Maggie's Farm

It's hard to know where to even start with this mess of assertions, wishes, and rhetoric.

To put the issue into any kind of meaningful context you'd have to actually refer to what your infinitely patient host is telling you. I call troll.

Zbot: You are largely correct. Market bubbles generally don't happen without a source of credit so that people can leverage their existing assets to strike it big.

"Credit", as you euphemistically refer to it, is in the broad, original context money, which, to correct your faulty allusion, means the currency lent into existence by the central bank where it is then leveraged with each subsequent issuance incurring interest.

Therefore money exists whenever and wherever demand for it it exists. Add irresponsible banks and their policies and you have the mortgage crisis. Add derivative betting and you have hundreds of trillions in cross-linking.

Your question becomes how will you liquidate these debts, which leads you back to Bulldog's point, the one you instead slather your boilerplate all over. "Market bubbles generally don't happen without a source of credit" doesn't even scratch the surface, and indeed it diminishes that point.

Zbot: Another factor was the very success of modern economics at ameliorating the market cycle.

Unmitigated rubbish. The fore-mentioned "modern economic" phenomenon has everything to do with bubbles, as you call them, precisely because of the creation of "credit" as you also call it. Policy has yet to restore the equilibrium of sound markets if for no other reason then lag, and lag is the least of its problems.

Zbot: People assumed that if things turned south, the government would be able to quickly counteract the effects of overindulgence by the banks and others. This created an atmosphere lacking in accountability.

This is just you slinging nouns and verbs and I suspect leading up to some boilerplate partisan conclusion nowhere in evidence.

Zbot: Success bred complacency. Indeed, countercyclical policy only works if you actually implement the policy. That means paying down debt during times of plenty.

You can't "pay down" such debt because such debt is unbacked and crosslinked, which, if you knew how any of this worked or even remembered the bailouts and subsequent balance sheets, also completely nullifies your upcoming political conclusion, among other things.

Zbot: The Bush Administration engaged in procyclical policy during an economic expansion, which created "irrational exuberance" about pricing.

Preposterous. Greenspan's wordplay had nothing to do with a Bush policy and everything to do with the natural action of money and the reckless creation of it via financial instruments, just as Bulldog posits.

Zbot: Consider if the Gore Administration had not cut taxes, but used the money to pay down debt ("lock box").

Gore's non-existent lockbox related to solving Social Security's debt crisis, which has nothing to do with this conjectured President Gore or if in your odd formulation he'd have lifted a finger, much less any assurance that he'd do what no president has since Nixon first unhinged things.

Zbot: That would have pulled some excess liquidity from the system, tempering the run up, while also setting aside money to address any economic crisis, should one still occur.

Subjective nonsense and weasel words. Without a fundamental solution to the core issue no band aid fixes apply to anything.

You have no idea what you're talking about, which makes this partisan appeal of yours a consummate trolling.

I see. So the treasury reserves hundreds of trillions in liquidity with which to cover bank derivatives and unfunded obligations with something other than renamed debt. Would that be before or after paying the national debt, financebot?

You're so utterly out of your depth you can only resort to the simplest slogans and neener-neener retorts.

Objection, financetrollbot. Unresponsive.

Having two days ago refused the notion of a variable money supply impacting markets vis a vis Obama, Trump, et al, now you insist that a variable money supply is all that holds markets intact vis a vis your Bush falsehood and Gore fantasy.

You're so out of this you can't see straight, financetrollbot.

The comment you initially used to try to derail this thread was Bulldog's. Bulldog wrote about the instability of financial instruments. I also replied to Bulldog in the affirmative.

You tried to turn both remarks into another of your captured topics.

In today's botwork about things not pertinent to the original point or to how things work, you speculated on the fictional imperial majesty of a Democrat president and the failure of a president who was not a Democrat. Your remarks were nonsensical, all the more so by comparison to the original premise, the one you saw fit to poke at without cause or substance.

This mirrors your efforts two days ago in which you lost another effort to create a partisan distinction and division where none existed. This is because you are ignorant of the larger picture, the one Bulldog raised and you unsuccessfully sullied. This ignorance in no ways prevents the trolling of much botwork.

You are mistaken again, financebot. And off-topic, diversionary, pedantic, and to some notable degree, tiresome.

That is all.

...and before you get all pedantic about your Googled financebot du jour phenomenon, I'll unpack my shorthand.

You're proposing that monetary policy itself either magically doesn't exist or has no effect on Bulldog's observation, which is the correct premise. However, you continue, Executive "government" policy establishes market equilibrium - via your cyclical ruminations on Bush and Gore - and does so in an era where there haven't been specific budgets in 20 years and where I recall the Obama era was made famous by Reid refusing to pass one.

Reid was Legislative. Trump is Executive. Neither are the Fed. Your fundamental "government" financial regulatory action is either sloppy rhetoric, a euphemism for a partial effect anyway, or non-existent.

Edit: Bulldog's is the correct premise, financebot. Yours is not the correct premise.

That would be profoundly unlikely, that yours could somehow be the correct premise.

Right. To pretty much this entire commentariat your obsessive arguing, reframing, and diversions are actually a case of mistaken identity.

That tends to explain a lot, victimhoodbot.

Lends a whole new meaning to Chief Executive. No wonder Dimon periodically emerges from the Wall St woodwork to posture at Washington...

And when you refuel your knockoff Vespa an economic butterfly flaps its wings and it rains on the sweatshops in the East.

Anyway, back to securities...