No, you failed to realize that "no collateral" is "not relevant"
No. I. Didn't. Now you're just putting words in my mouth to make claims with no standing.
Waaay up in this thread, I said that I make the distinction between assets and speculation. Assets are things of value that can produce value of themselves; speculative purchases depend upon the market for that commodity rising for their value.
An unsecured loan has no collateral. Duh. However, when a bank issues an unsecured loan to an unqualified borrower because that borrower happens to work at the bank and has an investment idea that has worked for other investors in the past, the loan is doomed to failure once the speculative asset loses its price momentum. I was not referring to reserve assets there, I was referring to the purchase being an asset that could, if collapse came, be liquidated by the borrower to help pay the loan. This type of loan would be a Ponzi type in Minski's three tiered quality index, the lowest type.
Talking about Keen (and where he goes wrong from Minksy) is a whole other discussion. I don't want to get into it because I've had this discussion with you already. I know its not productive.
I would have to agree, if only because every time I link to a specific Keen quote with a specific refutation of something you say, you ignore it entirely rather than point out what you feel to be the failings in his argument. That way, I learn nothing new, you consider nothing new, and no one gets to progress one inch beyond his own preconceptions. Progress!
Given that the last time you dismissed Keen, rather than type one word (as you state above) about "where he goes wrong from Minsky"—which you never did, by the way—you railed on about his lack of an ooga-booga prize and his ickiness in general, so I'm going to close here and assume more of the same.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-04-25 07:34 pm (UTC)No. I. Didn't. Now you're just putting words in my mouth to make claims with no standing.
Waaay up in this thread, I said that I make the distinction between assets and speculation. Assets are things of value that can produce value of themselves; speculative purchases depend upon the market for that commodity rising for their value.
An unsecured loan has no collateral. Duh. However, when a bank issues an unsecured loan to an unqualified borrower because that borrower happens to work at the bank and has an investment idea that has worked for other investors in the past, the loan is doomed to failure once the speculative asset loses its price momentum. I was not referring to reserve assets there, I was referring to the purchase being an asset that could, if collapse came, be liquidated by the borrower to help pay the loan. This type of loan would be a Ponzi type in Minski's three tiered quality index, the lowest type.
Talking about Keen (and where he goes wrong from Minksy) is a whole other discussion. I don't want to get into it because I've had this discussion with you already. I know its not productive.
I would have to agree, if only because every time I link to a specific Keen quote with a specific refutation of something you say, you ignore it entirely rather than point out what you feel to be the failings in his argument. That way, I learn nothing new, you consider nothing new, and no one gets to progress one inch beyond his own preconceptions. Progress!
Given that the last time you dismissed Keen, rather than type one word (as you state above) about "where he goes wrong from Minsky"—which you never did, by the way—you railed on about his lack of an ooga-booga prize and his ickiness in general, so I'm going to close here and assume more of the same.
It's been fun. Until next time.