Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I was listening to an interview with economist Robert Kuttner today where he cited the banker's concept of 3,6,3. Up until thirty years ago, as the idea goes, a banker would pay 3% interest, make 6% on a loan, and hit the golf course by 3:00 pm.

Expanding on the thread about nationalizing the oil industry, treating it the same as a public utility, what purpose do bankers serve the greater good beyond the 3,6,3?

I sometimes wonder what purpose you serve.

CitadelGrad wrote:I sometimes wonder what purpose you serve.

To encourage thought amongst the narrow minded who ask questions like yours.

kalm wrote:I was listening to an interview with economist Robert Kuttner today where he cited the banker's concept of 3,6,3. Up until thirty years ago, as the idea goes, a banker would pay 3% interest, make 6% on a loan, and hit the golf course by 3:00 pm.

Expanding on the thread about nationalizing the oil industry, treating it the same as a public utility, what purpose do bankers serve the greater good beyond the 3,6,3?

The concept of 3/6/3 went out the window (as you say) about 30 years ago. So what's your question?

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:I was listening to an interview with economist Robert Kuttner today where he cited the banker's concept of 3,6,3. Up until thirty years ago, as the idea goes, a banker would pay 3% interest, make 6% on a loan, and hit the golf course by 3:00 pm.

Expanding on the thread about nationalizing the oil industry, treating it the same as a public utility, what purpose do bankers serve the greater good beyond the 3,6,3?

The concept of 3/6/3 went out the window (as you say) about 30 years ago. So what's your question?

What good do banks provide the economy beyond that principle? Shouldn't banks be regulated more like utilities?

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:I sometimes wonder what purpose you serve.

To encourage thought amongst the narrow minded who ask questions like yours.

It isn't a question. It's a statement. If there is a question, it is rhetorical and I ask it only of myself. Asking you a question would be as useless as your response.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
To encourage thought amongst the narrow minded who ask questions like yours.

It isn't a question. It's a statement. If there is a question, it is rhetorical and I ask it only of myself. Asking you a question would be as useless as your response.

I'm quite certain that life for you is one big unending stream of statements, with very few questions.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
The concept of 3/6/3 went out the window (as you say) about 30 years ago. So what's your question?

What good do banks provide the economy beyond that principle? Shouldn't banks be regulated more like utilities?

They're a strong force against the natural tendency of nature to weed out the weak, stupid, and useless.

The credit they dissiminate to help people buy houses and cars has wrecked our natural environment. The money they lend to corporations and small businesses to expand and to get through tough times so they don't have to constantly lay people off has created way more wealthy than we really need.

*snicker*

kalm wrote:I was listening to an interview with economist Robert Kuttner today.....

One thing is for certain, you didn't learn anything by listening to that interview.

kalm wrote:I was listening to an interview with economist Robert Kuttner today where he cited the banker's concept of 3,6,3. Up until thirty years ago, as the idea goes, a banker would pay 3% interest, make 6% on a loan, and hit the golf course by 3:00 pm.

Expanding on the thread about nationalizing the oil industry, treating it the same as a public utility, what purpose do bankers serve the greater good beyond the 3,6,3?

Kuttner, eh? Were they playing the Internationale in the background? He makes Robert Reich look like Milton Friedman.

Sounds remarkably UNlike my father's 36 yr banking career.

ASUG8 wrote:Sounds remarkably UNlike my father's 36 yr banking career.

It's a gross over simplification to be sure. But the under lying point is that perhaps the banking industry has outsmarted itself and in the process put everyone else at risk for its mistakes.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:I was listening to an interview with economist Robert Kuttner today where he cited the banker's concept of 3,6,3. Up until thirty years ago, as the idea goes, a banker would pay 3% interest, make 6% on a loan, and hit the golf course by 3:00 pm.

Expanding on the thread about nationalizing the oil industry, treating it the same as a public utility, what purpose do bankers serve the greater good beyond the 3,6,3?

Kuttner, eh? Were they playing the Internationale in the background? He makes Robert Reich look like Milton Friedman.

Coincidentally that's the order of which those three understand the unintended consequences of laissez-faire economics. Kuttner saw it coming and Reich is running like hell from the Clinton deregulatory legacy. Too bad Friedman wasn't around long to enough to see it all come crumbling down. He'd be reluctantly apologizing like Greenspan.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

Kuttner, eh? Were they playing the Internationale in the background? He makes Robert Reich look like Milton Friedman.

Coincidentally that's the order of which those three understand the unintended consequences of laissez-faire economics. Kuttner saw it coming and Reich is running like hell from the Clinton deregulatory legacy. Too bad Friedman wasn't around long to enough to see it all come crumbling down. He'd be reluctantly apologizing like Greenspan.

Sorry, Friedman warned, preached, lectured for years that a government controlled and regulated economy would fail, and again he was proven right.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:

Kuttner, eh? Were they playing the Internationale in the background? He makes Robert Reich look like Milton Friedman.

Coincidentally that's the order of which those three understand the unintended consequences of laissez-faire economics. Kuttner saw it coming and Reich is running like hell from the Clinton deregulatory legacy. Too bad Friedman wasn't around long to enough to see it all come crumbling down. He'd be reluctantly apologizing like Greenspan.

Kuttner is just a socialist Cassandra. He's successfully predicted ten of the last three recessions. And Greenspan has always been more concerned about his own legacy than about sound economic policy. But kalm, you always want the last word on the threads that you start, so have at it.

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:Sounds remarkably UNlike my father's 36 yr banking career.

It's a gross over simplification to be sure. But the under lying point is that perhaps the banking industry has outsmarted itself and in the process put everyone else at risk for its mistakes.

Newsflash: Everyone was NOT at risk for ANY bank's mistakes until the Federal Government started bailing out banks.

ASUG8 wrote:Sounds remarkably UNlike my father's 36 yr banking career.

In my (so far) 15 year banking career I golf an average of about 4 times a year.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:
Coincidentally that's the order of which those three understand the unintended consequences of laissez-faire economics. Kuttner saw it coming and Reich is running like hell from the Clinton deregulatory legacy. Too bad Friedman wasn't around long to enough to see it all come crumbling down. He'd be reluctantly apologizing like Greenspan.

Kuttner is just a socialist Cassandra. He's successfully predicted ten of the last three recessions. And Greenspan has always been more concerned about his own legacy than about sound economic policy. But kalm, you always want the last word on the threads that you start, so have at it.

I'll make a deal with you Ive. The moment you reply with something of substance, I'll dignify your response by granting you the last word.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:

It's a gross over simplification to be sure. But the under lying point is that perhaps the banking industry has outsmarted itself and in the process put everyone else at risk for its mistakes.

Newsflash: Everyone was NOT at risk for ANY bank's mistakes until the Federal Government started bailing out banks.

Ya see Ive? That's a substantive point around which we can have a conversation.

The decision that both Bush and Obama faced was how bad things would have become had they not bailed out people like your buddy Blankfein. You're the P.O.T.U.S. surrounded by banking industry "experts" who tell you if you don't step in, the world will collapse. AZ thinks we should have taken the chance and let the dice fall where they may. I tend to agree, but don't envy the decision.

And still, no one answers the question...

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Kuttner is just a socialist Cassandra. He's successfully predicted ten of the last three recessions. And Greenspan has always been more concerned about his own legacy than about sound economic policy. But kalm, you always want the last word on the threads that you start, so have at it.

I'll make a deal with you Ive. The moment you reply with something of substance, I'll dignify your response by granting you the last word.

Waste of time, kalm. The only "substance" you recognize is controlled.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Newsflash: Everyone was NOT at risk for ANY bank's mistakes until the Federal Government started bailing out banks.

Ya see Ive? That's a substantive point around which we can have a conversation.

The decision that both Bush and Obama faced was how bad things would have become had they not bailed out people like your buddy Blankfein. You're the P.O.T.U.S. surrounded by banking industry "experts" who tell you if you don't step in, the world will collapse. AZ thinks we should have taken the chance and let the dice fall where they may. I tend to agree, but don't envy the decision.

And still, no one answers the question...

Kalm, the bigger issue than simply making a decision to "bail out banks", was the slippery slope we thus started down. Banks, insurance companies, car companies, etc., etc., etc. Now I hear commercials on the radio about how "you deserve to have your debt eliminated in this "bail out" era!"

Really? SERIOUSLY??? THAT'S the mindset of folks these days, and perhaps rightly so. If big business doesn't have to fly straight and take their lumps, why the FUCK should we? Unfortunately, it's a vicious circle.

Government pushes for home ownership at record levels (think "CRA")
Banks & Mortgage lenders make questionable loans to comply with gov't regulations (no redlining)
Loans are packaged together and slapped with a AAA rating
Banks (fighting for the consumer dollar) chase yield and buy up these AAA rated bonds
Housing bubble happens because of artificially high demand, causing consumers to default at record rates
Banks start failing at record rates because of their leveraged balance sheets filled with crappy CMO's
Banks get propped up by US Government
Consumer says "Hey, what about MY piece of the pie?"
Consumers start bailing on consumer debt (also held by....you guessed it.....BANKS) because it's their "right".
Bank losses continue to mount
Money supply tightens as underwriting guidelines are ratcheted down
Economy tanks as business don't have access to easy credit
Unemployment skyrockets, causing even MORE debt to be bailed on
Banks are prodded by the Government to "make more loans!" to kick start the economy
Banks make questionable loans

....and so on and so on.

Rinse and repeat.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Ya see Ive? That's a substantive point around which we can have a conversation.

The decision that both Bush and Obama faced was how bad things would have become had they not bailed out people like your buddy Blankfein. You're the P.O.T.U.S. surrounded by banking industry "experts" who tell you if you don't step in, the world will collapse. AZ thinks we should have taken the chance and let the dice fall where they may. I tend to agree, but don't envy the decision.

And still, no one answers the question...

Kalm, the bigger issue than simply making a decision to "bail out banks", was the slippery slope we thus started down. Banks, insurance companies, car companies, etc., etc., etc. Now I hear commercials on the radio about how "you deserve to have your debt eliminated in this "bail out" era!"

Really? SERIOUSLY??? THAT'S the mindset of folks these days, and perhaps rightly so. If big business doesn't have to fly straight and take their lumps, why the **** should we? Unfortunately, it's a vicious circle.

Government pushes for home ownership at record levels (think "CRA")
Banks & Mortgage lenders make questionable loans to comply with gov't regulations (no redlining)
Loans are packaged together and slapped with a AAA rating
Banks (fighting for the consumer dollar) chase yield and buy up these AAA rated bonds
Housing bubble happens because of artificially high demand, causing consumers to default at record rates
Banks start failing at record rates because of their leveraged balance sheets filled with crappy CMO's
Banks get propped up by US Government
Consumer says "Hey, what about MY piece of the pie?"
Consumers start bailing on consumer debt (also held by....you guessed it.....BANKS) because it's their "right".
Bank losses continue to mount
Money supply tightens as underwriting guidelines are ratcheted down
Economy tanks as business don't have access to easy credit
Unemployment skyrockets, causing even MORE debt to be bailed on
Banks are prodded by the Government to "make more loans!" to kick start the economy
Banks make questionable loans

....and so on and so on.

Rinse and repeat.

How does the government go about forcing you to make riskier loans?

You can't be serious.

Look up CRA and get back to me.