Comments on: Forget Confidence — Fix What’s Broken First

By: jus7tme

jus7tme — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:07:37 +0000

Great article, Barry. I’ve been waiting for someone to say this. What I am looking for is not Confidence. I don’t care about “restoring confidence”. What I want is for the powers that be to RESTORE CORRECTNESS.

Correct operation of the markets, correct operation of regulation, correct regulation to begin with, correct valuation of assets, correct prosecution and punishment for those who break the law. Give me correctness, and confidence is automatic.

By: Livigs

Livigs — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 19:41:21 +0000

Funny that he comments that the BofA CEO “must think people are idiots”. The problem is… people ARE idiots. The American culture consists of three people: idiots; greedy, corrupt people who prey on said idiots; and people who realize this is happening but cannot do a damn thing about it except watch the corrupt steal from the rest of us.

By: Gottinhimmel

Gottinhimmel — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:06:49 +0000

Raising capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, energy taxes (CO2 taxes), income taxes, and venture capital taxes, while reorganizing our national medical system and incurring trillions of dollars of debt, does not encourage confidence, no matter what happens with “solving” the banking crisis. On the other hand, proposing decreasing taxes and regulations to induce private capital investment and small business formation would encourage confidence. Ultimately, buying stock is an act of confidence, and if you believe that the proposals of the Obama administration are going to have severe deleterious effects on the economy going forward, why buy?

By: RE Mant

RE Mant — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 18:04:44 +0000

It may surprise some ppl but this is the first time I have been to this blog. I couldn’t agree more with this. These confidence arguments are the same as were used in the Depression, even before Keynes was known here. They are made by ppl who measure things by demand instead of supply, and whose idea of stimulating economic activity amounts to bribery. But what to you bribe with, if you haven’t got anything in the first place? It is a Ponzi scheme, no doubt.

By: Greg0658

Greg0658 — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:16:30 +0000

can’t let this thread close out at 66 .. like what does that number mean really .. except its a subplanted bugle call to action ..
thats not what I came to say .. altho that thought has been bouncing off the walls

the peacock station has been playing Warren and his Dec 7th 1941 dont pile on the pork in this war either statement
now the rest of the story
I’ll bet ya that on Dec 9th 1941 there were spending bills flying to Washington to replace the ships and guts

this war is about keeping commerce flowing … but really its WHOs commerce .. or really really MY commerce

By: formerlawyer

formerlawyer — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:01:54 +0000

I recall the Sixty Minutes show – a bit of a puff piece in my humble opinion. Designed no doubt, as noted by 10cc, to reassure the public that they can have confidence in the security of their accounts.

However one of the radical suggestions advanced by the head of the FDIC – Sheila Bain was limit the size of U.S. Banks. Surely a counterintuitive suggestion in competition terms?

By: carping demon

carping demon — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:20:35 +0000

I don’t think esteem is the same as confidence. Esteem is past/present looking, and confidence is present/future looking, and neither of them refer to forces active in the real world. They only demarcate places where the observation of real forces disolves into emotional conjecture. I think economists use “confidence” to get across some of those parts of their statements for which they know they have no theory. They use “incentive” to get across others.

By: Kimble

Kimble — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:47:04 +0000

Ummm, I think what the economists might be saying is that the nationalisation might actually become one of the underlying ills indicated by the symptom of low confidence.

Now, if you were saying that America’s damaged esteem has less impact on the final outcome than the fundamental flimsiness of the banking sector, that would be fine. But you didnt. You said that, by pointing to a new ill the economist was ignoring all the others (which isn’t clear by any means).

By: carping demon

carping demon — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:39:13 +0000

Thank you, Barry. You hit it square. Keep slugging.

By: deanscamaro

deanscamaro — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:19:32 +0000

I just got a copy of The HCM Market Letter by Michael E. Lewitt, by way of John Mauldin’s Outside The Box, March 9th edition mailing. John stated it was the last one to be published in his blog, as The HCM Market Letter has gone to a pay-only subscription in the future.

For me, Lewitt really tied together all the pieces I have had roiling around in my mind about this mess, including cause, effect and fixes. Since I am not a professional investment advisor, I don’t have all the resources to subscribe to multiple newsletters, but I might just consider his. I’m sure most of you have a subscription to it already as paid advisors, so you can read the whole thing (just going to Mauldin’s blog only brings up Lewitt’s subscription). The hard reality within Lewitt’s newsletter was:

“The economy has to be completely retooled, and this process will not happen overnight, particularly because such a program must be directed by a highly inefficient democratic political system that is inefficient in reaching consensus about its goals and how to achieve them. Unfortunately, the deeper involvement of the government in the financial and other sectors of the economy is likely to stifle growth, innovation and creativity and further contribute to lower growth for years to come.” Michael E. Lewittt newsletter (JohnMauldin@InvestorsInsight.com).