What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
148 Comments
- emazur, on 12/26/2008, -1/+112Here is a somewhat similar story from "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin that you might enjoy:
The story is told of a New England farmer with a small pond in his pasture. Each summer, a group of wild ducks would frequent that pond but, try as he would, the farmer could never catch one. No matter how early in the morning he approached, or how carefully he constructed a blind, or what kind of duck call he tried, somehow those crafty birds sensed the danger and managed to be out of range. Of course, when fall arrived, the ducks headed South, and the farmer's craving for a duck dinner only intensified.
Then he got an idea. Early in the spring, he started scattering corn along the edge of the pond. The ducks liked the corn and, since it was always there, they soon gave up dipping and foraging for food of their own. After a while, they became used to the farmer and began to trust him. They could see he was their benefactor and they now walked close to him with no sense of fear. Life was so easy, they forgot how to fly. But that was unimportant, because they were now so fat they couldn't have gotten off the water even if they had tried.
Fall came, and the ducks stayed. Winter came, and the pond froze. The farmer built a shelter to keep them warm. The ducks were happy because they didn't have to fly. And the farmer was especially happy because, each week all winter long, he had a delicious duck dinner.
That is the story of America's Great Depression of the 1930's. - badqat, on 12/26/2008, -3/+90I'd probably be happier if I had monkeys everywhere in exchange for getting continually ripped of on my paycheck with deductions.
- Striker101, on 12/26/2008, -1/+65good lesson in supply and demand ;)
- borez, on 12/26/2008, -1/+55That article fails to mention the real cause of the problem...Default gorilla swaps.
- emazur, on 12/26/2008, -1/+46No, it's a metaphor for how the money-trust puppet masters (in the case of the US, the Federal Reserve) dangle the carrot of cheap credit before the consumer, who finds it difficult resist the opportunity to invest the credit. In the case of the 1920's, it was for stock. In the case of the last decade, it was for real estate. There's a boom and the consumer feels great, but when the bust happens he gets eaten alive.
G. Edward Griffin is one the modern leaders in the movement to abolish the Federal Reserve. But leaders throughout history have been warning against the concentration of power and the right to issue money to private bankers (yes, the banks of the Fed are private):
History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and its issuance - James Madison
"when government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes...Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency; their sole object is gain."~napoleon bonaparte
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson - inactive, on 12/26/2008, -9/+44This is a bad analogy of the bailout.
- inactive, on 12/26/2008, -5/+38Hmm, monkeys, sheep, sounds like Animal Farm all over.
- PrismoFillusion, on 12/26/2008, -2/+32WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
- snurfle, on 12/26/2008, -2/+26Re-post of comment from above...
just 'cuz it is worth repeating...
props to emazur for the initial post...
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson" - lilamae, on 12/26/2008, -1/+23Only takes a good monkey buyer to make monkeys out of monkey sellers. And vice versa. . .
- wizbowes, on 12/26/2008, -8/+30Buried. Cute story about supply and demand but a piss poor analogy over the trouble we're currently in
- jcroweall7, on 12/26/2008, -1/+22So... you're saying monkey keeper is a recession-proof profession?
...right? - ansatsu29, on 12/26/2008, -0/+16Agreed. I would also trade a zoo full of monkeys than a farm full of greedy corporate and government pigs.
- Icyfenix, on 12/26/2008, -0/+14AHHHH.
You people miss the point entirely.
The money never existed in the first place! No one ever lost any money, everything was built on "Theoretical Money" that the banks were going to get from people who got foreclosed upon.
It's like this:
If the banks had 100 billion dollars in theoretical real estate each, and only 40 billion dollars in actual cash, and loaned out 200 billion in loans, without actually handing anyone the cash(promise-to-pay loans) and everyone called in their loans to the bank, and no one paid them their theoretical money, the banks couldn't give good on the money they owed people(loans, and theoretical money), they would become something called "insolvent".
Insolvent, for those who don't know, means "about to screw some taxpayers".
Here's a street example.
Mike buys some cocaine from John on credit. He says "Sam owes me 200 bucks. He gets into town on Wednesday. I'll give you the money then." John gives him the coke that he's gotten off his supplier, promising to bring back money from selling the coke, minus his take on Friday. Mike snorts up the coke, and has a great deal of fun until Wednesday. Sam never shows up from out of town, and Mike can't pay. He tells John "I don't have the cash, Sam never showed man!" So now John can't pay HIS supplier and dosen't have any product to move. His supplier is pissed, cuz they didn't make more money than it took to get the coke here(from bribes and transport costs) and now EVERYONE is out a LOT of cash.
Multiply this 1000 times with 1000 small dealers and the supplier goes out of business. Multiply this 1000000 times with 1000000 small dealers and the coke trade collapses.
My point isn't to explain how to get rid of the coke trade(John, Mike and Sam are all going to die in this situation, as well as the people who supplied the coke to John without getting money up front) but to explain what happened with the economy.
Never give the goods to a junkie(american consumers) if he doesn't show you the money(cash, not credit.). - inactive, on 12/26/2008, -1/+15@ afruff23
The quotes have meaning, and logic. The people who said those things were geniuses, regardless of their title. - davidg11, on 12/26/2008, -0/+12But how do I get the monkeys from jumping on the bed?
One always falls down and bumps his head. - hugolp, on 12/26/2008, -1/+13And you can allways eat monkeys when everything goes down.
- Fullvinyl, on 12/26/2008, -0/+11Corporate and government pigs can be eaten as well...though they probably taste like chicken.
- hugolp, on 12/26/2008, -1/+11He forgets to say that the inital money to start buying the monkeys comes from the FED printing more money/stealing value from the people.
- thegrantman, on 12/26/2008, -3/+12Millions of monkeys from Guerrilla News Network...........
- randypanda, on 12/26/2008, -3/+12WTF? There were monkeys in Animal Farm? Damn I should stop going to English class high.
- hierophantus, on 12/26/2008, -0/+8Also, since the villagers were already paid $10-25 each for the monkeys, they didn't really pay $35 for them, but instead their net cost for each monkey is between $10 and $25.
Since at least some of the villagers got more than $10 for their monkeys, the average net cost of a monkey ends up being less than $25. So if there's only a 50/50 chance the man will come back and give them $50 each, which would be a $25 profit when taking into account the entire history of the transactions, it's still a justifiable investment for the group as a whole. Depending on how many people got more than $10 in the first instance, the odds can be less than 50/50 and still the group can justify paying the $35 price.
That said, you do have to calculate the odds before making the decision, and I don't remember anyone making a serious effort to do that in the case of the bailout. - skeptictank, on 12/26/2008, -0/+8I think everyone should spank their monkeys as a sign of protest.
- penguin1908, on 12/26/2008, -1/+9...or fish!! =//
- inactive, on 12/26/2008, -0/+8@ afruff23
I took too long to edit my response, sorry guys! Had to post again.
The quotes have meaning, and logic. The people who said those things were geniuses, regardless of their title. You're assuming that one who becomes President all of a sudden adopts the belief that banking should be privatized? You could really sit there and compare that to a sexual predator stating rape is wrong?
Also,
I read the article, and things in life can't realistically be compared to other unrelated things with just one cause and effect. Nothing in life has one cause for an effect. Nothing is that cut and dry and simple. You can't just take an issue as complex as the moral properties of a war in Iraq and apply it to a slave accepting a meal from his master, and in turn condoning slavery.
The article points out obvious flaws that the system has, but provides nothing close to a solution. There is logic involved with the argument, but it is masked logic, not taking into account countless other things taxes pay for. For example, it is like saying :
"Are you pro-choice?"
"Yes."
"Okay, so you support the murder of an unborn fetus."
"Uhhh... gee, well yeah, I can understand that position." --- What?!?!?
Simple, one cause and effect, and has the same sort of logic that the entire article enforced. But what's the problem? The intent behind pro-choice isn't about murdering an unborn fetus, but it can be made to seem that way, and also, seem logical to some people (unfortunately).
Your logic in the above comment is as flawed as the logic in the link you posted. - hugolp, on 12/26/2008, -0/+8@Fullvinyl Corporate and government pigs can be eaten as well...though they probably taste like chicken.
They might be a bit toxic from beign full of ***** but its an option. - ScottMitchell, on 12/26/2008, -0/+7"That said, you do have to calculate the odds before making the decision, and I don't remember anyone making a serious effort to do that in the case of the bailout."
According to our leaders, we didn't have the time for drawn out, rational and calculated thought. We needed to act NOW or face catastrophic economic turmoil!! NOW NOW NOW NOW NOW! - intro211, on 12/26/2008, -0/+7now the farmer is out of control and he is inviting his bankers an rich friends for bigger and bigger dinners. he is slaughtering more and more ducks every day.. soon the ducks will realise that the shelter is a prison , will gather all weapons they can find and start a revolution against the farmer and his friends. they will get back the corn field without having to sacrifice a duck every night.
- PrismoFillusion, on 12/26/2008, -3/+10Interesting story, but to play devil's advocate...if the man actually does come back, the people greatly benefit.
- regeya, on 12/26/2008, -2/+9Reg: All right, Stan. Don't labour the point. And what have they ever given us in return?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh yeah, yeah they gave us that. Yeah. That's true.
Masked Activist: And the sanitation!
Stan: Oh yes... sanitation, Reg, you remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: All right, I'll grant you that the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done...
Matthias: And the roads...
Reg: (sharply) Well yes obviously the roads... the roads go without saying. But apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation and the roads...
Another Masked Activist: Irrigation...
Other Masked Voices: Medicine... Education... Health...
Reg: Yes... all right, fair enough...
Activist Near Front: And the wine...
Omnes: Oh yes! True!
Francis: Yeah. That's something we'd really miss if the Romans left, Reg.
Masked Activist at Back: Public baths!
Stan: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now.
Francis: Yes, they certainly know how to keep order... (general nodding)... let's face it, they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
(more general murmurs of agreement)
Reg: All right... all right... but apart from better sanitation and medicine and education and irrigation and public health and roads and a freshwater system and baths and public order... what have the Romans done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace!
Reg: (very angry, he's not having a good meeting at all) What!? Oh... (scornfully) Peace, yes... shut up! - Honchy, on 12/26/2008, -0/+6FW:FW:FW:FW: MILLIONS OF MONKEYS VERY FUNNY!!!!!!
- Mujokan, on 12/26/2008, -2/+8The "monkeys" would have to represent some commodity (in the general sense) that was overvalued in a bubble. So they would be e.g. bonds based on subprime mortgage debt, though there are other candidates.
You could parse it out like this.
The investment banks were eager for subprime debt because thanks to the period of cheap debt and artificially high liquidity, and bad decisions by the valuers, they could tranche them up and sell them on at a profit. (They encouraged the mortgage banks to push dodgy loans onto buyers with bad credit ratings.) Lots of people who should have known better, including public entities, invested in these bonds (bought the debt).
This was to some extent a self-perpetuating cycle as a bubble of debt based on debt inflated. See this article from almost two years ago, that was kind of a catalyst for me in solidfying my fears of this situation: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/92f7ee6a-a765-11db-83e4- ...
Meanwhile, smart players were taking the money they were getting from selling these overvalued assets and stashing it elsewhere. Some were even betting on the bursting of this bubble (one reason Goldman Sachs didn't do too badly out of all this).
The TARP bailout, at least as first presented, was to involve taking the bonds as collateral on loans to be given to those institutions that bought them, so that the paralyzing fear of not knowing how bad the debt situation was (that caused the "credit crunch") would be alleviated. This would be the villagers buying back the monkeys.
As it turned out, the TARP money has mostly been used instead to simply buy stock in the companies. This has its advantages and disadvantages. The Treasury doesn't hold the subprime (etc.) debt directly. The stock prices is propped up, which helps the institutions stay afloat. There is less oversight this way on what the money is used for. The zombie loans are still out there unresolved. Treasury was able to switch tactics like this because there were few conditions imposed in the TARP bill.
This makes the metaphor a little less apt, but basically it is still the same thing. The obvious problem with the story is that monkeys aren't vital to your economy, unlike the credit system. If all the businesses used monkey labor it would make more sense. Buying back the monkeys isn't being done out of greed but due to a kind of blackmail. The guy still got away with the money, though. - xedd, on 12/26/2008, -0/+6I would suggest we throw shoes at the guys running this monkey business.
- intro211, on 12/26/2008, -0/+6asked one of the monkeys
- afruff23, on 12/26/2008, -3/+9Is this one big metaphor for consumerism?
- Enderplayer1, on 12/26/2008, -0/+6$35 for a monkey! Sounds like a good deal to me.
- markosfunk, on 12/26/2008, -0/+5@emazur excellent qoutes on the reality taking shape that was so strongly warned against.
- tgc1, on 12/26/2008, -0/+5It has nothing to do with supply and demand. It has everything to do with swindling very stupid people.
- gleongelpi, on 12/26/2008, -0/+5You didn't miss anything. It is a pretty dumb analogy--and irrelevant. This is not to say that the bail out is not a crime.
It was said over a year ago that the way to deal with the problem would have been to turn the mortgage interest deduction in the 1040 tax form into a refundable credit. In that way, the homeowner would have gone out of his way to make the mortgage so that they could get the intersted payments returned to him. A further suggestion related to this was to lower the percentage of the credit each year and giving the borrower the option of taking the deduction or the credit. After the credit was down to about 20%, it would be better for most borrowers to take the deduction. In five to seven years, the problem would have been solved at less expense to the tax payers than the 700bb give away. - eurodele, on 12/26/2008, -0/+5@#$% democrats, and republicans too. Getting out of the current mess will require something that cannot be contained in those two little boxes.
- regeya, on 12/26/2008, -0/+5"Otherwise the monkey's were purchased as actors on shows like Lancelot Link."
The monkey's what? What, which was formerly in possession of the monkey, was purchased as actors on shows like Lancelot Link?
AN APOSTROPHE IS NOT A DECORATION. - Claverhouse, on 12/26/2008, -2/+7@afruff23
It's going to come as a great shock, I'm sure, but all human relations are based on coercion and aggression. It's how nature maintains the balance.
The idea that without states mankind would relapse into a peaceful community of autonomous individual traders and consumers, all equals, happy without violence or cheating, is as much a feeble feel-good fantasy as the ultimate paradise promised by communism --- which it greatly resembles; partly since it derives from the same impure source: the harmful delusion that mankind is naturally good. - jgubbe, on 12/26/2008, -0/+5A printing press.
- hierophantus, on 12/26/2008, -1/+6As usual, Dan the Automator was ahead of the curve:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_iP24V1vs5CM/R7PXSFVFArI/AA ... - TKidd, on 12/26/2008, -0/+4Based on a true story...
- inactive, on 12/26/2008, -0/+4RE:FW:FW:FW:FW: MILLIONS OF MONKEYS VERY FUNNY!!!!!!
mom,
please stop forwarding e-mails to my work address
thanks - 1longtime, on 12/26/2008, -4/+8I agree completely, but I feel I must respond to this argument (which I've read many times) with a warning: The Federal Reserve, while certainly flawed, is now an integral part of the world economy, and cannot be removed like a pimple.
Every major economy is playing the same dangerous print-money-whenever-we-want-to-game. The first country that goes back to a gold standard will be eaten alive by price manipulation of other currencies.
We need to agree, on a worldwide scale, to change our currency methods. It cannot be done by any single country, not even a super power. That is the only way to achieve the gold standard again. - lxplicit, on 12/26/2008, -0/+4Where can I buy one of these monkeys?
- Mujokan, on 12/26/2008, -1/+5Do you even know what the CRA is for? Basically it just means that you can't only give subprime loans to white people. It doesn't force you to lend to anyone, it doesn't mandate relaxed qualification standards for lending, and it only covers depository banks, by the way. "50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision; another 30% were made by banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. How was this caused by either CRA or GSEs ?"
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/mis ... http://www.slate.com/id/2201641/
Your point about Barney Frank makes no sense, because at the time Bush was "sounding the alarm", Congress was controlled by the Republicans, and it took them years to turn his warning into (bad) legislation, which they then failed to take out of their own committee and present to the Senate. -
Show 51 - 100 of 160 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 