weekender

I'd leave if we have severe economic instability. the dollar is devalued, social security and medicare are cut to worthless and we are taxed to the point it feels like working is not worth it. so basically in 15 years. hah. i can immigrate to Italy as a citizen, so its a real option for me and something i always consider. I'm fortunate to have strong ties with my family and would fit right into a nice community. I am American, i am a veteran and proudly served BUT if this place goes to crap, im outa here. if im going live in an overtaxed socialist paradise, I'd rather it be Italy. being poor in Italy, IMO, would be nicer than poor here. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

to be clear and to sound less condescending. which i do not do on purpose. the strength of the banks balance sheets is a fact based on the math. any line by line comparison to pre-crisis would prove that. i fully understand you might not feel that is enough protections. perfectly understandable. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

based on what? what math are you using? they have dramatically increased capital requirements. they have dramatically decreased the banks ability to distribute capital to shareholders. they have also completely ended proprietary trading and drastically limited true hedging. there are many more additional requirements and policies that i dont have the time to list. its just math. they have made all the banks balance sheets stronger and limited their ability to weaken them. how is that not safer? am i saying the banks are fail safe? of course not. they are however, much safer than before and certainly safer than your describing. edit to add: its fine to say you dont trust the gov't or the banks and your opinion is based on your gut. im cool with that, fyi Well only time will tell whether or not my distrust in the Fed or banking system is well founded or not. There is no math that I can point to in order to definitively say that these new regulations won't make any difference. It's just historically new regulations haven't improved the situation. SOX regulations haven't stopped Enron type fraud from happening. The only things regulations really succeed in doing is limiting competition by making it more expensive for smaller banks to stay in business and new banks to start up. So we now see fewer banks total with the bigger banks getting even bigger. What you consider as making the banks balance sheets better is in my opinion just smoke and mirrors. The economy is not better since the housing market crashed it's only gotten worse. The banks appear stronger but if you mark to market their assets I think you find them to much less stable then they appear. I cannot argue against your feelings. you dont trust the gov't and banks. thats fine and you can feel anyway you want. I make decisions contrary to charts and fundamentals based on my feelings all the time, so i wont criticize you for it. you are just plain wrong on your last statement. im sorry but you do not understand financial reporting or you would not make that statement. the financials are just math, there is no magic involved. The fact is they use GAAP for reporting so they are marked to market. im sorry but i think you misunderstand the term. the major banks balance sheets are stronger and they are forced to take less risk. those are facts, not my opinion. its all public information. you do not have to believe it will help but you cannot make a credible argument that its untrue. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I take it you've been married. duh to Elizabeth Warren. didnt you read your own link. kidding back on topic. there really is a need for the working poor to have access to basic banking services. if the gov't wont allow Walmart to do it, which i think is crap. then maybe the post office can. id prefer to see them both do it but have to agree with Sen Warren. it seems like a great fit for the USPS. they already have all these offices in poor towns. have the communities trust and i assume the personnel capable. really should be explored. people need these services to have any quality of life. i feel most Americans dismiss the burden of not having them. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I didn't, unless you choose to take it that way. I realize you stand by your posts, but I stand by mine. Sorry to have been abrupt, but I just didn't feel like taking the time to squabble about it. no biggie, just assumed you were picking on me. hah. feel like you missed the point though. its a no brainier i would dislike Sen Warren. i assumed everyone would ignore that. my point was that in spite of my loathing of her, i liked her idea. i think it has merit and should not be dismissed. i only mentioned the negative to strengthen my positive comment. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

based on what? what math are you using? they have dramatically increased capital requirements. they have dramatically decreased the banks ability to distribute capital to shareholders. they have also completely ended proprietary trading and drastically limited true hedging. there are many more additional requirements and policies that i dont have the time to list. its just math. they have made all the banks balance sheets stronger and limited their ability to weaken them. how is that not safer? am i saying the banks are fail safe? of course not. they are however, much safer than before and certainly safer than your describing. edit to add: its fine to say you dont trust the gov't or the banks and your opinion is based on your gut. im cool with that, fyi "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I don't think the banking system is stronger because of what the Fed did to stave off "disaster" with QE. It appears to be more fragile then it was before the housing bubble, which no one in the Fed including Janet Yellen saw coming. The "Too Big To Fail" Banks are now even bigger. What will happen when the next "unseen" bubble pops? Who will bail these even bigger banks out? All they have done is set the stage for an even bigger crisis down the road. But don't worry the Fed will save us from the dreaded everyday lower prices of deflation and instead give us everyday higher prices of inflation. I find it amazing that they have managed to get people to think backwards and get them to believe that inflation is a good thing. The logic is so screwed up. I think the cartoon in BrentHutch's post is pretty funny and not far off from the truth. I dont want to get into a big thing but you need to do some research on capital requirements, proprietary positions and capital distributions before and after the housing crisis. the banks are structured differently due to stricter regulation. your comments completely ignore the reality of this restructuring, all of which is easily found on the interweb. please check out dodd-frank and basel III before you attack me for my comments. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

she does not have private industry experience, not even academic experience teaching banking. insult me all you want it does not change her life. for impressive people in politics, with real world experience, check out Larry Summers, Robert Rubin, Rahm Emmanuel, Henry Paulson and Neel Kashkari. to name a few. i have not always agreed with them but respect their experience. so at least you know where im coming from. or dont and just insult me. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

very mature response. im sure Sen Warren is proud to have you defend her. She taught law. She has no financial industry experience. she is very critical of an industry she has no actual experience in. nor does she have much academic experience in. she has done some work and teaching on bankruptcy but not much on banking. that is why i commented the way i did. Who do you suppose my leaders are? Fox and Rush, hah. I voted for a women who is hated by them. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat who supports free markets and a strong financial industry. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i would like to expand my original response. i loathe Sen Warren. She has little understanding of the banking industry but a tremendous amount of hate and jealousy of it. common among teachers. with that said, i think her idea has merit and should be explored. the USPS office might be an excellent place for what she is discussing. I would, however, like to see Walmart and others be able to compete. that competition would truly help the poor. it wont happen. people like Sen Warren would rather see the poor suffer if it meant the Waltons do not get any wealthier. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

my 2cents. Interest rates aside. Based on what i think would be best for the industry. . OK, and do you consider "the industry" and "the country" to be synonyms? the industry and the country are not synonyms in my mind. Having a strong financial industry is good for the nation but my comments on her were not that macro. i was giving my opinion of her based on the industry. thats how i read the question. I think all the nominees were more than qualified for the job and would have the USA's best interest in mind. for a more broad response. (edited material typo) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

a more accurate alternative is the AMEX/Walmart Bluebird product. this is a direct reaction to them not being able to get full banking status. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the shareholder comment was a wise crack. i was simply stating that Democrats, no matter how much it helped the poor, would not want to see Walmart and the Waltons prosper. my bank comment was simply that the big banks and check cashing firms aligned with the Republican party would be against it so the poor lose either way but for different reasons, depending on your political beliefs. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

my 2cents. Interest rates aside. Based on what i think would be best for the industry. Yellen seemed to be fine with the Basel III as is, where as Summers would prefer more onerous requirements. Also, Summers is more Dodd-Franky(thats a real term). So my vote was always with Yellen. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

another thread on Walmart got me thinking. for years they have wanted to open banks in their stores. not branches but their own. people could cash checks and have checking accounts. it would be a bare bones account for low income people. would fill a need, since poor people get ripped off by check cashing places. not to mention the huge hassle of having to pay bills in person because they dont have checking accounts. the gov't wont have it. they dont want Walmart in banking because it might help shareholders. of course it would help poor people too. people like Warren, a school teacher, seem to feel the post office would be better then a private entity. thats not true of course. i doubt she thinks they would be better, she is just against free markets and prefers a gov't run solution. banks are against it too and they have alot of political power. so the poor lose out. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Walmart is being honest. Low income people are hurt when their subsidies are cut. If you get less in food stamps, you spend more of your limited income on food. this leaves less cash to spend on other things at Walmart. pretty simple economics. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

the mildly cynical part of me thinks he just wants a retirement plan to call his own, particularly if the GOP manages to gut the ACA. the tin foil hat side thinks that this is a first step towards vague proposals in the past where we're shifted from our private 401k/iras to contributing to a federal pension system. Like SS, great for lower earners who have ignored retirement, but at a cost to the high earners. the practical side of me sees it is meaningless window dressing - looking like he's attacking the problem without delivering anything. Raising the IRA limits would actually solve the problem of access, but it also would cost in future revenue, whereas a plan that no one will ever use, or if they do, holds government debt, is revenue neutral. so funny, i thought it was me. i was wondering if they were trying to Trojan horse us into some crappy federal system. then i thought i was being paranoid. BUT THEN i remembered the Heller quote, "“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you." whenever i have mixed feelings like this i always just default to the fact i am in fact a super genius. the gov't is def out to get us. 1600, mkt is closed. everyone have a nice weekend. i will not be responding till Monday. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

all good points. i gave you my best guess. why does the gov't do alot of what they do? i think politics trumps public good most of the time nowadays. I think you are over thinking it. again, because you know a lot on the subject. the pol's do not carry that burden. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

In Italy? I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution, while a pretty awesome document, is not recognized in Italian courts as the rule of law. If you commit a crime in Italy, you must abide by Italian rules. at least that seems right to me. i really wish someone smarter than you and I would chime in. no offense. i dont think either of us are experts on this topic. Italian food, yes. Italian law, not so much. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I really have no idea whether or not Knox is actually guilty. She might even be another OJ. But OJ walked, like it or not, because he was acquitted in a court of law. What kind of a judiciary overturns a conviction, releases someone from prison, allows them to leave the country, and then decides they want to change their mind - again ? It wouldn't happen here in America. So even though Italy has an extradition treaty with the U.S., I believe the U.S. has the right to refuse on the grounds of double jeopardy. Because if we let Knox be extradited back to Italy, then we set a precedent for any country with a halfass court system to haul away any American citizen from American soil on any pretense. They had their chance and they BLEW it. End of story. Im not an attorney and even if i was it would be an American one. i dont know your credentials but am assuming you are not an Italian legal expert either. the Italian system of appeals is different. from what ive read, you can appeal 2x. if its overturned, you are considered innocent again. this is why Knox left or as the Italians see it, fled the state. the prosecution can then request another trial. in this case it was granted. in the second trial she was convicted. It is not the USA. i understand to many that means it must then be inferior, backwater, third world circus. i just see it as different. perhaps Miss Knox should have read more about the legal system before she moved there and murdered her roommate. (my opinion is she did it) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred. he is known to be a serial adulterer and has even had credible accusations against him of sexual harassment. additionally, he has been accused of sexual assault and even rape. he was elected governor of a state and President of the US multiple times. he is still beloved by millions of Americans. I still believe our courts system is a first world one. as is the Italian one. its my opinion. you can differ. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Right. And it seems that the scientists failed to incite the necessary panic to cause people to flee the city over a period of months. It was a 6.3 earthquake - not small but not huge. I've ridden a few that were stronger than that. But what happened was people died and there has to be blame pinned somewhere (and not on people like building inspectors or legislators who allow people to live in ramshackle structures in seismic zones.) That's my distrust. They call it fraud. You call it fraud. Amanda Knox? If scientists not correctly predicting that a 6.3 earthquake will devastate an area within a few months is criminal, then I view other prosecutions with distrust. I know your bias. I have mine. Thanks for the open and honest discussion. i know little about this case and am not a lawyer. so i cannot dispute your post nor will try. i do take offense to your description of L'Qquila as ramshakle. again, we are talking about Italy, a first world state that is quite famous for its engineering and building. they have a few rather famous old landmarks. im not a historian but believe they have proven to be quite capable at building structures. Most of the destruction was in the old town, which was mostly medieval construction. the fact that it lasted as long as it did, through many earthquakes, disproves the ramshakleness(its a word in Italian) of the structures. It was a large earthquake and the old city was hit hard, as expected. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

ive already stated im not arguing the case so we will just have to agree to disagree. i am more trusting of the facts from the foreign press. i also, believe Italy has a competent first world legal system and have admitted my obvious biases. so feel free to ignore me. my purpose for being here this morning is to encourage research away from the American media and to point out the obvious love of pretty white girls by them to get ratings. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Most of what you say was in the facts, but there were other facts that made things plenty questionable. I'm not saying she didn't do it. I'm saying the evidence doesn't prove it to any level I am familiar with. Was there ever a motive thrown out there? the motive according to the prosecutors was drugs, alcohol, money and sex being argued over. im not an expert. i just hate the American media and their ability to ignore all the facts of this case. they play into our prejudice of Italians and love of pretty white girls to get ratings. Its all on the interweb. my point isnt to argue the case. it was a suggestion to research it AWAY from the Today show and NYT. -edited material typo "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i am not a lawyer so in way over my head. ive also disclosed my bias. so feel free to stop reading the rest, hah. The Italian court felt that the seismologist purposely lied to the public downplaying the risk. 300 people where killed and many family members testified that their love ones only stayed home because of their fraudulent announcements. many people would have fled and lived had the scientist been honest and shown the true predictions. the Italian state felt the scientist should be punished for their fraud. i am NOT arguing either way but showing more color on the case that makes Italy look a little less 3 world than your description. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante