Economics for Dummies (2010)

Posted by: Don Atkinson on 05 November 2010

Economics for Dummies (2010)

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit. (sorry guys - the originator had to pick somwhere) She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such, can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem, she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed on a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result,
increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar. Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit .

By providing her customers' freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no
resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages. Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively. A young and dynamic vice-president at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders figure a way to make huge commissions,
and transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics. Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk manager at the original local bank
decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they
cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since, Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their
firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with having to write off her bad debt
and with losing over 90% of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier also claims bankruptcy, closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds used for this bailout are replenished by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.

Hope you now understand economics in 2010. (I don't know the origin of this simplistic summary, but I hope it helps)

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 05 November 2010 by Adam Meredith
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds used for this bailout are replenished by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.


Whenever the Government is being "generous" it's "government money for ..." when they are being profligate it's "tax payer's money".

There is no such thing as government money.
Posted on: 05 November 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
There is no such thing as government money.

I think, as tax-payers, most of us would agree. Even a few politicians and one or two government ministers might agree.

However, I have this funny feeling that once the Inland Revenue, Vat-man, fuel-tax man, Customs & Excise etc etc have collected OUR money, THEY percieve it as GOVERNMENT money, even if morally/legally it might still be OUR money which we entrust to GOVERNMENT to use wisely for our collective benefit.

I don't imagine this is just semantics, but i'm no expert.

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 05 November 2010 by naim_nymph
Don

I think you’ll actually find that Governments now perceive it as the Banks Money...

You must understand that without the hideously greedy corporate capitalist structure that demands huge salaries with whopping great corruptly-calculated bonuses for the boys in top jobs, and with double-dipping tax avoidance measures of using tax payers money, then society would simply disintegrate back to primitive life forms of the Cretaceous period, and worse... we may all lose are credit rating.

Debs
Posted on: 05 November 2010 by JamieWednesday
Yes, the business mantra of recent times, "Never mind the quality, feel the width..."
Posted on: 05 November 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
I think you’ll actually find that Governments now perceive it as the Banks Money...

You have a point.

Yesterday it was MY money. Today a big chunk of it was collected by the government (I bought some petrol!). Tomorrow the government will hand it to the banks. Next week the banks will divi it up amonst the top directors. This will rectify the underlying problem suffered by bank managers who lost out big-time financially when the jobless alcoholics couldn't repay their loans.........

Simple.

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 06 November 2010 by naim_nymph
Now do you want to know what is really causing the deficit...?

CHANNEL 4 - Dispatches: How the Rich beat the Taxman (48 mins)
How do the rich avoid paying tax and protect their fortunes? Dispatches reveals the clever devices they use...
http://www.channel4.com/progra...spatches/4od#3129949

BBC Radio 4 - File On 4: A Taxing Delemma (38 mins)
Michael Robinson reveals loopholes which let big businesses slash their UK tax bills...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/c...n_4_A_Taxing_Dilemma

Be careful!

What you learn on either of these two programmes can make a hard working honest tax paying person very angry!

But remember what the Tories say, "We're all in this TOGETHER!"

Which is very true when you consider they are getting very rich by robbing us!

Debs
Posted on: 07 November 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government. The funds used for this bailout are replenished by new taxes levied on employed, middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.

OK, as I indicated before, this is a bit of an over-simplification.

Some of the banks were bailed out by government (eg RBS) but others sought, and got, cash from elsewhere (eg Barclays from the Gulf States). Seems like the Gulf States have already recovered their investment with satisfactory interest from Barclays - i'm sure you'll correct me if i'm wrong. How come the UK government hasn't anounced significant returns from (say) RBS - or perhaps I missed it. Such returns might have avoided the need for a CSR?

The CSR was, nevertheless, needed anyway IMHO. More importantly however, IMHO, we needed a Comprehensive Wealth-Creation Review. It sort-of got mentioned a few weeks ago. Any body heard any more about it, or better still, anybody got any bright ideas?

Cheers

Don
Posted on: 07 November 2010 by Happy Listener
Don - we mustn't lose sight in all this:

1- the Gov't had already taken us to the rim of our o/d facility before they acted to bail the banks out - hardly prudential, albeit rafts of economists were predicting calm waters ahead.

2- I strongly suspect HMG will make a 'tidy profit' on exit from the banks - but they can only sell down the stakes once the banks' profit and loss accounts are strongly back in the black (suspect not before 2012/3).

The worrying factor now is that Cameron has hinted that HMG may retain 'strategic' stakes - which you could read as the banks involved becoming part of fiscal policy.

3- given many market investors relied upon ratings agencies (as the financial diagnostitions of the 'alcoholics'), the latter appear to have walked away from the whole picture unscathed. A pile of dung, when made bigger, remains a pile of dung...the smell just gets bigger.

This whole play will only fall to be analysed in history - and the Chinese must be laughing their socks off that rampant capitalism can create such a mess.
Posted on: 07 November 2010 by Don Atkinson
quote:
1- the Gov't had already taken us to the rim of our o/d facility ............quote]

Agreed. This is why I consider the CSR was necessary. It should also help us cut cut unecessary bureacracy and jobs from the civil service. And help us focus on what we realy NEED to spend our hard-earnd wealth on. (i'm an optomist!)

[quote]1-I strongly suspect HMG will make a 'tidy profit' on exit from the banks - but they can only sell down the stakes once the banks' profit and loss accounts are strongly back in the black (suspect not before 2012/3).


Again, I agree. But Barclays seem to have already repaid the stakes taken out by the Gulf States. So, if Barclays can (apparantly) do it, why not the RSB? Every £ paid back by the banks, is a £ less tax for the rest of us to hand over.

My other main concern is the lack of any obvious government-led initiatives of wealth creation (in the UK).

Cheers

Don

PS apologies for messing up the "Quotes" and "replies"