Nassim Taleb on Charlie Rose: "Massive Deflation Nightmare, Roubini Too Bullish"

slapshot · Dec 9, 2008

Quote from Angrycat:

Sorry about double posting.

I always find it sort of funny when people say "markets are wrong". Market participants take into consideration information available at the time they are making decisions. When the information changes, market participants change their decisions. This doesn't mean the market is "wrong". The market is not wrong. The information changes.

Let's see your list:
1.) Subprime loans were mispriced for a myriad of reasons including mistakes by the government sanctioned credit rating agencies, government guarantees on certain mortgages, lack of capital gains tax on houses vs. other assets, and an overly loose monetary policy by the Fed and other central banks around the world.

The unintended consequences of these mostly government attempts to create an outcome it desired, is too many people were lent too much money that will never be paid back.

2.) the $147 oil price reflected demand and supply information at the time and the $42 price reflects supply and demand information now.

3.) Shipping rates. So, you're saying that the market is wrong because it's not clairvoyant? Future shipping rates, like future oil prices, are a best guess by the market based on information known at the time the contract was signed. How is "why was the market wrong about how things will be in the future?" even a valid question?

4.) There may be more defaults than the Great Depression. The GD did not result from an a popping of a bubble and certainly not one that was caused by government meddling in the economy and an overly loose money supply.

An economic fact is that you can only consume as much as you produce. Credit changes the timing of consumption, but it doesn't change the fact that consumption must be paid for with production at some point. The bubble burst because we suddenly realized that even without a recession, we couldn't possibly produce enough to repay the loans we have already taken. Thus, you don't even need a recession for defaults to rise. Add a recession to the mix, and defaults could very well top the number during the GD. Or not. I'm not clairvoyant either, but that is market participants' best guess based on the information available to it now.

The only way to reflate this entire mess is for government to step in and lend money in place of private lenders. But government will be borrowing from foreigners to do it and it will be borrowing against future production. Remember - the bubble burst because we suddenly realized we couldn't produce enough to pay for the consumption that has already occurred. While government doesn't actually create wealth, it is following the pattern of the Great Depression by directly competing with private industry as well as lending to mostly zombie businesses which clearly know how to do only one thing well - destroy wealth. Where do you suppose the money to repay lenders to the U.S. government will come from?

As the borrows too much (the price of CDS on Treasuries is already rising) and more people become reliant on government instead of private industry, creditors will demand a higher interest rate - which the U.S. can't afford. Nervous creditors will pull their money out of Treasuries. That's when we will have a currency crisis characterized by hyper-inflation and asset confiscation by government to pay off creditors. Currency crises happen very fast and without warning.

Except for the "sterilization" policies of the Fed in 1930, which decreased the money supply and precipitated the depression, all of Hoover's and FDR's policies were inflationary. Yet, we didn't recover from the GD in real terms until after WWII. Also, reflating is going to be harder now than then. In the GD, the problem was liquidity. Today, the problem is solvency.

Thus, I'm not betting on reflation. I think we're going to be in a period of deflation and stagnation and the market will bounce around like a maniac - as it does in the bear markets of the 70s's and the 30's.

Wow, what a lucid posting - seriously nice job!

richrf · Dec 9, 2008

Subprime loans were mispriced for a myriad of reasons including mistakes by the government sanctioned credit rating agencies, government guarantees on certain mortgages, lack of capital gains tax on houses vs. other assets, and an overly loose monetary policy by the Fed and other central banks around the world.

Mistakes?? This is the the biggest howl I had all day.

The Economist, was the first to crack the whole scam scheme, and it started with the banks creating SIVs, the mortgage lenders loaning to people without any documentation or skin in the game, the banks then collateralizing the crap with the help of S&P and Moody's, and then unloading all this junk on an unsuspecting marketplace. The only involvement the Bush government had in this giant Ponzi scheme (the biggest in history), was they neutered all government regulators so that the banks and investment house could do this without any restraints.

Re-writing history to fit your "free market ideology" will not change what actually happen. It was the "free market at work" (exactly the same as in the 1920s, only then it was auto and railroads, not houses), and the consequences of unshackling the thieves is a nation in bankruptcy.

richrf · Dec 9, 2008

Quote from richrf:

Mistakes?? This is the the biggest howl I had all day.

The Economist, was the first to crack the whole scam scheme, and it started with the banks creating SIVs, the mortgage lenders loaning to people without any documentation or skin in the game, the banks then collateralizing the crap with the help of S&P and Moody's, and then unloading all this junk on an unsuspecting marketplace. The only involvement the Bush government had in this giant Ponzi scheme (the biggest in history), was they neutered all government regulators so that the banks and investment house could do this without any restraints. This was the real unrestrained free market at work. It has happened throughout history. That is why we have a thing called laws and regulations. Because some people learn ... and I guess others don't.

Re-writing history to fit your "free market ideology" will not change what actually happen. It was the "free market at work" (exactly the same as in the 1920s, only then it was auto and railroads, not houses), and the consequences of unshackling the unscrupulous, money hungry Wall Street crowd is a nation in bankruptcy.

Anaconda · Dec 10, 2008

Quote from Angrycat:

Oh, right. Because dipshits like you haven't learned the definition of "externalities" and "unintended consequences". In your neat little pretend world the smart people can plan everything from a central point. The only reason central planning has failed in the past is that central planners were not smart enough.

Do you even realize you just made yourself look like an idiot? Unintended consequences? LOL!

You're the dipshit who thinks these individuals give one f**k about you and the people. You're the one who keeps thinking that they are doing it for the greater good. Must be because they say so while their actions do the complete opposite.

So who is the idiot? You or them?

Angrycat · Dec 10, 2008

Quote from Anaconda:

Do you even realize you just made yourself look like an idiot? Unintended consequences? LOL!

You're the dipshit who thinks these individuals give one f**k about you and the people. You're the one who keeps thinking that they are doing it for the greater good. Must be because they say so while their actions do the complete opposite.

So who is the idiot? You or them?

The idiot is you - that is the moron who lacks reading comprehension skills.

Point out where I ever said that these people give a fuck about you and that they are doing all this for the greater good.

Does it make you feel like a big and powerful man to build those straw men to mow 'em down like that?

richrf · Dec 10, 2008

Quote from Anaconda:

Do you even realize you just made yourself look like an idiot? Unintended consequences? LOL!

You're the dipshit who thinks these individuals give one f**k about you and the people. You're the one who keeps thinking that they are doing it for the greater good. Must be because they say so while their actions do the complete opposite.

So who is the idiot? You or them?

She is not an idiot. Just a very inexperienced, naive person who is 1.5X ahead of herself, but in time will learn. She believes that free markets work toward the benefit of the whole. It doesn't. They work to the benefit of the 1% that decide where the money flows. And that 1% doesn't give squat about regulations, rules, laws, or whatever. There are a 1001 ways to make billions while skirting laws, as long as no one is watching. Such naivete is part of life. Unfortunately millions have suffered, because similar naivete was shared by the chief executive of the U.S.

Angrycat · Dec 10, 2008

Quote from richrf:

She is not an idiot. Just a very inexperienced, naive person who is 1.5X ahead of herself, but in time will learn. She believes that free markets work toward the benefit of the whole. It doesn't. They work to the benefit of the 1% that decide where the money flows. And that 1% doesn't give squat about regulations, rules, laws, or whatever. There are a 1001 ways to make billions while skirting laws, as long as no one is watching. Such naivete is part of life. Unfortunately millions have suffered, because similar naivete was shared by the chief executive of the U.S.

Rich,

I'm an actual professional trader with degrees in both finance and economics while you are a guy with a retail brokerage account. Based on your previous posts, you don't know anything at all about the financial industry. You think it's unregulated and an actual free market. You also think that a benevolent government is working to protect you from all sorts of bad outcomes.

Let me enlighten you. The SEC is meant to protect you, the little retail guy. In practice, it restricts what you can do while giving pros exceptions to run roughshod all over you. Why do you think the Market Makers are lobbying so hard to get the uptick rule back? Because it will suck liquidity out of more thinly traded shares and increase the size of the market they will make for you and you will be paying that wider spread to them.

I also immigrated here from the Soviet Union and I lived in Western Europe. So, I know very well how a system where government, instead of individuals, allocates capital.

You naively think that all those congress critters are busily working on your behalf while they take bribes from all and Sundry and pass laws which skew incentives so much that we get banking collapses.

Of course in a free market I don't act with your interest in mind. That's not my job. But in a free market the only way I can succeed is to create something somebody else is willing to pay for. In other words, I have to please my fellow man. In the command economy which you naively advocate, the only way to get ahead is to bribe those in power or to by a sycophant. That's why the Soviet Union and Western European economies as poorly as they do.

Angrycat · Dec 10, 2008

one more thing Rich. You are very confused about what a free market is.

A free market is merely people making regular trade-off decisions without government intervention. For example, if you made a coat that I liked, in a free market I could just choose to buy it from you. If you decided that you wanted to clean houses and I decided I was happy hiring you to clean my house, that's what we'd do.

In a command economy, such as you hold up as a model, the government decides who gets to make coats and who doesn't and who gets to clean houses and who doesn't. Moreover, it decides how many and what type are needed without regard to what is actually demanded. That latter is necessary because without prices and feedback loops, it's impossible to know such things.

In which economy do you suppose a person with less money and fewer connections has a better chance for prosperity?

Now is Now · Dec 10, 2008

Rich,

I am not one to take sides, however if you were to read the whole thread again you will find that,although I don't necessarily agree with everthing Angrycat has written, you will find there is a common theme in this thread that basically supports the last comments from Angrycat.

In essence, are we going to be a free enterprise society , free of political influence , or become quasi socialist society as a result of a reversal of economic conditions?

richrf · Dec 10, 2008

Quote from Angrycat:

Rich,

I'm an actual professional trader with degrees in both finance and economics while you are a guy with a retail brokerage account. Based on your previous posts, you don't know anything at all about the financial industry. You think it's unregulated and an actual free market. You also think that a benevolent government is working to protect you from all sorts of bad outcomes.

Let me enlighten you. The SEC is meant to protect you, the little retail guy. In practice, it restricts what you can do while giving pros exceptions to run roughshod all over you. Why do you think the Market Makers are lobbying so hard to get the uptick rule back? Because it will suck liquidity out of more thinly traded shares and increase the size of the market they will make for you and you will be paying that wider spread to them.

I also immigrated here from the Soviet Union and I lived in Western Europe. So, I know very well how a system where government, instead of individuals, allocates capital.

You naively think that all those congress critters are busily working on your behalf while they take bribes from all and Sundry and pass laws which skew incentives so much that we get banking collapses.

Of course in a free market I don't act with your interest in mind. That's not my job. But in a free market the only way I can succeed is to create something somebody else is willing to pay for. In other words, I have to please my fellow man. In the command economy which you naively advocate, the only way to get ahead is to bribe those in power or to by a sycophant. That's why the Soviet Union and Western European economies as poorly as they do.

I know you act in your own interest. That is why I ignore what you are saying. It is in your interest, not mine.

However, when my money is placed in an FDIC insured accounts (FDIC exists because of the runs on the banks that were the result of free market capitalism), there are certain rules and regulations that banks have to follow, because they get to play with federally insured money. Now, the government is suppose to enforce those rules. But they didn't. They (Bush's Free Market Administration), let the banks take the money off their balance sheet, leveraged it 30 to 1, and lose it all, which is why we have to bail out all of the banks. That is my money.

So, I want a government that enforces rules, regulations and laws. I know that there are plenty of people such as yourself, that wants access to my money, play with it, and make money or lose it. You don't care, because it is my money, and you are acting only in your own interest. So I am acting in my interest. I want a government to watch people like you. You would like the opposite. When the cats away the mice will play. Don't I know it.