Election week is done. It's time to get back to the business of finding real solutions for our nation's economic recovery. As this week ends it is clear that the appetite for federal stimuli is beginning its ebb tide. We see the Federal Reserve playing the risky cards of quantitative easing trying yet again to spark an economic recovery against the odds of a main street economy still mired in the collateral damage of central government's past grand visions.
Don't get me wrong. I actually agree that Fed needs to be doing what it is. We need to find a sustainable balance for our economy and it's a data intensive compass that can only be seen with clarity from the offices occupied by people like Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner and Sheila Bair. What I do worry about though is that these central solutions too often take from the small and give to the big because the simplifying assumptions used by the economists and statisticians that support the process aren't capable of seeing the one-by-one trench warfare fights being fought by small businesses and individuals. It's an inherent policy formulation weakness of the academic brain trust behind our system that may be costing ordinary people more pain than necessary. But these ordinary Americans are there. We know this because they voted on Tuesday.
Fortunately, the United States is a big country and Washington D.C. isn't the only place exploring ways to find economic recovery formulae. Across the country, cities and states are beginning to chart independent paths to creating their own "islands of recovery". The City of Los Angeles' proposed Responsible Banking Ordinance continues to move through the committee process improving bit-by-bit into what I believe is an important emerging economic policy counterweight to ensure that the "small to big" tendencies of central solutions do not take us astray yet again.
The tale of the tape is something I believe worth sharing with the readers of the Huffington Post.
On October 26th, there was a public hearing by the L.A. City Jobs Committee chaired by Councilman Richard Alarcon on item CF 09-0234, Responsible Banking. The measure was approved with a number of questions to be investigated and reported to a hearing of the L.A. City Budget and Finance Committee to take place on Monday, November 8th. The questions aired by Councilman Bernard Parks focused on two areas. He asked for more information to determine if the cost and design of the process for implementation by the City was indeed workable. He also asked for clarification about how the differences between community banks, large complex banks and the city's debt underwriters would be recognized within the final ordinance.
Mr. Park's questions tell me that the L.A. process is indeed making progress because these are no longer questions about whether this a good thing for the economic interests of the City but rather how well is the plan risk managed. The interests behind the initiative become more positive as banks, large and small, begin to recognize that there is opportunity to be had here. The carrot being offered by the City of L.A is preference to win lucrative contracts that the City will be issuing anyway if evidence can be presented by the bidders that they are placing the interests of the region higher up the business priority list than their competition. It's subtle and far reaching in its potential to encourage money to circulate locally longer.
So now to ponder details,
As I reviewed the current version of the ordinance draft, it was clear the that City of Los Angeles had specified a data collection and reporting request that seeks to get banks to translate the nature of their business activities into measurement language that city governments can understand. The policy question is actually spot on but I'm also pretty sure that asking a bank to deliver the answer on a silver platter to the city first time out is a bit of a stretch. I think there's a better way to make it work for everyone and bring the cost/risk of the process well into good comfort.
The path to success here is to recognize two things. The first is that banks know how to report data to their regulators. They actually track all the information the city wants to know. Once a year they even have to report data to the granularity of branch-by-branch information to the FDIC. The other thing that's clear from the city draft is that municipal governments analyze their quality of service based on census tracts because that's how voters are bucketed. The trick in getting one system to talk to the other is to leverage by translating between the two universes via the zip codes of the U.S. postal service.
Asking the banks to do all the work is a lot of work. But if the City of Los Angeles were to re-design the ordinance implementation process to be a two step process where the banks report data in branches with identification of which zip codes are affected by that branch and there was a post- process by the City to morph the submittals into census tract visibility I think this would actually work reasonably well. City employees and/or other specialty vendors are more knowledgeable about the second step of the transformation than any bank will ever be. And there's a reason for that. Bankers, being lenders, have been discouraged from doing the second step for a long time because the technology that does so equates to gathering the data to do "red lining". So it's actually a better plan for the City of L.A. to deliberately separate these two steps from each other in its ordinance design.
My point here is that by taking a step back and recognizing where natural divisions of skill can be used to complement each other what seems onerous as an all-in-one data request can quickly become very doable.
This gets us to Mr. Park's second inquiry about larger out of area institutions and debt underwriters seeking to do business with the City. To that my observation is that the City of Los Angeles needs to set up a fair playing field for everyone. It's my read that by combining the suggestion above for banks with local branches with the tenets of the current ordinance draft language requesting distilled data into zip codes there's plenty of wiggle room for presentation of evidence of local involvement by these larger institutions, even those that do not have physical branches in the region. Complex transforms of data to support reporting requests are well within the capabilities of the IT departments of these larger businesses. Bearing in mind that these are also the banks that will go after the largest contracts with the City there's plenty of incentive for them to get their systems to produce the reports that will give them an advantage over competing bidders.
And in the long run I'm not just talking about competing just for L.A.'s business. There's a far larger universe of municipal and state government opportunities out there and I'll remind the readers of the Huffington post to look back at the history of my blogs for the one reporting on Bill Lockyer's inquiry earlier this year to the largest municipal bond underwriters.
I mean does anyone really think that the rest of America's League of Cities isn't watching how this plays out? Or that incoming California Governor Jerry Brown, the former Mayor of Oakland, doesn't already know that Los Angeles, San Jose and other cities in California are actively exploring how to affect the future of the State's economy using local strategies? Or that Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, Sheila Bair and Barack Obama won't read about this?
Keep going L.A. La-La Land may yet become the next shining star of economic recovery innovation.
“Not to the public, they can’t. They can be lent among banks on the fed funds market, but I doubt that’s what you mean.”
copied from below…
When someone makes X product for $1 less in production, then it is going to sell for $5+ less at retail.
The producer will sell more units and make profits, the retailer will sell more units and make higher profits even if they make a smaller margin per product, and millions of people will save $5+ a piece.
AND a bunch of people who before would not have bought the thing, now buy it… they choose to not buy another older thing they value less.
And that company making the older thing is suddenly vulnerable.
HOW those savings make it to the new smaller guy who’s now innovating to go after the older dying product – is IMPOSSIBLE to track. This is the knowledge problem.
But somehow he does get it… and the cycle begins again.
The somehow works like this: in the aggregate those consumers all have an extra $5 in their bank, there is now “more money to lend” more money chasing returns, which gives entrepreneurs better risk return on money borrowed, which brings more entrepreneurs to the game, which crowds out the money to borrow, which raises the cost of money.
And that’s really my point… there is actually an OPTIMAL number of new things coming to market too few and not enough progress happens, too many and not enough progress happens.
Thats IMPOSSIBLE to predict accurately because productivity gains come at the oddest times.
Here’s an example from my past: I know the guys who started Kazaa (and then Skype) … in 2001 we were coming out of a time when a couple BILLION dollars had been poured into Hollywood online content plays + Napster. During that time broadband adoption was slow going. After the entire thing crashed, and there was nothing online for broadband EXCEPT Kazaa/Morpheus stuff… and broadband went ape shit, adoption grew off the hook. Kazaa grew broadband adoption hand over fist, the telecoms and (their union pulling wires) made a killing.
Human Attention was focused – even on a highly questionable product – one that absolutely only gets better when new nodes enter the picture.
And ten years later, artists are richer, ticket sales have gone through the roof, because the cost of being a “fan” went to $0.
Figuring out after the fact WTF HAPPENED?!?! well, that’s doable – and while it was happening, I sat there and watched it, so I might have been able to do a play by play…
BUT TO ACTUALLY predict the exact when, the mechanisms and variables, and then then to try and architect it up front – like a bunch of silly half-wit liberal central planners think is doable. OR chattering about Aggregate Demand and Unused Capacity and thinking it makes you smart is just fucking stupid.
The lines go up, the lines go down and NO ONE is very good at predicting them.
But I can say for sure… printing money interferes with natural process of capital formation, ie savings which is fundamental to progress. And “extra money” doesn’t do anything except reduce the god-given-obligation to make things get cheaper.
bench craft company scamThings have certainly quieted down in the swirl of mostly vapor plots about the future of Yahoo, although the pondering, machinating and such on the parts of a variety of players have most certainly continued. And that includes the ...
The Fox News Watch crew better learn to watch when the camera is rolling from now on, because they might soon feel the wrath of the Mama Grizzly. Nevermind that Sarah Palin is their Fox News co-worker and a likely contender for the ...
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC: More than just retransmission consent ails our ...
benchcraft company scam Election week is done. It's time to get back to the business of finding real solutions for our nation's economic recovery. As this week ends it is clear that the appetite for federal stimuli is beginning its ebb tide. We see the Federal Reserve playing the risky cards of quantitative easing trying yet again to spark an economic recovery against the odds of a main street economy still mired in the collateral damage of central government's past grand visions.
Don't get me wrong. I actually agree that Fed needs to be doing what it is. We need to find a sustainable balance for our economy and it's a data intensive compass that can only be seen with clarity from the offices occupied by people like Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner and Sheila Bair. What I do worry about though is that these central solutions too often take from the small and give to the big because the simplifying assumptions used by the economists and statisticians that support the process aren't capable of seeing the one-by-one trench warfare fights being fought by small businesses and individuals. It's an inherent policy formulation weakness of the academic brain trust behind our system that may be costing ordinary people more pain than necessary. But these ordinary Americans are there. We know this because they voted on Tuesday.
Fortunately, the United States is a big country and Washington D.C. isn't the only place exploring ways to find economic recovery formulae. Across the country, cities and states are beginning to chart independent paths to creating their own "islands of recovery". The City of Los Angeles' proposed Responsible Banking Ordinance continues to move through the committee process improving bit-by-bit into what I believe is an important emerging economic policy counterweight to ensure that the "small to big" tendencies of central solutions do not take us astray yet again.
The tale of the tape is something I believe worth sharing with the readers of the Huffington Post.
On October 26th, there was a public hearing by the L.A. City Jobs Committee chaired by Councilman Richard Alarcon on item CF 09-0234, Responsible Banking. The measure was approved with a number of questions to be investigated and reported to a hearing of the L.A. City Budget and Finance Committee to take place on Monday, November 8th. The questions aired by Councilman Bernard Parks focused on two areas. He asked for more information to determine if the cost and design of the process for implementation by the City was indeed workable. He also asked for clarification about how the differences between community banks, large complex banks and the city's debt underwriters would be recognized within the final ordinance.
Mr. Park's questions tell me that the L.A. process is indeed making progress because these are no longer questions about whether this a good thing for the economic interests of the City but rather how well is the plan risk managed. The interests behind the initiative become more positive as banks, large and small, begin to recognize that there is opportunity to be had here. The carrot being offered by the City of L.A is preference to win lucrative contracts that the City will be issuing anyway if evidence can be presented by the bidders that they are placing the interests of the region higher up the business priority list than their competition. It's subtle and far reaching in its potential to encourage money to circulate locally longer.
So now to ponder details,
As I reviewed the current version of the ordinance draft, it was clear the that City of Los Angeles had specified a data collection and reporting request that seeks to get banks to translate the nature of their business activities into measurement language that city governments can understand. The policy question is actually spot on but I'm also pretty sure that asking a bank to deliver the answer on a silver platter to the city first time out is a bit of a stretch. I think there's a better way to make it work for everyone and bring the cost/risk of the process well into good comfort.
The path to success here is to recognize two things. The first is that banks know how to report data to their regulators. They actually track all the information the city wants to know. Once a year they even have to report data to the granularity of branch-by-branch information to the FDIC. The other thing that's clear from the city draft is that municipal governments analyze their quality of service based on census tracts because that's how voters are bucketed. The trick in getting one system to talk to the other is to leverage by translating between the two universes via the zip codes of the U.S. postal service.
Asking the banks to do all the work is a lot of work. But if the City of Los Angeles were to re-design the ordinance implementation process to be a two step process where the banks report data in branches with identification of which zip codes are affected by that branch and there was a post- process by the City to morph the submittals into census tract visibility I think this would actually work reasonably well. City employees and/or other specialty vendors are more knowledgeable about the second step of the transformation than any bank will ever be. And there's a reason for that. Bankers, being lenders, have been discouraged from doing the second step for a long time because the technology that does so equates to gathering the data to do "red lining". So it's actually a better plan for the City of L.A. to deliberately separate these two steps from each other in its ordinance design.
My point here is that by taking a step back and recognizing where natural divisions of skill can be used to complement each other what seems onerous as an all-in-one data request can quickly become very doable.
This gets us to Mr. Park's second inquiry about larger out of area institutions and debt underwriters seeking to do business with the City. To that my observation is that the City of Los Angeles needs to set up a fair playing field for everyone. It's my read that by combining the suggestion above for banks with local branches with the tenets of the current ordinance draft language requesting distilled data into zip codes there's plenty of wiggle room for presentation of evidence of local involvement by these larger institutions, even those that do not have physical branches in the region. Complex transforms of data to support reporting requests are well within the capabilities of the IT departments of these larger businesses. Bearing in mind that these are also the banks that will go after the largest contracts with the City there's plenty of incentive for them to get their systems to produce the reports that will give them an advantage over competing bidders.
And in the long run I'm not just talking about competing just for L.A.'s business. There's a far larger universe of municipal and state government opportunities out there and I'll remind the readers of the Huffington post to look back at the history of my blogs for the one reporting on Bill Lockyer's inquiry earlier this year to the largest municipal bond underwriters.
I mean does anyone really think that the rest of America's League of Cities isn't watching how this plays out? Or that incoming California Governor Jerry Brown, the former Mayor of Oakland, doesn't already know that Los Angeles, San Jose and other cities in California are actively exploring how to affect the future of the State's economy using local strategies? Or that Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, Sheila Bair and Barack Obama won't read about this?
Keep going L.A. La-La Land may yet become the next shining star of economic recovery innovation.
“Not to the public, they can’t. They can be lent among banks on the fed funds market, but I doubt that’s what you mean.”
copied from below…
When someone makes X product for $1 less in production, then it is going to sell for $5+ less at retail.
The producer will sell more units and make profits, the retailer will sell more units and make higher profits even if they make a smaller margin per product, and millions of people will save $5+ a piece.
AND a bunch of people who before would not have bought the thing, now buy it… they choose to not buy another older thing they value less.
And that company making the older thing is suddenly vulnerable.
HOW those savings make it to the new smaller guy who’s now innovating to go after the older dying product – is IMPOSSIBLE to track. This is the knowledge problem.
But somehow he does get it… and the cycle begins again.
The somehow works like this: in the aggregate those consumers all have an extra $5 in their bank, there is now “more money to lend” more money chasing returns, which gives entrepreneurs better risk return on money borrowed, which brings more entrepreneurs to the game, which crowds out the money to borrow, which raises the cost of money.
And that’s really my point… there is actually an OPTIMAL number of new things coming to market too few and not enough progress happens, too many and not enough progress happens.
Thats IMPOSSIBLE to predict accurately because productivity gains come at the oddest times.
Here’s an example from my past: I know the guys who started Kazaa (and then Skype) … in 2001 we were coming out of a time when a couple BILLION dollars had been poured into Hollywood online content plays + Napster. During that time broadband adoption was slow going. After the entire thing crashed, and there was nothing online for broadband EXCEPT Kazaa/Morpheus stuff… and broadband went ape shit, adoption grew off the hook. Kazaa grew broadband adoption hand over fist, the telecoms and (their union pulling wires) made a killing.
Human Attention was focused – even on a highly questionable product – one that absolutely only gets better when new nodes enter the picture.
And ten years later, artists are richer, ticket sales have gone through the roof, because the cost of being a “fan” went to $0.
Figuring out after the fact WTF HAPPENED?!?! well, that’s doable – and while it was happening, I sat there and watched it, so I might have been able to do a play by play…
BUT TO ACTUALLY predict the exact when, the mechanisms and variables, and then then to try and architect it up front – like a bunch of silly half-wit liberal central planners think is doable. OR chattering about Aggregate Demand and Unused Capacity and thinking it makes you smart is just fucking stupid.
The lines go up, the lines go down and NO ONE is very good at predicting them.
But I can say for sure… printing money interferes with natural process of capital formation, ie savings which is fundamental to progress. And “extra money” doesn’t do anything except reduce the god-given-obligation to make things get cheaper.
bench craft company scamThings have certainly quieted down in the swirl of mostly vapor plots about the future of Yahoo, although the pondering, machinating and such on the parts of a variety of players have most certainly continued. And that includes the ...
The Fox News Watch crew better learn to watch when the camera is rolling from now on, because they might soon feel the wrath of the Mama Grizzly. Nevermind that Sarah Palin is their Fox News co-worker and a likely contender for the ...
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC: More than just retransmission consent ails our ...
bench craft company scambench craft company scam
benchcraft company scamThings have certainly quieted down in the swirl of mostly vapor plots about the future of Yahoo, although the pondering, machinating and such on the parts of a variety of players have most certainly continued. And that includes the ...
The Fox News Watch crew better learn to watch when the camera is rolling from now on, because they might soon feel the wrath of the Mama Grizzly. Nevermind that Sarah Palin is their Fox News co-worker and a likely contender for the ...
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC: More than just retransmission consent ails our ...
benchcraft company scam Election week is done. It's time to get back to the business of finding real solutions for our nation's economic recovery. As this week ends it is clear that the appetite for federal stimuli is beginning its ebb tide. We see the Federal Reserve playing the risky cards of quantitative easing trying yet again to spark an economic recovery against the odds of a main street economy still mired in the collateral damage of central government's past grand visions.
Don't get me wrong. I actually agree that Fed needs to be doing what it is. We need to find a sustainable balance for our economy and it's a data intensive compass that can only be seen with clarity from the offices occupied by people like Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner and Sheila Bair. What I do worry about though is that these central solutions too often take from the small and give to the big because the simplifying assumptions used by the economists and statisticians that support the process aren't capable of seeing the one-by-one trench warfare fights being fought by small businesses and individuals. It's an inherent policy formulation weakness of the academic brain trust behind our system that may be costing ordinary people more pain than necessary. But these ordinary Americans are there. We know this because they voted on Tuesday.
Fortunately, the United States is a big country and Washington D.C. isn't the only place exploring ways to find economic recovery formulae. Across the country, cities and states are beginning to chart independent paths to creating their own "islands of recovery". The City of Los Angeles' proposed Responsible Banking Ordinance continues to move through the committee process improving bit-by-bit into what I believe is an important emerging economic policy counterweight to ensure that the "small to big" tendencies of central solutions do not take us astray yet again.
The tale of the tape is something I believe worth sharing with the readers of the Huffington Post.
On October 26th, there was a public hearing by the L.A. City Jobs Committee chaired by Councilman Richard Alarcon on item CF 09-0234, Responsible Banking. The measure was approved with a number of questions to be investigated and reported to a hearing of the L.A. City Budget and Finance Committee to take place on Monday, November 8th. The questions aired by Councilman Bernard Parks focused on two areas. He asked for more information to determine if the cost and design of the process for implementation by the City was indeed workable. He also asked for clarification about how the differences between community banks, large complex banks and the city's debt underwriters would be recognized within the final ordinance.
Mr. Park's questions tell me that the L.A. process is indeed making progress because these are no longer questions about whether this a good thing for the economic interests of the City but rather how well is the plan risk managed. The interests behind the initiative become more positive as banks, large and small, begin to recognize that there is opportunity to be had here. The carrot being offered by the City of L.A is preference to win lucrative contracts that the City will be issuing anyway if evidence can be presented by the bidders that they are placing the interests of the region higher up the business priority list than their competition. It's subtle and far reaching in its potential to encourage money to circulate locally longer.
So now to ponder details,
As I reviewed the current version of the ordinance draft, it was clear the that City of Los Angeles had specified a data collection and reporting request that seeks to get banks to translate the nature of their business activities into measurement language that city governments can understand. The policy question is actually spot on but I'm also pretty sure that asking a bank to deliver the answer on a silver platter to the city first time out is a bit of a stretch. I think there's a better way to make it work for everyone and bring the cost/risk of the process well into good comfort.
The path to success here is to recognize two things. The first is that banks know how to report data to their regulators. They actually track all the information the city wants to know. Once a year they even have to report data to the granularity of branch-by-branch information to the FDIC. The other thing that's clear from the city draft is that municipal governments analyze their quality of service based on census tracts because that's how voters are bucketed. The trick in getting one system to talk to the other is to leverage by translating between the two universes via the zip codes of the U.S. postal service.
Asking the banks to do all the work is a lot of work. But if the City of Los Angeles were to re-design the ordinance implementation process to be a two step process where the banks report data in branches with identification of which zip codes are affected by that branch and there was a post- process by the City to morph the submittals into census tract visibility I think this would actually work reasonably well. City employees and/or other specialty vendors are more knowledgeable about the second step of the transformation than any bank will ever be. And there's a reason for that. Bankers, being lenders, have been discouraged from doing the second step for a long time because the technology that does so equates to gathering the data to do "red lining". So it's actually a better plan for the City of L.A. to deliberately separate these two steps from each other in its ordinance design.
My point here is that by taking a step back and recognizing where natural divisions of skill can be used to complement each other what seems onerous as an all-in-one data request can quickly become very doable.
This gets us to Mr. Park's second inquiry about larger out of area institutions and debt underwriters seeking to do business with the City. To that my observation is that the City of Los Angeles needs to set up a fair playing field for everyone. It's my read that by combining the suggestion above for banks with local branches with the tenets of the current ordinance draft language requesting distilled data into zip codes there's plenty of wiggle room for presentation of evidence of local involvement by these larger institutions, even those that do not have physical branches in the region. Complex transforms of data to support reporting requests are well within the capabilities of the IT departments of these larger businesses. Bearing in mind that these are also the banks that will go after the largest contracts with the City there's plenty of incentive for them to get their systems to produce the reports that will give them an advantage over competing bidders.
And in the long run I'm not just talking about competing just for L.A.'s business. There's a far larger universe of municipal and state government opportunities out there and I'll remind the readers of the Huffington post to look back at the history of my blogs for the one reporting on Bill Lockyer's inquiry earlier this year to the largest municipal bond underwriters.
I mean does anyone really think that the rest of America's League of Cities isn't watching how this plays out? Or that incoming California Governor Jerry Brown, the former Mayor of Oakland, doesn't already know that Los Angeles, San Jose and other cities in California are actively exploring how to affect the future of the State's economy using local strategies? Or that Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, Sheila Bair and Barack Obama won't read about this?
Keep going L.A. La-La Land may yet become the next shining star of economic recovery innovation.
“Not to the public, they can’t. They can be lent among banks on the fed funds market, but I doubt that’s what you mean.”
copied from below…
When someone makes X product for $1 less in production, then it is going to sell for $5+ less at retail.
The producer will sell more units and make profits, the retailer will sell more units and make higher profits even if they make a smaller margin per product, and millions of people will save $5+ a piece.
AND a bunch of people who before would not have bought the thing, now buy it… they choose to not buy another older thing they value less.
And that company making the older thing is suddenly vulnerable.
HOW those savings make it to the new smaller guy who’s now innovating to go after the older dying product – is IMPOSSIBLE to track. This is the knowledge problem.
But somehow he does get it… and the cycle begins again.
The somehow works like this: in the aggregate those consumers all have an extra $5 in their bank, there is now “more money to lend” more money chasing returns, which gives entrepreneurs better risk return on money borrowed, which brings more entrepreneurs to the game, which crowds out the money to borrow, which raises the cost of money.
And that’s really my point… there is actually an OPTIMAL number of new things coming to market too few and not enough progress happens, too many and not enough progress happens.
Thats IMPOSSIBLE to predict accurately because productivity gains come at the oddest times.
Here’s an example from my past: I know the guys who started Kazaa (and then Skype) … in 2001 we were coming out of a time when a couple BILLION dollars had been poured into Hollywood online content plays + Napster. During that time broadband adoption was slow going. After the entire thing crashed, and there was nothing online for broadband EXCEPT Kazaa/Morpheus stuff… and broadband went ape shit, adoption grew off the hook. Kazaa grew broadband adoption hand over fist, the telecoms and (their union pulling wires) made a killing.
Human Attention was focused – even on a highly questionable product – one that absolutely only gets better when new nodes enter the picture.
And ten years later, artists are richer, ticket sales have gone through the roof, because the cost of being a “fan” went to $0.
Figuring out after the fact WTF HAPPENED?!?! well, that’s doable – and while it was happening, I sat there and watched it, so I might have been able to do a play by play…
BUT TO ACTUALLY predict the exact when, the mechanisms and variables, and then then to try and architect it up front – like a bunch of silly half-wit liberal central planners think is doable. OR chattering about Aggregate Demand and Unused Capacity and thinking it makes you smart is just fucking stupid.
The lines go up, the lines go down and NO ONE is very good at predicting them.
But I can say for sure… printing money interferes with natural process of capital formation, ie savings which is fundamental to progress. And “extra money” doesn’t do anything except reduce the god-given-obligation to make things get cheaper.
bench craft company scam
bench craft company scamThings have certainly quieted down in the swirl of mostly vapor plots about the future of Yahoo, although the pondering, machinating and such on the parts of a variety of players have most certainly continued. And that includes the ...
The Fox News Watch crew better learn to watch when the camera is rolling from now on, because they might soon feel the wrath of the Mama Grizzly. Nevermind that Sarah Palin is their Fox News co-worker and a likely contender for the ...
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC: More than just retransmission consent ails our ...
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scamThings have certainly quieted down in the swirl of mostly vapor plots about the future of Yahoo, although the pondering, machinating and such on the parts of a variety of players have most certainly continued. And that includes the ...
The Fox News Watch crew better learn to watch when the camera is rolling from now on, because they might soon feel the wrath of the Mama Grizzly. Nevermind that Sarah Palin is their Fox News co-worker and a likely contender for the ...
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC: More than just retransmission consent ails our ...
bench craft company scamThings have certainly quieted down in the swirl of mostly vapor plots about the future of Yahoo, although the pondering, machinating and such on the parts of a variety of players have most certainly continued. And that includes the ...
The Fox News Watch crew better learn to watch when the camera is rolling from now on, because they might soon feel the wrath of the Mama Grizzly. Nevermind that Sarah Palin is their Fox News co-worker and a likely contender for the ...
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC: More than just retransmission consent ails our ...
bench craft company scamThings have certainly quieted down in the swirl of mostly vapor plots about the future of Yahoo, although the pondering, machinating and such on the parts of a variety of players have most certainly continued. And that includes the ...
The Fox News Watch crew better learn to watch when the camera is rolling from now on, because they might soon feel the wrath of the Mama Grizzly. Nevermind that Sarah Palin is their Fox News co-worker and a likely contender for the ...
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC: More than just retransmission consent ails our ...
how to lose weight fast bench craft company scam benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
Michael M Thomas Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am
In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas
Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Easy money and the red hot art market. (Big Picture)
Mike in Nola Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.
The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.html
Of course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.
An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.
grlampton Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).
Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.
gms777 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.
Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.
obsvr-1 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers
Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.
ToNYC Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.
Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.
great point you make:
rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.
Mannwich Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html
philipat Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)
pintelho Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.
VennData Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson
YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
“Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”
It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.
Julia Chestnut Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am
The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.
But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am
And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.
It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.
BuffaloBill Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am
A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.
B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.
C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”
D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am
The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…
Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….
Greg0658 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am
interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle :-) … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake
I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living
ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d
ToNYC Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.
Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am
What is driving the art market? Easy money.* (Big Picture)
philipat Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
VennData Says:
“What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”
IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?
Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
Abnormal Returns on Art Says:
November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am
To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.