We underestimate the power of greed -- for the Goldman Sachs of the world and for the smaller investors who buy crappy "products" like CDO's and SPACs.
They are all chasing quick profits -- without producing any goods that society needs, and without doing any real work to earn the profits.
It's hard to have any sympathy for such people. Pox on all their houses.
Yes. This is the 'fake' economy (enabled by massive amounts of money flooding the system) overtaking the 'real' economy of trading goods and services. It never ends well when being close to the money-making machine is a better idea that ensuring customers are happy.
Exactly. When you just print, there's always money for endless wars or ridiculous government programs -- the rest of us are stuck paying the costs in the form of higher prices as the "elites" print the wealth out from underneath us.
And when we can no longer pay for our homes or businesses, they swoop in and gobble up those things up for pennies on their newly printed dollar.
Indeed. Folks who are unfamiliar with the work of economist Michael Hudson should seek him out on Substack & YouTube (I particularly recommend his regular tag-team sessions with fellow economist Richard Wolff on Nima Alkhorsid's excellent Dialogue Works channel); also, Mr. Hudson's seminal book "Super Imperialism" is a must-read. He has done a great job explaining in layman's term's just what the US system is and how it has weaponized the dollar against the rest of the world; lately, he has emphasized the difference between Productive Capitalism (which is largely beneficial to everyone) and "Rentier" -- or Financial -- Capitalism (which is nothing but parasitic and destructive toward the great majority of us).
I don't know what to think. If you mean the USD is fake, Bitcoin and the $Trump meme coin don't inspire confidence in me. And the more bad news there is, the higher the market goes. It's almost like the first two months of Obama's presidency, only in reverse. Or maybe it's late 90s and the market will run a lot further. But, as some economist said, if a trend can't continue indefinitely, it won't.
Eric, maybe one day you could write about the Trump meme coin. One wallet made 300 million in the first few days. Since then, the coin has lost 85 percent of its value.
How would that work, though? It would be like "bribing" Elon Musk by buying Tesla stock, wouldn't it? It's not going to him directly and the effect would be temporary. Maybe I don't understand. I think it's sleazy, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure the bribery accusations are sound. But I don't know.
Good question. Briber turns cash into Trump coin and gets desired executive order. Trump pockets trading fees and, at his leisure, turns some of his 80% horde of $Trump coin, which has no intrinsic value, into cash. "The New York Times reported that Trump affiliates controlled an additional *800 million tokens* that, hypothetically, could be worth over $56 billion, potentially making Trump one of the richest people in the world at an estimated net worth of $63.8 billion."
"On May 13, The New York Times reported that GD Culture Group, a small company with ties to China, no reported revenue in 2024, and affiliated with TikTok, announced it would spend $300 million on purchasing Bitcoin and $TRUMP"
"The venture and the possibility of foreign governments buying the coin and enriching Trump was highlighted as possibly violating the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause.[25] Critics said it could allow special interests and foreign governments to seek to buy influence with the president.[26]" All quotes from Wikipedia.
God bless DJT. Tax cuts for the 1% and more deregulation of Wall Street. Just what the MAGA base was crying out for. And he’s thrown in some new wars too!
Typical example of a not bad idea gone awry. SPACS were a quicker way to take a private company public. Usually the losers were all "accredited" so who cares. My concern is that it is very difficult to go public and there are far fewer public companies available for investors (accredited or not). Remember the Wilshire 5000? Now it is barely 4,300. And with the popularity of stock buybacks, it seems there is so little public equity for anyone to buy.
Similar to what I was thinking. Because of Sarbox going public is too costly and too much of a hassle so companies have to use SPAC's to raise money on public markets. What a disaster Sarbox is....formed to avoid situations like Enron, which had a bunch of shell companies to hide accounting shenanigans, now Wall Street is openly creating overvalued shell companies to get around Sarbox BS.
Ha! Dodd Frank. Forgot about that one. We could just get rid of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and bring back Glass-Steagal....nah, let's just do this Dodd Frank thing and then Wall Street will keep sending us money and hookers.
I’d like to see an investigation on the climate grift. I have a feeling that Democrats mandated electricity for older apartment buildings (being financially impossible to upgrade for some owners) opened up an opportunity for Pelosi, Banks and Democrat run cities to buy older buildings for pennies on the dollar.
Climate mandates are government takings. SCOTUS seems to agree.
I always figured that the electrification of everything was so that they could control the energy citizens used to cook, drive, shower down to the last watt. But Pelosi and Banks getting in on the scam makes sense. Insurance is a similar scam. Insurance companies are refusing to insure houses in rural areas, making the property worth much less. In comes Pelosi with the quick cash!
The Rockefellers started the climate scam with The Club Of Rome in the 70s.
I did read (it must be scrubbed from the interwebs ) that Pelosi and Goldman were partnering in buying up older buildings in Salt Lake City. It’s also to control and ration energy. Just like Cubas state run grid (which is, ummm, not running so well now). Think about a digital run on banks?
Disclosure: I am a commercial real estate appraiser and broker of 32+ years.
RE: "Climate mandates are government takings." That is a new and very interesting way of framing the current state of many systems. I can see how a plausible argument could be made that the climate mandates are functioning as an inverse condemnation because they are causing material diminution of property value. That would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment ("5A") because it would be a government takings without due process or just compensation. Further, government takings are only permissible when they are for public use.
The climate mandates are predicated on saving the planet which, by definition, is the global public. The constitution does not apply to the global public; only the American public. That could be an interesting 5A basis of challenge. One might be able to take that public/private 5A issue further since the uncompensated-for value diminution is, to a substantial extent, being realized not by the American public, but by private actors categorically and sometimes specifically chosen by the state.
The structural problem with these arguments is that the value of property—meaning any asset, whether tangible or intangible, real or personal—is an emergent result of a space-time-specific intersection of numerous systems of abstract laws. Further, those laws were created through legislative processes that, in theory, represented the will of the people. Just as the will of the people can write laws that generally increase property value, so too can the will of the people write laws that generally decrease property value.
At what point does the power of the people go too far and the situation tips over into being a taking without due process and just compensation? That would be an interesting legal question run up the pole. And to make it even more interesting, the case would almost have to start out as, or effectively morph into, a class action. This sounds like a situation that would run into similar difficulties as Murthy v. Missouri.
What SCOTUS cases were you referring to RE: "Climate mandates are government takings. SCOTUS seems to agree"?
Recent Diamond vs. EPA allows energy producers to sue California. A federal program that allows only California to set their own electrification standards. There is chatter that Denver property owners want the AG to look into the Denver Mandates.
SPACS are not an idiotic idea. They are a half idiotic idea. The investment bankers make a fortune. For them, it's a briliant idea. The investors do poorly so only for them is it an idiotic idea. Speaking as someone who has lost a lot of money investing in stupid stocks, if you're not smart enough to put your money in an index fund and forget it, you are too dumb to invest on your own.
About two weeks ago the financial paper Barron's wrote an article about college endowments who were 'stuck' in "illiquid" Private Equity investments. The idea with SPACs is to unload these dogs on unsuspecting IRA and 401k investors. Don't fall for it. IMHO, this proposed project constitutes criminal intent. Welcome to Wall Street.
SPACs get stuck in SARBOX land as well. SARBOX is just another attempt to avoid any problems like Enron, but they usually just make things so complicated that fewer people participate except the big players (like Goldman) who can afford to deal with the regulations.
We underestimate the power of greed -- for the Goldman Sachs of the world and for the smaller investors who buy crappy "products" like CDO's and SPACs.
They are all chasing quick profits -- without producing any goods that society needs, and without doing any real work to earn the profits.
It's hard to have any sympathy for such people. Pox on all their houses.
Yes. This is the 'fake' economy (enabled by massive amounts of money flooding the system) overtaking the 'real' economy of trading goods and services. It never ends well when being close to the money-making machine is a better idea that ensuring customers are happy.
Because the money-making machine keeps getting bailed out by the feds every time it craters (to 'save!' our economy), not Joe Six-Pack.
Exactly. When you just print, there's always money for endless wars or ridiculous government programs -- the rest of us are stuck paying the costs in the form of higher prices as the "elites" print the wealth out from underneath us.
And when we can no longer pay for our homes or businesses, they swoop in and gobble up those things up for pennies on their newly printed dollar.
Indeed. Folks who are unfamiliar with the work of economist Michael Hudson should seek him out on Substack & YouTube (I particularly recommend his regular tag-team sessions with fellow economist Richard Wolff on Nima Alkhorsid's excellent Dialogue Works channel); also, Mr. Hudson's seminal book "Super Imperialism" is a must-read. He has done a great job explaining in layman's term's just what the US system is and how it has weaponized the dollar against the rest of the world; lately, he has emphasized the difference between Productive Capitalism (which is largely beneficial to everyone) and "Rentier" -- or Financial -- Capitalism (which is nothing but parasitic and destructive toward the great majority of us).
When the money is fake, the rest of the economy is doomed to follow.
yep. bad money always pushes good money into hiding.
I don't know what to think. If you mean the USD is fake, Bitcoin and the $Trump meme coin don't inspire confidence in me. And the more bad news there is, the higher the market goes. It's almost like the first two months of Obama's presidency, only in reverse. Or maybe it's late 90s and the market will run a lot further. But, as some economist said, if a trend can't continue indefinitely, it won't.
The dollar can be (and is) fake regardless of whatever crypto schemes are out there.
(But for the record, one of those things is not like the other.)
Eric, maybe one day you could write about the Trump meme coin. One wallet made 300 million in the first few days. Since then, the coin has lost 85 percent of its value.
The purpose of the Trump meme coins (Melania has one, too) is to launder bribes. Witkoff was involved from the get go.
How would that work, though? It would be like "bribing" Elon Musk by buying Tesla stock, wouldn't it? It's not going to him directly and the effect would be temporary. Maybe I don't understand. I think it's sleazy, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure the bribery accusations are sound. But I don't know.
Good question. Briber turns cash into Trump coin and gets desired executive order. Trump pockets trading fees and, at his leisure, turns some of his 80% horde of $Trump coin, which has no intrinsic value, into cash. "The New York Times reported that Trump affiliates controlled an additional *800 million tokens* that, hypothetically, could be worth over $56 billion, potentially making Trump one of the richest people in the world at an estimated net worth of $63.8 billion."
"On May 13, The New York Times reported that GD Culture Group, a small company with ties to China, no reported revenue in 2024, and affiliated with TikTok, announced it would spend $300 million on purchasing Bitcoin and $TRUMP"
"The venture and the possibility of foreign governments buying the coin and enriching Trump was highlighted as possibly violating the Constitution's foreign emoluments clause.[25] Critics said it could allow special interests and foreign governments to seek to buy influence with the president.[26]" All quotes from Wikipedia.
God bless DJT. Tax cuts for the 1% and more deregulation of Wall Street. Just what the MAGA base was crying out for. And he’s thrown in some new wars too!
Typical example of a not bad idea gone awry. SPACS were a quicker way to take a private company public. Usually the losers were all "accredited" so who cares. My concern is that it is very difficult to go public and there are far fewer public companies available for investors (accredited or not). Remember the Wilshire 5000? Now it is barely 4,300. And with the popularity of stock buybacks, it seems there is so little public equity for anyone to buy.
Similar to what I was thinking. Because of Sarbox going public is too costly and too much of a hassle so companies have to use SPAC's to raise money on public markets. What a disaster Sarbox is....formed to avoid situations like Enron, which had a bunch of shell companies to hide accounting shenanigans, now Wall Street is openly creating overvalued shell companies to get around Sarbox BS.
I was toggling with the lead in...idiotic vs abused..... you both make good points.
Idiotic read funnier to me
Worst bill ever. Boat anchor on the economy. Honorable mention: Dodd Frank.
Ha! Dodd Frank. Forgot about that one. We could just get rid of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and bring back Glass-Steagal....nah, let's just do this Dodd Frank thing and then Wall Street will keep sending us money and hookers.
I’d like to see an investigation on the climate grift. I have a feeling that Democrats mandated electricity for older apartment buildings (being financially impossible to upgrade for some owners) opened up an opportunity for Pelosi, Banks and Democrat run cities to buy older buildings for pennies on the dollar.
Climate mandates are government takings. SCOTUS seems to agree.
That's a superb point. Michael Shellenberger explains the climate grift beautifully in this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey7iWsDYnJ8&t=60s
I always figured that the electrification of everything was so that they could control the energy citizens used to cook, drive, shower down to the last watt. But Pelosi and Banks getting in on the scam makes sense. Insurance is a similar scam. Insurance companies are refusing to insure houses in rural areas, making the property worth much less. In comes Pelosi with the quick cash!
The Rockefellers started the climate scam with The Club Of Rome in the 70s.
I did read (it must be scrubbed from the interwebs ) that Pelosi and Goldman were partnering in buying up older buildings in Salt Lake City. It’s also to control and ration energy. Just like Cubas state run grid (which is, ummm, not running so well now). Think about a digital run on banks?
Disclosure: I am a commercial real estate appraiser and broker of 32+ years.
RE: "Climate mandates are government takings." That is a new and very interesting way of framing the current state of many systems. I can see how a plausible argument could be made that the climate mandates are functioning as an inverse condemnation because they are causing material diminution of property value. That would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment ("5A") because it would be a government takings without due process or just compensation. Further, government takings are only permissible when they are for public use.
The climate mandates are predicated on saving the planet which, by definition, is the global public. The constitution does not apply to the global public; only the American public. That could be an interesting 5A basis of challenge. One might be able to take that public/private 5A issue further since the uncompensated-for value diminution is, to a substantial extent, being realized not by the American public, but by private actors categorically and sometimes specifically chosen by the state.
The structural problem with these arguments is that the value of property—meaning any asset, whether tangible or intangible, real or personal—is an emergent result of a space-time-specific intersection of numerous systems of abstract laws. Further, those laws were created through legislative processes that, in theory, represented the will of the people. Just as the will of the people can write laws that generally increase property value, so too can the will of the people write laws that generally decrease property value.
At what point does the power of the people go too far and the situation tips over into being a taking without due process and just compensation? That would be an interesting legal question run up the pole. And to make it even more interesting, the case would almost have to start out as, or effectively morph into, a class action. This sounds like a situation that would run into similar difficulties as Murthy v. Missouri.
What SCOTUS cases were you referring to RE: "Climate mandates are government takings. SCOTUS seems to agree"?
Recent Diamond vs. EPA allows energy producers to sue California. A federal program that allows only California to set their own electrification standards. There is chatter that Denver property owners want the AG to look into the Denver Mandates.
https://denvergazette.com/news/building-owners-appeal-to-ag-bondi-over-energy-regulations/article_5ada6cdd-3743-403a-a1ec-c9d06ea6b285.html
Following the same eventual property takings (wink wink) through the guise of climate mandates.
Interesting case. Thank you for sharing that link.
A good idea. Along with “Green” and “Clean” grift.
Things are bad on Wall Street when they stop doing Coke and do SPAC instead.
> 30,000 unsold companies worth about $1.8 trillion
If they’re unsold, they’re not worth $1.8 trillion. A thing is worth what you can sell it for.
ok, so they should have added "on paper" to that figure
SPACS are not an idiotic idea. They are a half idiotic idea. The investment bankers make a fortune. For them, it's a briliant idea. The investors do poorly so only for them is it an idiotic idea. Speaking as someone who has lost a lot of money investing in stupid stocks, if you're not smart enough to put your money in an index fund and forget it, you are too dumb to invest on your own.
About two weeks ago the financial paper Barron's wrote an article about college endowments who were 'stuck' in "illiquid" Private Equity investments. The idea with SPACs is to unload these dogs on unsuspecting IRA and 401k investors. Don't fall for it. IMHO, this proposed project constitutes criminal intent. Welcome to Wall Street.
Gamblers gonna gamble
"it is a bit discomfiting that a financial product’s production rises and falls with disclosure requirements."
Anyone who is stupid enough to invest money in a SPAC deserves to be discomfited when they lose their investment.
SPACs get stuck in SARBOX land as well. SARBOX is just another attempt to avoid any problems like Enron, but they usually just make things so complicated that fewer people participate except the big players (like Goldman) who can afford to deal with the regulations.
Another manifestation of regulatory capture, it appears.
Crypto SPAC! What could go wrong?
The grifters will always be with us.
SPACs sound like NFTs as explained here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g