immunity for a student or business for civil liability arising from gross negligence or willful misconduct.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by ImLawBoy »

I think you may have missed a section:
Section 92.94, subsection 4:

17 4. A business that accepts a secondary student in a
18 work-based learning program shall not be subject to civil
19 liability for any claim for bodily injury to the student or
20 sickness or death by accident of the student arising from the
21 business’s negligent act or omission during the student’s
22 participation in the work-based learning program at the
23 business or worksite.
So a business is not liable for bodily injury to a secondary student in a work-based learning program if the claim is due to the business's negligent acts or omissions. Carving out gross negligence or willful misconduct is pretty standard and doesn't get them any points in my book. I think you could also make an argument that a student shouldn't be blocked from recovering damages based on his or her own negligence since they are minors with underdeveloped brains and perhaps we want to hold businesses who make use of their employment to a higher standard, including a higher level of supervision, but that one's more justifiable.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

ImLawBoy wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 11:27 am I think you may have missed a section:
Section 92.94, subsection 4:

17 4. A business that accepts a secondary student in a
18 work-based learning program shall not be subject to civil
19 liability for any claim for bodily injury to the student or
20 sickness or death by accident of the student arising from the
21 business’s negligent act or omission during the student’s
22 participation in the work-based learning program at the
23 business or worksite.
So a business is not liable for bodily injury to a secondary student in a work-based learning program if the claim is due to the business's negligent acts or omissions. Carving out gross negligence or willful misconduct is pretty standard and doesn't get them any points in my book. I think you could also make an argument that a student shouldn't be blocked from recovering damages based on his or her own negligence since they are minors with underdeveloped brains and perhaps we want to hold businesses who make use of their employment to a higher standard, including a higher level of supervision, but that one's more justifiable.
Oops - definitely my mistake. I read that as shall for some reason. Still I don't think that is way out of line (based on my understanding of negligent versus gross negligent at least). At least assuming Iowa doesn't have some version of negligence that is especially loose. I'd rather they had a higher standard since it involves children but it's not "crazy" to me.

I agree with your take that encouraging supervision seems relevant. I remember we got extra training when I worked as a kid because we were under 18. I don't know if that was NJ law or just "good practice" but it makes sense to me.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by ImLawBoy »

Generally speaking, I think that people (and companies) should be responsible for the consequences of their negligence, particularly in an employer-employee relationship. That tracks from both a general "fairness" principle, as well as a public policy objective of encouraging employers to maintain safe workplaces. The gross negligence/willful misconduct carve out is a distraction - no one is going to say that people/companies shouldn't be responsible for such egregious actions (in fact, in contract law (generally speaking) you can't disclaim or limit your liability for gross negligence or willful misconduct - at least not successfully).

That said, I can think of a couple of reasons that this might have been proposed. One is that this is tied to "secondary students in work-based learning programs". It's possible that this is part of the IA legislature trying to lure employers into participating in these types of programs, which in theory have education value for the students, by reducing their potential risk. Another is that I'm guessing the students would still have access to Workers' Comp, so perhaps this just means that students can claim typical Workers' Comp benefits but can't get additional damages from the employer. I don't do labor law, though, so that's just a wild guess on my part.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by LawBeefaroni »

I think we're over the rainbow now...



Governor Kathy Hochul
@GovKathyHochul
·

I’ve proposed a plan to peg the minimum wage to inflation — if costs go up, so will wages.

This would help to put more money in the pockets of nearly 900,000 New Yorkers.
Absolute insanity.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

I'm confused here. How is this insane? What is the argument against a minimum wage peg to the rate of inflation? Salaries at the bottom end have almost nothing to do with driving inflation. When inflation is high those folks often suffer the most as they have the least capacity to adjust to rising prices. This is a policy supported by a lot of data.
User avatar
Jaymann
Posts: 19320
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:13 pm
Location: California

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Jaymann »

malchior wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 12:54 pm I'm confused here. How is this insane? What is the argument against a minimum wage peg to the rate of inflation? Salaries at the bottom end have almost nothing to do with driving inflation. When inflation is high those folks often suffer the most as they have the least capacity to adjust to rising prices. This is a policy supported by a lot of data.
Agreed. Big Pharma greed taking prices through the roof is greed pure and simple.
Jaymann
]==(:::::::::::::>
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by GreenGoo »

Who expects their own salary to be adjusted by inflation (at a minimum) but opposes it for others?
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Isgrimnur »

People born on third that think they hit a triple.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by ImLawBoy »

Enlarge Image
Spoiler:
If you don't get this image, you probably don't follow US college football.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by LawBeefaroni »

"Adjusted for" is significantly different than "pegged to."
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

Another month of 'the recession is nigh' talk meeting robust evidence of strong consumer demand and consequent inflationary pressure.

CNBC
U.S. stocks fell sharply Friday after the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge showed a stronger-than-expected increase in prices last month.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average
fell by 390 points, or 1.2%. The S&P 500
and Nasdaq Composite
slid 1.6% and 2.0%, respectively. The Dow fell as much as 510 points, or 1.54%, earlier in the trading session.

Boeing
shares slipped more than 4% after the company temporarily halted delivery of its 787 Dreamliners over a fuselage issue. Shares of Microsoft
and Home Depot
also fell more than 1%.

The core personal consumption expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred measurement of inflation, rose 0.6% in January and 4.7% from the prior year, coming above economists’ expectations.
The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment index came in at 67 for February, slightly outpacing a Dow Jones forecast of 66.4.

“After lifting for the third consecutive month, sentiment is now 17 index points above the all-time low from June 2022 but remains almost 20 points below its historical average,” Surveys of Consumers director Joanne Hsu said.

“Consumers with larger stock holdings exhibited particularly large increases in sentiment. Overall, February’s reading was supported by a 12% improvement in the short-run economic outlook, while all other index components were essentially unchanged,” Hsu added.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Smoove_B »

Let's remember what's important:
New York City Mayor Eric Adams renewed his call for New Yorkers to return to the office on Wednesday, positing that remote work is economically unsustainable and ultimately harmful to low-income New Yorkers.

"In order for our economic — financial ecosystem, I should say — to function, we have to have human interaction," Adams said at an economic development event at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. "It can't be done from home. And if we do that, then we're going to greatly impact low wage workers."
Of note:
But one thing that can't happen: You can't stay home in your pajamas all day," Adams continued. "That's not who we are as a city. You need to be out, cross-pollinating ideas, interacting with humans. It is crucial. We are social creatures, and we must socialize to get the energy we need as a city."
Get dressed and go to an office?

Enlarge Image
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Isgrimnur »

Image
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Smoove_B »

For once it's not just an American corporation crying out for mercy:
The stunted pace of workers returning to the office is taking a notch out of productivity and innovation, Royal Bank of Canada RY-T chief executive officer Dave McKay says.

The head of Canada’s largest lender made the comments during a conference call to discuss the bank’s first-quarter earnings. While some employers in Canada have mandated that staff work at offices more often, corporate leaders have grappled with employees resisting calls for teams to return to the workplace.

“Society isn’t back together enough,” Mr. McKay said in response to an analyst question about risks in the commercial real estate market.

“All CEOs in every sector I talk to are struggling with a balance of developing talent, promoting talent, building culture, creating productivity
I can't help but think that if they could wave a magic wand and absolve themselves of real-estate investments/obligations, they'd be perfectly happy having everyone working at home forever.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 12:06 pm For once it's not just an American corporation crying out for mercy:
The stunted pace of workers returning to the office is taking a notch out of productivity and innovation, Royal Bank of Canada RY-T chief executive officer Dave McKay says.

The head of Canada’s largest lender made the comments during a conference call to discuss the bank’s first-quarter earnings. While some employers in Canada have mandated that staff work at offices more often, corporate leaders have grappled with employees resisting calls for teams to return to the workplace.

“Society isn’t back together enough,” Mr. McKay said in response to an analyst question about risks in the commercial real estate market.

“All CEOs in every sector I talk to are struggling with a balance of developing talent, promoting talent, building culture, creating productivity
I can't help but think that if they could wave a magic wand and absolve themselves of real-estate investments/obligations, they'd be perfectly happy having everyone working at home forever.
Definitely a big part of it. I mean the ridiculous propaganda we are seeing kind of exposes how desperate they are to make the case - Example from Yahoo Finance. Can you imagine being the person who had to write and experience this deep soul-killing sadness. :)
If you’ve been working remotely for sometime now, you may have already noticed the physical impact on your body. According to Krys Hines, a Washington, D.C.-based workplace wellness and ergonomics educator at KH Ergo and Wellness, the recent shift to remote work has aged our bodies by about 10 to 15 years.

“Quite abruptly people were making workspaces at home that perpetuated postural strain and mechanical stress. Work was happening at the kitchen table, on the couch, in the bed, and from a desk space without ergonomic support specific to the individual,” she says. “Essentially, people fit themselves into a workspace instead of creating a workspace for their body.”

But it's not just our bodies that are hurting. In a 2020 Microsoft study, researchers found that “remote collaboration is more mentally challenging than in-person collaboration,” but not necessarily in a good way. The study found that “brainwave patterns associated with stress and overwork were much higher when collaborating remotely than in-person.”

...

The loss of additional context clues, such as a person’s body language or seeing an interesting photo on a colleague’s desk, may also be impacting our productivity and innovation, according to a recent study in the Journal of Nature.

“When we interact with people in person, there’s a lot of unexpected things that happen in our environment,” says Carmichael. “The brain may need this variety of input. And it may need the unexpected, unanticipated aspect of interaction that sharpens our ability to think more broadly and more generally to come up with new ideas.”
Last edited by malchior on Fri Mar 03, 2023 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Smoove_B »

I'd love to ask if she wrote that piece from home. :)
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by YellowKing »

Hell, I'm in the best shape of my life from working from home. I got a standing desk (that work wouldn't buy me). And I get to go out walking or running at lunch every day (which I couldn't do before).

I'm really fortunate that our company was embracing remote work well before the pandemic. So it was a fairly easy transition.
User avatar
GreenGoo
Posts: 42239
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:46 pm
Location: Ottawa, ON

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by GreenGoo »

YellowKing wrote: Fri Mar 03, 2023 4:59 pm Hell, I'm in the best shape of my life from working from home. I got a standing desk (that work wouldn't buy me). And I get to go out walking or running at lunch every day (which I couldn't do before).

I'm really fortunate that our company was embracing remote work well before the pandemic. So it was a fairly easy transition.
Unfortunately, it has had the opposite effect on me. I fully admit it's not working from home that is the problem, it's me, but when I don't have to get out of my PJ's to go to work, you're never going to get me out of the house. Particularly because I have developed some reclusive tendencies over the years.

That said, I have had 2 rather decent attempts (actual progress) at fitness since I've been working from home. So I fully understand YK's viewpoint. It's just been hard for me to sustain.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

Feb jobs report looks more like recovery than impending recession.

The interesting part is the increase in unemployment rate. That means the participation rate went up due to people returning from the "sidelines" and are seeking jobs. That usually signals expectations that folks believe they will find work. It also could mean they NEED work due to financial distress so it's not a clean indicator but we usually see this type of indicator (big jobs jump and rise in unemployment) on the other side of a recession. In any case, this could be taken as another positive signal if you are talking about the health of the economy. It is going to have inflationary impact and I think we'll see a drift towards the market pricing in a 50 bps rate increase next week.
The US economy added 311,000 jobs in February, according to the Labor Department's closely watched monthly employment snapshot, released Friday.

That's a pullback from the blockbuster January jobs report, when a revised 504,000 positions were added, but shows the labor market is still emitting plenty of heat.

The unemployment rate ticked up to 3.6% from 3.4%.

Economists were expecting a net gain of 205,000 jobs for February and no change in the unemployment rate, according to Refinitiv.

The Federal Reserve has been battling for almost a year to slow the economy and crush the highest inflation in 40 years, but the labor market continues to defy those efforts.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

Cool. This is such a tragically dumb timeline.

User avatar
em2nought
Posts: 5307
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:48 am

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by em2nought »

The second-largest bank failure in U.S. history, and here we go! :doh:
Technically, he shouldn't be here.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8486
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Alefroth »

Where?
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19979
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Culturewarville.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sat Mar 11, 2023 10:25 am Culturewarville.
The correct answer.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19979
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Carpet_pissr »

Woke up to seeing my paycheck direct deposited this morning, so they (Rippling, our HR/payroll app) pulled some after hours strings I guess.

They had indicated that due to the issues with SVB, deposits would only hit after East Coast banks were closed, which had many in an uproar as you can imagine (meaning it would be Monday before funds were available for payees).

Threats of suing, asking if they were going to cover overdraft charges, etc.

Quite possible had they not made it happen (yesterday), that the fallout could have tanked this smallish company.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

Yup. Number 2 in reverse order and I'd add take back earning from the people who failed in the first place. That'd look like a claw back on bonuses from executives, wipe out the shareholders as necessary, and then the bondholders last.

User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70100
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by LordMortis »

https://apnews.com/article/silicon-vall ... 91bbb9ec1e

Wherein the GOP starts pleading for handouts from Biden...
Tom Quaadman, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, said in a statement that “we urge the administration to facilitate a quick acquisition, guaranteeing all bank depositors have access to their cash.”
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he hoped the administration would announce the next steps as soon as Sunday.
After 2007-2009, 15 years of addiction to free money, telegraphing it's end and then spending well over a year to move slowly away from it, one would have to seriously question how much federal government should step in and why contagion would be such a problem.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/si ... -rcna74508

Somehow, on paper, their books were showing they we making more money and were more profitable than even right up 12/31

I begin to wonder if this should actually move to the what is keeping bank execs of jail thread.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

They just shut down a second bank - Signature Bank. This isn't too far from what I hoped would happen. They are protecting the depositors at the expense of the equity and debt holders.

User avatar
waitingtoconnect
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:56 am

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by waitingtoconnect »

LordMortis wrote: Sun Mar 12, 2023 11:30 am https://apnews.com/article/silicon-vall ... 91bbb9ec1e

Wherein the GOP starts pleading for handouts from Biden...
Tom Quaadman, executive vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, said in a statement that “we urge the administration to facilitate a quick acquisition, guaranteeing all bank depositors have access to their cash.”
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., told Fox News Channel’s “Sunday Morning Futures” that he hoped the administration would announce the next steps as soon as Sunday.
After 2007-2009, 15 years of addiction to free money, telegraphing it's end and then spending well over a year to move slowly away from it, one would have to seriously question how much federal government should step in and why contagion would be such a problem.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/si ... -rcna74508

Somehow, on paper, their books were showing they we making more money and were more profitable than even right up 12/31

I begin to wonder if this should actually move to the what is keeping bank execs of jail thread.
Profitable companies can still go under.

It seems like an oxymoron but it’s especially true in tech finance and tech where an organisation may have high debts. If those are all called in as is happening now you get a company failure.

In order industries, a company can be profitable and still go bankrupt from cash flow problems. If they must pay for materials in January but don't get paid by their customers until June, they need a loan to survive until June. If they don't get that loan—even if they have guaranteed sales in June—then they will go out of business. (This is often how a large company kills off a small supplier on purpose by not paying an invoice so the supplier goes bust and the large company can, in some circumstances, then not have to pay.)

The banks collapsing like this creates cash flow issues in their depositors so there is a real risk of contagion into the tech sectors and strong companies going down. Anyone who has a loan or line of credit with these guys is also at risk because now they won’t potentially be able access cashflow easily even if they have the assets to be technically solvent without cash flow they will die fast.

We are at real risk of a dot com crash 2.0 and a crypto crash now because the funding, a lot of which went to creating get rich quick crypto schemes is unwinding fast. I’d expect to see a lot of tech companies start failing and probably most crypto coins fail outside of bitcoin and etherium. FTE was just the beginning and it was obvious that that there was a lot of downstream exposure that was being hidden.

The GFC never really ended. Its worst effects were just postponed by bailouts. The systemic issues of greed and corruption were not dealt with just as it wasn’t after jan 6.

We just live kicking the can down the road. The dodgy money just went to crypto and it wasn’t regulated and that created a broader tech and fintech bubble that was financed on nothing but the hot air of graphics cards. Now the issue is who will survive and how much it’ll hurt everyone else. For a while 1 in 10 dollars in the Us economy was sourced from crypto assets.

In 2008 it should have been allowed to burn down. Certainly all the execs responsible should have been held accountable as indeed they were not.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

I disagree we should have let it burn down in 2008. A lot of human misery was avoided. A lot.

That said we should have ABSOLUTELY held the banks to task for their failures. And for awhile we nearly did but then Trump came to power and a Republican regime again allowed the conditions to be set for a so-called accommodative regulatory regime that didn't keep an eye on banks that clearly can't act responsibly.

Right now we're seeing a much bigger crisis than I think many thought it was on Friday. The government just drastically changed the rules of the game by creating an unlimited depositor backstop - essentially fund the bank run. :roll: We could argue that is another move that will serve to encourage risk taking to solve another immediate problem. Perhaps, the mounting bank run on First Republic (which is SVB adjacent) was a good enough reason to make such a drastic move over the weekend. Unfortunately this yet another shovel full of the system digging a deeper hole which seems to incentivize too much risk taking. Yikes.

We're seeing all sorts of conflicting signals. The market had baked in a 25-50 bps rate hike at the next meeting and that's collapsed to zero. And conflicting signals this morning as everyone figures out what this new financial world looks like.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70100
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by LordMortis »

Biden was supposed to speak at 8, now he's speaking at 9 (Eastern)
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

LordMortis wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 8:59 am Biden was supposed to speak at 8, now he's speaking at 9 (Eastern)
Perhaps he is updating his remarks to say he is also minting the trillion dollar coin. Might as well use the crisis for good. :lol:

Edit: Biden said no losses will be borne by taxpayers. Someone has to explain that one clearly because people who know how this stuff bolts together say differently. It sure looks like they're intentionally muddling FDIC with the ESF. Another way to interpret that is he is communicating a policy position that they won't backstop anything beyond these 2 which has...low credibility. Especially when he says they'll do whatever it takes.
Last edited by malchior on Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70100
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by LordMortis »

short. Depositors will be whole. Taxpayer won't pay. Management fired. Malfeasance will be investigated as possible cause and steps taken if found. Trump admin gutted Dodd Frank. Blame them. The economy is awesome. No questions.

So that was both there to score political points and something I don't disagree with except 1) I don't know enough to understand if the Tax Payer is on the hook. Instincts say we are. And 2) the economy is awesome. *shrug*.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by malchior »

LordMortis wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 9:09 amSo that was both there to score political points and something I don't disagree with except 1) I don't know enough to understand if the Tax Payer is on the hook. Instincts say we are.
For what it's worth if you want some help here, look at the announcement yesterday which says they set up a new facility carved out of the Exchange Stability Fund.
*New Fed 13(3) facility announced with $25 billion from ESF to backstop bank deposits.
Then go look at the treasury's own description of the ESF.
The ESF can be used to purchase or sell foreign currencies, to hold U.S. foreign exchange and Special Drawing Rights (SDR) assets, and to provide financing to foreign governments. All operations of the ESF require the explicit authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury ("the Secretary").

The Secretary is responsible for the formulation and implementation of U.S. international monetary and financial policy, including exchange market intervention policy. The ESF helps the Secretary to carry out these responsibilities. By law, the Secretary has considerable discretion in the use of ESF resources.

The legal basis of the ESF is the Gold Reserve Act of 1934. As amended in the late 1970s, the Act provides in part that "the Department of the Treasury has a stabilization fund …Consistent with the obligations of the Government in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on orderly exchange arrangements and an orderly system of exchange rates, the Secretary …, with the approval of the President, may deal in gold, foreign exchange, and other instruments of credit and securities.
The question is whether if this got worse would we see enormous pressure to fund losses if the facility was overrun. We can debate whether that means the taxpayer is on the hook. Maybe Congress wouldn't fund it but it's...a pretty academic way to avoid telling the truth.

Edit: It's also another in a long line of the sketchy use of the ESF. This isn't the first time though - they used it during 2008 and COVID as well and has led to it being called the Fed's "slush fund". "We" have typically made money in these operations so they can credibly argue the risk of taxpayer losses are low but "no risk"? Bullshit.

They are lying in the way that an adult tells lies to children to keep them from eating too many cookies. But it's still a lie.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82085
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Isgrimnur »

It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43492
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Blackhawk »

So, purely from a selfish perspective, how is all of this banking chaos going to affect things for normal, non-stock-buying, non-tech-startup people?
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:26 pm So, purely from a selfish perspective, how is all of this banking chaos going to affect things for normal, non-stock-buying, non-tech-startup people?
Assuming the contagion doesn't spread, probably not much. Fed will probably brakecheck us but most changes won't directly affect we proles.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Kraken »

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Mar 13, 2023 3:26 pm So, purely from a selfish perspective, how is all of this banking chaos going to affect things for normal, non-stock-buying, non-tech-startup people?
It makes the Fed less likely to raise interest rates at their next meeting, depriving us of a wee bump in our savings interest while making borrowers slightly less unhappy.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43492
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: The Viral Economy

Post by Blackhawk »

Savings. That's a funny word.

Savings.

Say, Vings!

Save ings (are we low on ings?)
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
Post Reply