Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

alstry (< 20)

EVERY FOOL Should Watch This!!!!!



September 03, 2009 – Comments (32)

You can watch the Kneale video at ....

Denninger vs. Kneale reminds me of some of my debates with the Alstrybaters....especially Deej, Donner, jd, and awa


32 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 03, 2009 at 8:28 PM, awallejr (35.95) wrote:

Well I certainly don't put myself in Kneale's camp, but on the other hand I had to stop watching your clip when
Denninger argues all the banks are bankrupt but  he and we don't know what the banks are worth.  Sounds like how you argue. 

9.21.09 fast approaching.  Tick tock tick tock.

Report this comment
#2) On September 03, 2009 at 8:37 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

Actually, you are square in the middle of Kneale's camp.

Without mark to market and honest accounting, you have ZERO idea whether one or all banks are insolvent.



Report this comment
#3) On September 03, 2009 at 8:45 PM, JerseyShoreGirl (< 20) wrote:

Yahoo:  Florida Exodus: Rising Taxes Drive Out Residents

By TIM PADGETT / MIAMI Tim Padgett / Miami – Thu Sep 3, 4:10 pm ET

There are many things public officials probably shouldn't do during a severe recession, but no one seems to have told the leaders in Florida about them. One thing, for instance, would be giving a dozen top aides hefty raises while urging a rise in property taxes, as the mayor of Miami-Dade County recently did. Or jacking up already exorbitant hurricane-insurance premiums, as Florida's government-run property insurer just did. Or sending an army of highly paid lobbyists to push for a steep hike in electricity rates, as South Florida's public utility is doing.


And you wonder why the Sunshine State is experiencing its first net emigration of people since World War II. (See pictures: "Florida's Paradise Lost.")


A few years ago, journalists - citing the chasm between Miami's high cost of living and its low level of income - began predicting that South Florida and its perpetual population-growth machine would soon face the unthinkable: a falling head count. Now it's official. The region - Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties - lost 27,400 residents between 2008 and 2009, while Florida as a whole lost 58,000. That's not exactly a mass exodus for a state of 18 million; but it's the first net outflow in 63 years for a state that considers itself the new California. "It's difficult for the working middle class to justify living here," Mike Jones, president of the Palm Beach County Economic Council, conceded to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. "As much as they may love the sunshine, as you squeeze them out, they may find it in their best interests to move."

Report this comment
#4) On September 03, 2009 at 8:54 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Report this comment
#5) On September 03, 2009 at 8:54 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


The U.S. junk bond default rate rose to 10.2 percent in August from 9.4 percent in July ... Standard & Poor's data showed on Thursday.

The default rate is expected to rise to 13.9 percent by July 2010 and could reach as high as 18 percent if economic conditions are worse than expected, S&P said in a statement.
In another sign of corporate distress, the rating agency has downgraded $2.9 trillion of company debt year to date, up from $1.9 trillion in the same period last year.

A trillion here, a trillion there......banks, insurance companies, and pension funds are simply collections of debt and credit default swaps.

Too bad nobody really knows what they are worth??????

Report this comment
#6) On September 03, 2009 at 8:58 PM, awallejr (35.95) wrote:

"Without mark to market and honest accounting, you have ZERO idea whether one or all banks are insolvent."

Watch your own clip.  Denninger doesn't say what you just wrote.  He said on the one hand they are all bankrupt yet on the other hand we have no idea what they are worth.

Mark to market acounting can be just as misleading as  other methods.

Report this comment
#7) On September 03, 2009 at 9:07 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


MIAMI -- South Florida's Soffer family, already roiled by the June bankruptcy of its $3 billion Fontainebleau casino-hotel project in Las Vegas, is grappling with troubles at another cornerstone of its $7 billion real-estate empire: The original Fontainebleau hotel in Miami Beach.

The Soffers bought the 55-year-old hotel in 2005 and embarked on a 2½-year, $500 million renovation aimed at returning it to its former glory, when it was a playground for stars including Elvis Presley and Frank Sinatra. But the 1,504-room property, which appeared in films such as "Scarface" and "Goldfinger," now faces problems with the debt it took on, according to people familiar with the matter.

Lenders, led by Bank of America Corp., could declare a default on a $670 million construction loan for various reasons, including Fontainebleau's failure to keep reserves to cover more than $60 million in contested liens against the property by contractors who have not been paid, these people said. A 45-day agreement not to declare default expired Monday, they said.

If Bank America and its buddies are buyers of credit default swaps on this loan, they have the incentive to declare default and cash in.  If BA and buddies are sellers of swaps, then expect some kind of extention of the loan so the swap is not triggered.

In the end, the game is not about the debt, the more distressed the debt, the more lucrative for the swap is about the screwing of our pension funds, retirees, and mutual funds and anyone not on the right side of the extend and pretend game.

Report this comment
#8) On September 03, 2009 at 9:08 PM, danteps (28.78) wrote:

Another Chicken Little who paints doom and gloom to ascertain attention.  The permabears and permabulls are both wrong, but if you take an extreme view and cling to it you do get attention.

Not because your smart, insightful or right, more likely because you provide entertainment.  The majority enjoy laughing at you and we could all use a good chuckle in these challenging times.  You can be sure to enjoy a following from the other extremists. 

The probability of more banks being insolvent than currrently counted is likely high, the probability that all banks are insolvent closely approaches zero.  Banks are businesses and they may be ran quite differently.  To lump them all together is naive.  Managers may choose less or more leverage, pursue more or less stringent lending standards, take on more or less risk, operate in a geography with a better (or worse) business climate, have different business models, etc. etc. etc.

It's important to note the lunatic fringe is out there.  I sometimes turn on Fox or MSNBC to see what the 2 major groups are up to.  We must PREPARE!!!!!!!!!!! 

Report this comment
#9) On September 03, 2009 at 9:13 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


There is so much debt out there and so much of it is defaulting.....pretty soon, you will understand that there is no where to hide in 9.09.

Our entire economy is built upon a foundation of debt, without the integrity of debt being solid, there is no foundation.  Since most of the outstanding debt was written in the last five years and much of it underwritted recklessly due to credit default swaps.....there is simply no way to escape the Zombulator at this point.

Soon you will understand and appreciate....9.09.

Report this comment
#10) On September 03, 2009 at 9:30 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


New numbers from the U.S. Education Department show that federal student-loan disbursements—the total amount borrowed by students and received by schools—in the 2008-09 academic year grew about 25% over the previous year, to $75.1 billion. The amount of money students borrow has long been on the rise. But last year far surpassed past increases, which ranged from as low as 1.7% in the 1998-99 school year to almost 17% in 1994-95, according to figures used in President Barack Obama's proposed 2010 budget.

If you reveiw enough banks, you begin to realize that they all pretty much invested in similar assets....the vast majority hold tons of direct and indirect commercial and residential real estate loans....did I say tons.....if there a bigger word than tons.... use it......and now real estate is CRASHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and so is the debt.

Report this comment
#11) On September 03, 2009 at 9:39 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


The Federal Housing Administration, hit by increasing mortgage-related losses, is in danger of seeing its reserves fall below the level demanded by Congress, according to government officials, in a development that could raise concerns about whether the agency needs a taxpayer bailout.

The rising losses at the FHA, part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, come as the agency has rapidly increased its role in guaranteeing loans in an attempt to stabilize the housing market.


Report this comment
#12) On September 03, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Buckaneer (< 20) wrote:


 I appreicate your overall sentiment, primarily because of unemployment. I have read your posts over the months and overall agree with you about the economy. However, how do you think banks will fail when they are getting so much easy money and making tons of money shorting and going long stocks? Consider how much volatility has gone on in the markets, and who pushes the most amount of money? The big banks. So, they must have made tons! Someone did. And with easy money from govt, they had the capital. Have they not traded their way out of any problems? Your thoughts and answer the points i have made with well supported statements. 

Report this comment
#13) On September 03, 2009 at 10:12 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

I am not sure the banks will fail....but if this zombulation policy continues....I am sure most of America will fail.

Report this comment
#14) On September 03, 2009 at 10:32 PM, rd80 (95.93) wrote:

Mark to market acounting can be just as misleading as other methods.

Yep, many people advocating strict  mark-to-market only consider the asset side of the balance sheet.  As we learned a few quarters ago on some earnings reports, mark-to-market applies to the liability side of the balance sheet as well.  Got $100 million the bank owes in outstanding bonds?  In trouble and the market values the bank's debt at 60 cents on the dollar?  Outstanding, mark the debt at $60 million and book $40 million of gains to the balance sheet. 


Report this comment
#15) On September 03, 2009 at 10:39 PM, alstry (< 20) wrote:

Since banks are levered up 10X or has a much lower impact on banks than other businesses.

The problem with Zombulation is the defaulting loans on the banks are forcing the banks to place increasing burdens on their performing customers.

As more loans default, the banks will be forced to act even more  agressively until the economy basically shuts  down.

Report this comment
#16) On September 04, 2009 at 1:42 AM, mawnck (< 20) wrote:

lquadland10 ...

Am I hallucinating, or does your little video there include a report from Russia Today (the big green RT in the lower left corner)?

Whose side are you on, anyway? Are you even paying a lick of attention to where your facts are coming from, or are you OK with them regardless, as long as they sort of kind of justify your paranoia?

Report this comment
#17) On September 04, 2009 at 4:45 AM, kaskoosek (30.24) wrote:

I seem to disagree with a lot of people here.


Health care is a right. I have the right to not die even if I do not have money. America is not a civlized country.


Go to Canada, Germany and Japan. Check how socialism is running there, then make a judgement. This right wing ignorance at times wreaks of foul stench. 


Open your eyes no country in the developed world does not have universal health care, except the US. Americans are greedy SOBs who do not want others to have the right to live. GREED, GREED GREED is all I can say. Don't try to argue free market shit, even a poor person has the right to live. We are not animals.



Report this comment
#18) On September 04, 2009 at 9:14 AM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


In Lebanon...didn't people pay doctors with chickens.

Maybe we should start doing that here??????

Report this comment
#19) On September 04, 2009 at 9:35 AM, kaskoosek (30.24) wrote:

Lebanon is not a developed country.

Report this comment
#20) On September 04, 2009 at 10:02 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

#17 - We've had this discussion before. You know that I am one of those that do not agree with your point of view on this.

For those of us that wish to have a cradle to grave system of government interference all you need do is move to Japan, Canada, Germany. You are free to move elsewhere. This country was founded by people seeking freedom from government interference in our daily lives. We are a nation of individuals, not subjects. Who is more uncivilized? The man that acts as his own lord and master or he that relies on the state for his necessities of life? Is the shepherd more civilized or his sheep? The individual or the mob?

As I said above we do not agree on this issue. Please don't call us "uncivilized" because we have different ways. That is rude and beneath you. I forget where you call home in Europe but I would never cast you under such a lable because of a cultural difference. European socialism works well for you because it has been shaped to fit the culture. Our system fits us for the same reason.


Report this comment
#21) On September 04, 2009 at 10:11 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

PS - Calling us "Greedy SOBs" will not get you on my Christmas card list.

Report this comment
#22) On September 04, 2009 at 10:40 AM, alstry (< 20) wrote:


This country may have been founded on those principles...but the only reason this country is not in total chaos is that it is providing a social safety net to tens of millions with money that doesn't exist.


You can keep fantasizing about what America was.....this is what America is with govenment now consuming 50% of a rapidly shrinking private economy.

Report this comment
#23) On September 04, 2009 at 10:49 AM, kaskoosek (30.24) wrote:



I respect your opinion, but regarding the point I discussed. Don't you think that even poor people have the right to a doctor???? 

Report this comment
#24) On September 04, 2009 at 12:39 PM, plumbric2 (< 20) wrote:

Kaskoosek asks,

"Don't you think that even poor people have the right to a doctor???? "

This question either misses the point or is intentionally emotionally charged to mislead by use of a straw man.  Of course poor persons have the right to consult a doctor.  No one will deny that. 

What you are really asking/saying is that everyone should have the right to whatever it takes to allow them to exercise that right.  For example, I have the right to vote.  Do I also have the right to public transportation to get to the polling site, no matter what it might cost my fellow taxpayers? 

I think if we could tone down the rhetoric on both sides, a more rational approach to this question might emerge.  For a lot of us older, and raised to be "work-for-what-you-need-or-want types", answering “yes” to the real question about health care (Is everyone in the US entitled to health care and the means to get that?) raises some questions that are difficult to answer with the level of conviction manifested by those who have been raised in more charitable environments.

For example, if I abuse alcohol or drugs, if I smoke, or overeat to the point of obesity, am I equally entitled (without some additional cost on my part) to all the care that someone who does not engage in these destructive behaviors? 

An illustration: My speeding tickets play hell with my auto insurance premiums.  I have a right to auto insurance, but I have to supply my own means of exercising that right and those means will vary depending on my driving history, financial situation, etc.  Is the day coming when society will grant everyone auto insurance regardless of their driving records, ability to pay, etc.?

There are other questions as well--I hope to have the opportunity to ask them as well.  I consider myself somewhat liberal and am committed to the theoretical value of this principle of distributive justice:  "To each according to his need; from each according to his ability."   My concern is that the second half of this principle is too often ignored, overlooked, or downplayed.


Report this comment
#25) On September 04, 2009 at 1:09 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

#22 - This country has gone through far worse than this crisis and made it through without any sort of safety net. The reason we are in this pickle is we overleveraged ourselves and have let the government control too much. Both of those issues can be resolved given time.


#23 -  "Don't you think that even poor people have the right to a doctor????"

Of course I believe that everyone has a right to see a doctor no matter their economic situation. Yesh! No one should be denied treatment. Many of the problems arise from the affordability of healthcare. The affordability of healthcare is effected by how doctors and hospitals charge for service and how the insurance industry is regulated by individual state law. It is currently a complicated costly mess that needs to be hammered out. As a point of fact my primary care physician sent me a letter this week to let me know that she will not take my insurance after the end of this year because the insurer would not sit with her to renegotiate their arrangement. It is no longer profitable enough for my doctor to continue seeing patients with my insurance. Isn't that interesting? Medicade, our existing socialized half of healthcare, will pay her more to see patients than my private insurer.


#24 - Nice reply.

Report this comment
#26) On September 04, 2009 at 1:10 PM, moerequity (< 20) wrote:



I have a friend who is a doctor and he has done his share of free care. Do I feel everyone has the right to care? Yes. However we are kidding ourselves if we don't realize there are limits. You can not possibly care for everyone equally. There will always be an inequality issue between the haves and the have nots. Or you need to ration care and determine the best use of a finite amount of money.

Ask these questions?

Why is tort reform off the table?

Why are insurance companies immune to the antitrust laws?

Why are we limited to where and who we buy insurance form?

Why is it so expensive to buy individual insurance?

Why is the government making it more difficult for charities to run hospitals?

Why can an insurance company pinch doctors when they have huge employers that dictate the premiums they will pay and therefore dictate benefits to the doctors?

There are so many ways to improve health care but don't fool yourself into thinking England and Canada our great systems and they care about their people more. There is only so much money to be used for health care. 


Report this comment
#27) On September 04, 2009 at 1:15 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Medicade = Medicaid

#24 - I don't completely agree with you point of view but you made your point effectively without resorting to name calling. Kudos.

Report this comment
#28) On September 04, 2009 at 1:23 PM, kaskoosek (30.24) wrote:

There should be inequality, but I think that a poor person should at least be provided with what is very basic. That is minimal health care services.


If you have the money, then you have the right to choose your own doctor. Why should we deny a poor person the right to live.


Sorry, but this is much more different than a car, or other forms of services. This is a necessity. Even education is not a necessacity. 

Report this comment
#29) On September 04, 2009 at 1:35 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I like how Kaskoosek apologized for calling those of us in the USA "uncivilized". (Sarcasm)


Report this comment
#30) On September 04, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Rehydrogenated (33.38) wrote:

I dunno, I work in the construction industry. We offer great healthcare to our employees which costs the company way too much. Our competitors dont offer healthcare and just pay their people a higher hourly wage to make up for it. We lose a lot of employees to our competitors because they think they would rather have more money to spend on beer. In the past 6 months i've heard at least 50 stories about ex-employees who got hurt, couldn't pay the medical bills, and lost their homes.

Some people think the state shouldn't protect people from themselves. Some people think other people are idiots who we need to keep alive so wages are affordable.

I'm with the latter people. Your health is only important when you lose it.

Report this comment
#31) On September 04, 2009 at 5:47 PM, davejh23 (< 20) wrote:

I don't know how this turned into a healthcare discussion.  Some have mentioned that we don't need government-run healthcare, and I agree.  However, I also agree that everyone has a right to basic care.  Does our current system deny basic care to the uninsured?  No.  In fact, our current system often provides excellent care to the unisured at no cost.  I have a son that was born prematurely and spent over a month in the hospital.  Many other parents in the NICU didn't have insurance.  Does the hospital send collections agencies after these families, or garnish their wages to collect the $100K+ they're owed?  No.  They often don't collect a single penny.  Why did my insurance pay the annual salary of four nurses for my son's 5 week stay in the hospital?  Because the insured are already paying for the uninsured.  If a government option starts covering all of the uninsured, are my premiums going to be cut in half overnight?  I doubt it.  The insured wealthy will still be paying for the uninsured through higher taxes.  Is this the best way to provide basic care for all?  I don't believe so.  I remember when clinics that served the uninsured were spread throughout my town.  Basic care was available for all, and nobody was turned away from the hospital, as is the case today.  All of these clinics are gone today...shut down because of the threat of malpractice suits and the excessive cost of malpractice insurance.  There's one area for reform.  As others have mentioned, there is so much room for reform without government taking control of individual's healthcare.  Based on the government's management of existing healthcare programs, the promises of a deficit neutral government healthcare option is laughable...that doesn't mean that I don't think meaningful change can, and should, be made.

Report this comment
#32) On September 04, 2009 at 11:01 PM, 119862913 wrote:

Fun to watch Denninger. His arguements would have made sense in the 80's or 90's. He might have actually swayed some of the knuckleheads who actually did this thing to our nation to STOP. That time is past. They're going to monetize the debt and the more leverage the companies have (so long as they survive) the better for them.

Is this too simple an analysis? No doubt it is. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners