Banker's Magazine

[metalman]

i'll just leave this here...

“Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

"When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers.

"This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance.

"Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." - Banker's Magazine, August 25, 1924

[D-Mack]

Re: Banker's Magazine

The Fed's Political Problem

Summary --
As the financial crisis continues, the U.S. Congress is considering a bill that would jeopardize the independence of the Federal Reserve. This is a shame. Monetary policy should be protected from congressional politics.





In the midst of the ongoing financial crisis, Congress is now considering a bill that would subject the Federal Reserve to congressional audits. It would be a shame to let that happen. Some functions of government properly belong in the realm of technocracy (for example, drug approvals), and others belong in the realm of politics (for example, same-sex marriage). I first argued in the November/December 1997 issue of Foreign Affairs that the U.S. government was placing too many decisions in the political realm and too few in the technocratic one. In the 12 years since, I have become increasingly convinced of this.


The thought back then was inspired by the apparent success of the Federal Reserve System. A noteworthy creation of the Progressive Era, the Fed was designed to conduct monetary policy on decidedly nonpolitical grounds: it has only a vague legal mandate from Congress -- to pursue both "stable prices" and "maximum employment" -- and nearly complete discretion to fulfill its mission as it sees fit. Over the years, the Fed, protected from partisan political concerns, has been able to run a very capable -- which is not to say perfect -- monetary policy, almost certainly keeping inflation lower than politicians would have. Yet, despite this success, few, if any, U.S. government agencies today enjoy anything remotely close to the Fed's degree of insulation from politics. Maybe, I suggested in 1997, more should.


http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...itical-problem


Talking about gay mariage, yes.... but about monetary policies ?

[mmr]

Re: Banker's Magazine

For what it's worth, the investment bankers with whom I used to work were far too focused on maximizing their share of the bonus pool to worry about world domination. The bankers would have to be willing to look more than six months into the future to execute a plan like that, and of course they would need to be able to set aside their personal agendas and work together (ha.) Very few were willing to expend that amount of mental energy, which could be far better spent on real estate speculation for their personal accounts.

Still, I worry about America's future when we can't even execute a half-decent imperialist conspiracy anymore - that used to be our specialty.

[metalman]

Re: Banker's Magazine

For what it's worth, the investment bankers with whom I used to work were far too focused on maximizing their share of the bonus pool to worry about world domination. The bankers would have to be willing to look more than six months into the future to execute a plan like that, and of course they would need to be able to set aside their personal agendas and work together (ha.) Very few were willing to expend that amount of mental energy, which could be far better spent on real estate speculation for their personal accounts.

Still, I worry about America's future when we can't even execute a half-decent imperialist conspiracy anymore - that used to be our specialty.

investment bankers are sales guys. they ain't paid to worry about business 5 or 10 years away but rather closing biz in the pipeline for bonus/commission.

now... mgt on the other hand needs a strategy... see above :cool:

[Jay]

Re: Banker's Magazine

For what it's worth, the investment bankers with whom I used to work were far too focused on maximizing their share of the bonus pool to worry about world domination. The bankers would have to be willing to look more than six months into the future to execute a plan like that, and of course they would need to be able to set aside their personal agendas and work together (ha.) Very few were willing to expend that amount of mental energy, which could be far better spent on real estate speculation for their personal accounts.

Still, I worry about America's future when we can't even execute a half-decent imperialist conspiracy anymore - that used to be our specialty.

They aren't the world's leading financiers, likely. It's the guys above them who have the time and perspective to think in this manner. Think of the equivalent of the crew that formed the Federal Reserve and the thought process that got their representatives to meet on Jekyll Island. Those type of men still exist.

Edit: or what MM just said.

[jtabeb]

Re: Banker's Magazine

i'll just leave this here...

“Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

"When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers.

"This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance.

"Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished." - Banker's Magazine, August 25, 1924

Do you have a source document or link to one? Much as I like these quotes, it can do harm not to research the source, so that's why I ask.

[metalman]

Re: Banker's Magazine

Do you have a source document or link to one? Much as I like these quotes, it can do harm not to research the source, so that's why I ask.

it's floated around the internets last two days... so it must be true!

[bcassill]

Re: Banker's Magazine

MM,

I'm going to do one better than you in the cynicism department. See the problem with the magazine quote is that you have to assume that there exists a group of people who really know what they are doing. This goes against the very nature of human existence. Call it "Reversion to the Mean of Stupidity" if you will. Sure, there are the Master's of the Universe who believe they are brilliant, but much of their success can be explained by sheer luck and good timing. That and being just smart enough to keep from being totally incompetent to screw up a good thing though that happens too.

No, business is not about getting things right. It's about trying to minimize the number of truly bone headed decisions. Do this enough and you might be lucky to actually turn a profit. This is particularly true in the largest of companies with lots of people/moving parts. This is why Communism failed (i.e. don't let people who aren't marginally smart enough to run a business make economic decisions). The same reason probably applies to why the field of Economics got it so wrong.

I got a graduate degree in I/O Psych, and out of all the research stuff I read how to hire, train, develop, motivate, and organize people toward higher levels of productivity, I think that "The Dilbert Principle" by Scott Adams is the best management theory book in existence which tells you pretty much what a truly sad, sad world we live in.

[Crazyfingers]

Re: Banker's Magazine

Imperialism in America: its rise and progress

By Sarah E. Van De Vort Emery

page 72

[bpr]

Re: Banker's Magazine

Imperialism in America: its rise and progress

By Sarah E. Van De Vort Emery

page 72

So, the source is the Chicago Daily Press, publishing an anonymous "dispatch from Wall Street, dated March 21, 1892."

Wow, this goes all the way to the top.:cool:

[metalman]

Re: Banker's Magazine

Imperialism in America: its rise and progress

By Sarah E. Van De Vort Emery

page 72

hey... that's not banker's magazine!

fred pls move to ran & rave. thx!

[metalman]

Re: Banker's Magazine

MM,

I'm going to do one better than you in the cynicism department. See the problem with the magazine quote is that you have to assume that there exists a group of people who really know what they are doing. This goes against the very nature of human existence. Call it "Reversion to the Mean of Stupidity" if you will. Sure, there are the Master's of the Universe who believe they are brilliant, but much of their success can be explained by sheer luck and good timing. That and being just smart enough to keep from being totally incompetent to screw up a good thing though that happens too.

No, business is not about getting things right. It's about trying to minimize the number of truly bone headed decisions. Do this enough and you might be lucky to actually turn a profit. This is particularly true in the largest of companies with lots of people/moving parts. This is why Communism failed (i.e. don't let people who aren't marginally smart enough to run a business make economic decisions). The same reason probably applies to why the field of Economics got it so wrong.

I got a graduate degree in I/O Psych, and out of all the research stuff I read how to hire, train, develop, motivate, and organize people toward higher levels of productivity, I think that "The Dilbert Principle" by Scott Adams is the best management theory book in existence which tells you pretty much what a truly sad, sad world we live in.

my experience agrees with your statement... and is the main reason i went freelance 10 yrs ago.