by pedalling_faster » Thu 12 Mar 2009, 15:44:14
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('firestarter', 'A')lso, his blaming of the bezzle (and by extension, Obama) as the reason we've sold off is ridiculous. The bezzle is the fuel for the bull over the past 20 years in case he didn't notice. To imply that removing it will prevent a meltdown is preposterous. In fact it's the opposite. Removing the bezzle will accelerate the downturn even more. Sheesh. Actually it just gives him cover to disproportionately blame Obama in screed after screed for the mess we're in.
i thought the relevant definition of the "bezzle" is, in the case of financial fraud, until the fraud is discovered, the fraudster has the extra money they extracted from the "fraudee", and the fraudee has the property they purchased in the transaction. the difference between the honest price and the "fraud price" is, approximately, the "bezzle".
well, anyway, if you dig through Denninger's stuff you will find his formal definition.
in any case, i thought "getting rid of the bezzle" is a way of saying, getting rid of the fraud. like cutting out the cancer, e.g. incarcerating every financial industry pig-person who has knowingly scammed their customers.
what's wrong with that ?
after their recent experience finding out that American financial products ain't quite so great, i would expect other countries to begin thinking twice before loaning the US money. given that many of our concerns about financial collapse relate directly to the financing of US debt, it's logical to think that other countries will be increasingly reluctant to finance US debt until they see that the US is behaving honestly again.
which means getting rid of the bezzle, to use Denninger-speak.