Why Is It So Easy to Save the Banks - " but So Hard to Save the Biosphere?

Dec 18, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Common Dreams

Nicholas Stern estimated that capping climate change would cost around 1% of global GDP, while sitting back and letting it hit us would cost between 5 and 20%. One per cent of GDP is, at the moment , $630bn. By March 2009, Bloomberg has revealed , the US Federal Reserve had committed $7.77 trillion to the banks.

Comments
1 - 20 of 37 Comments Last updated Jan 15, 2012
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Dec 18, 2011
 

Judged:

6

6

6

The author of the article does not understand the bank bailouts or he wouldn't have tried to hang global warming onto that issue.

First what Bloomberg reported was 'borrowing at the window'. This is done everyday. Not just during the economic crisis, but everyday.

The banks borrow money overnight to assure the margins they must maintain. Money is paid back the next day. Not all banks borrow at the window, some banks have 'excess money' at the end of the day and they 'lend' it overnight to the banks that are margin short.

When there are no banks with available funds to lend, then banks 'borrow from the window'.

What Bloomberg calculated was the amount of interest the banks paid the fed for overnight funds as opposed to the interest the banks paid it's depositors. This dollar amount has been labeled as money made by the banks.

In everyday terms, if you buy milk at the grocery store on sale for a dollar less today than last week, did you make money?

What happened with the banks is not anything at all like subsidizing global warming projects. Have we ever gotten one tax dollar back from a subsidized global warming project?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 19, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Fun Facts wrote:
What Bloomberg calculated was the amount of interest the banks paid the fed for overnight funds as opposed to the interest the banks paid it's depositors.
Clever but untrue. It was the amount the banks paid in interest on the money that they then LENT BACK to the Fed at much higher interest. A game that had nothing to do with the bank customer or availabiltiy of loans to the public.

It was a little like the case in Japan where the interest rate to major corporations was near zero. They would use this access to borrow billions that they then 'invested' in the US at high rates of return, rather than using the borrowed money to expand their business. Free money but only for the selected few.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 27, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

3

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Clever but untrue. It was the amount the banks paid in interest on the money that they then LENT BACK to the Fed at much higher interest. A game that had nothing to do with the bank customer or availabiltiy of loans to the public.
It was a little like the case in Japan where the interest rate to major corporations was near zero. They would use this access to borrow billions that they then 'invested' in the US at high rates of return, rather than using the borrowed money to expand their business. Free money but only for the selected few.
Unlike our 2008 buggery by banks, the net cost of saving the climate would be extremely low. Stern thinks only in terms of gross outlays; McKinsey balances those against benefits to arrive at a net cost, which would be near zero. After all, we'd enjoy lower pollution costs across the board, including lower health costs, and the energy transition would produce more jobs which would boost consumer income and demand, and so on.

The banking bailouts may have prevented a major depression (as even Milton Friedman predicted it would), but very little of that money came back into circulation beyond keeping private jet makers employed and maintaining property values in the Hamptons. What's more, the overall cost of the recession is likely to be somewhere around the $45 trillion that the entire world economy produces in one year.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/recession-co...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 27, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Six Fannie and Freddie officials have been indicted for fraud resulting in the financial meltdown.

Fannie and Freddie officials made consistent erroneous statements regarding the number and dollar value of their holdings of sub prime loans and misrepresented the value of the loans to the financial markets when offerring the loans to create MBSs.

Fannie and Freddie officials were bonused on the number of loan purchased. Not the value, not the integrity just the number of loans.

Frank and Dodd should be indicted as well. They consistently accepted the pronouncements of Fannie and Freddie without applying the oversight that congress was responsible for assuring.

Frank will not seek reelection. Chris Dodd has already resigned.

Many people are out of work today because of what Frank, Dodd and the officials at Fannie and Freddie did to our housing industry.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 27, 2011
 

Judged:

3

Not that it has anything to do with climate, but Fannie and Freddie are the most profitable banks bailouts of all. Due to Republican desires to eliminate any and all traces of Roosevelt's New Deal, the Federal government is charging Fannie and Freddie double the interest it charges other major banks and insurers, despite lower risk.

http://problembanklist.com/bailout-funds-to-f...

Now back to climate...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Fun Facts wrote:
Fannie and Freddie officials made consistent erroneous statements regarding the number and dollar value of their holdings of sub prime loans and misrepresented the value of the loans to the financial markets when offerring the loans to create MBSs.
Just like the private Wall Street inventment bankers? I have to admit that the subprime mortgage scam was one of GWB's most successful actions in power. Not ethical, not smart, but certainly effective.

"2002: Bush's speech to the White House Conference on Increasing Minority Homeownership"

after welcoming the invited heads of FM and FM, who were owned and got their orders from the executive.

"Freddie Mac recently began 25 initiatives around the country to dismantle barriers and create greater opportunities for homeownership. One of the programs is designed to help deserving families who have bad credit histories to qualify for homeownership loans."
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 3, 2012
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Compared to the costly, Byzantine difficulty of even defining the financial bailout task, let alone funding it, solving the climate challenge is remarkably simple and cheap.

Which is why it's worth revisiting Pacala & Socolow, 2004:

http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/s...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nicholas Stern's estimation is based on guesswork, not experimental test. They are worthless unless they can be verified with due diligence trials.

Bailing out banks isn't capitalism.
umm

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 3, 2012
 
Banks belong to those special 1%.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
Nicholas Stern's estimation is based on guesswork, not experimental test. They are worthless unless they can be verified with due diligence trials.
False.
Brian_G wrote:
Bailing out banks isn't capitalism.
True.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 4, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHy, can you cite any experimental tests that climate change mitigation will save the biosphere?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
LessHy, can you cite any experimental tests that climate change mitigation will save the biosphere?
Two things. One is that the real issue is not just the pollution of GHGs but the general shape of the economy and adapting to the future resources and limits to growth. We have wasted massive concentrations of resources in an 'exploitive' mode that has one distinct benefit. It expands economies fast. But, like the EU before us, we are now approaching an economic reality that cannot AFFORD the waste of such 'wild west' capitalism. We need to work towards more planned, regulated and efficient sustainable economics. Even the short respite from opening up to 'global' resources is a short term solution as the developing nations that have been supplying the resources are starting to use them for their own purposes.

The 'experiment' in climate mitigation is not necessary since we can model the climate well enough to show that the 'rate of change' is the most important factor in disruption from a changing climate. The absolute change itself will not be an issue for a very long time. And the 'experiment' is basically what almost everyone in the science community has been asking for. Cut GHG emissions enough to show that the climate change does moderate.

So what is your point, other than your irrational viewpoint that 'science = experiment'. A view I have rebutted many times. If you were right, we wouldn't have chemists. We would have alchemists making random smelly messes in a search for turning lead into gold. Pure 'experiment' showing how little purpose it serves without science to design the experiment and analyze the results.

Experiment may be used as one piece of evidence for science but science is the crafting of explanations to show how the world works.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
One is that the real issue is not just the pollution of GHGs
In your (worthless) opinion, what's polluting GHGs?
It wouldn't be the dreaded thermal pollutant CO2, would it?
Northie

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 5, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Two things. One is that the real issue is not just the pollution of GHGs but the general shape of the economy and adapting to the future resources and limits to growth. We have wasted massive concentrations of resources in an 'exploitive' mode that has one distinct benefit. It expands economies fast. But, like the EU before us, we are now approaching an economic reality that cannot AFFORD the waste of such 'wild west' capitalism. We need to work towards more planned, regulated and efficient sustainable economics. Even the short respite from opening up to 'global' resources is a short term solution as the developing nations that have been supplying the resources are starting to use them for their own purposes.
The 'experiment' in climate mitigation is not necessary since we can model the climate well enough to show that the 'rate of change' is the most important factor in disruption from a changing climate. The absolute change itself will not be an issue for a very long time. And the 'experiment' is basically what almost everyone in the science community has been asking for. Cut GHG emissions enough to show that the climate change does moderate.
So what is your point, other than your irrational viewpoint that 'science = experiment'. A view I have rebutted many times. If you were right, we wouldn't have chemists. We would have alchemists making random smelly messes in a search for turning lead into gold. Pure 'experiment' showing how little purpose it serves without science to design the experiment and analyze the results.
Experiment may be used as one piece of evidence for science but science is the crafting of explanations to show how the world works.
Where would astronomy, geology or paleontology be if every hypothesis depended upon experimental evidence? Lab experimentation is one way to observe phenomena, but it doesn't take a lab experiment to read the fossil record or to see that the sun revolves.

However, Brian's motives have nothing to do with science; only politics.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 5, 2012
 
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
However, Brian's motives have nothing to do with science; only politics.
Whatever his motivation, his objective seems to be to spam and troll to dilute the effectiveness of reasoned dialogue. And he is not effective in this BECAUSE it is so obviously a spammer.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 5, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

3

NobodyYouEverWantToKnow, alias:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
reasoned dialogue.
You don't have the faintest idea what that means, otherwise you'd explain why you consider CO2 to be a thermal pollutant, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 5, 2012
 

Judged:

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever his motivation, his objective seems to be to spam and troll to dilute the effectiveness of reasoned dialogue. And he is not effective in this BECAUSE it is so obviously a spammer.
Yeah. Well, most of the deniers posting here have motives more or less identical to that. Politically and racially driven denial and obfuscation are their reasons for being here in the first place.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Nauseous wrote:
Yeah. Well, most of the deniers posting here have motives more or less identical to that. Politically and racially driven denial and obfuscation are their reasons for being here in the first place.
So you agree with LessFact's ideas?
Tell me all about your take on his theory of CO2 as a thermal pollutant, especially "as a greenhouse gas causing 'thermal pollution' of the planet?"
If you fail to respond, it will be taken for granted that you know his theory is simply bullshit.
Thanks.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jan 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Two things. One is that the real issue is not just the pollution of GHGs but the general shape of the economy and adapting to the future resources and limits to growth. We have wasted massive concentrations of resources in an 'exploitive' mode that has one distinct benefit. It expands economies fast. But, like the EU before us, we are now approaching an economic reality that cannot AFFORD the waste of such 'wild west' capitalism. We need to work towards more planned, regulated and efficient sustainable economics. Even the short respite from opening up to 'global' resources is a short term solution as the developing nations that have been supplying the resources are starting to use them for their own purposes.
The EU is in trouble because they can't afford their welfare state. The problem isn't capitalism, the problem is socialism.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
The 'experiment' in climate mitigation is not necessary since we can model the climate well enough to show that the 'rate of change' is the most important factor in disruption from a changing climate. The absolute change itself will not be an issue for a very long time. And the 'experiment' is basically what almost everyone in the science community has been asking for. Cut GHG emissions enough to show that the climate change does moderate.
You admit climate change mitigation is an experiment, since the science hasn't been done you want government to do it. A model without a real world test to reconcile the variables, does not necessarily reflect reality. You can use computer models to create images of apes, dinosaurs or dragons, that doesn't mean dragons are real.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
So what is your point, other than your irrational viewpoint that 'science = experiment'. A view I have rebutted many times. If you were right, we wouldn't have chemists. We would have alchemists making random smelly messes in a search for turning lead into gold. Pure 'experiment' showing how little purpose it serves without science to design the experiment and analyze the results. Experiment may be used as one piece of evidence for science but science is the crafting of explanations to show how the world works.
Scientific theories are tested by experiment. A theory is successful only if it can be tested in a controlled and repeatable way. Climate change mitigation has never been experimentally tested and that shows it's based on faith, not science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jan 6, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Northie wrote:
Where would astronomy, geology or paleontology be if every hypothesis depended upon experimental evidence? Lab experimentation is one way to observe phenomena, but it doesn't take a lab experiment to read the fossil record or to see that the sun revolves. However, Brian's motives have nothing to do with science; only politics.
There are no astronomical, geographical or paleontology mitigation theory, purely descriptive science doesn't need experimental evidence but any policy, plan, procedure, appliance or intervention must be tested if it's based on science. The FDA uses experimental tests for medicine, why a lower standard when the prescription of for the entire planet?

My only objection to climate change mitigation is the lack of experimental test; show me one that demonstrates feasibility and I'll change my opinion.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

5 Users are viewing the Durban, South Africa Forum right now

Search the Durban, South Africa Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Sugar baby needs a Sugar daddy..mcwaaah (Oct '13) Wed sexy blk chick 30
Ngifuna ipipi bo (Jan '14) Mon Sizwe 63
sex forum (May '08) Jul 21 party freak 56
looking for WOMAN for nsa fun Jul 18 wayne 2
looking 4 a hiv positive lady in durban Jul 17 Anonymous 1
are you a sugar mommy call or whats App +277479... Jul 17 david 1
NSA sex buddies? Jul 17 vern 13
•••
•••