ERICOPOLY

In my example, the profits and reserves from the New York arm are used in lieu of FDIC reserves to handle the failure of the California arm. You wouldn't even need an FDIC if there was only one big large bank (and no other banks at all). The FDIC system gains increased relevancy when the banking system becomes more fragmented. And it came to pass during a period in which the banking system was more fragmented. Go figure.

It solves the moral hazard. Tiny banks are the ones that draw on the FDIC's reserves when they fail. The big banks pay a lot of money towards establishing those FDIC reserves. You can see where this is leading... the small banks aren't paying their own fare. This interference with the free market creates moral hazard. I would like to see your support on this data point. I am not certain this is true when given the largest failures drive much larger losses given the way the FDIC bidding process is organized. I knew you were joking. I just reminded me of how "stupid" people are being to encourage banks to once again get smaller and increase their leverage. Lots of small leveraged banks put together is the same as... a large leveraged bank. The large banks today are exactly that -- the result of lots of small banks joined together. I think it's better to have a less-leveraged large bank than a more-leveraged large bank. We've currently got the less-leveraged large bank version -- don't force them to split themselves up.

Yes of course I am making the assumption. I'm not spending my time compiling comprehensive studies to back my intuition for such a no-brainer. I am a small investor. I feel much safer investing in Bank of America with it's broad product offerings spread across the country/world... versus say the local community "Bank of Sacramento "(if there is such a thing) which is going to struggle having loans repaid if the levees burst on the Sacramento River Delta (which is actually predicted to be a large risk, much bigger than the flooding of New Orleans). Or if they undergo some other localized economic shock. I just don't understand the mentality of thinking it's less risky to go small and leveraged. Bank of America can withstand the legal bills of Countrywide, but Countrywide cannot withstand the legal bills of Countrywide.

Let's say that one large bank (that was destined to fail at some point) was instead split into 10,000 separate firms. We get to that day when the economy is weak and that large firm would have failed. A few questions: Will the 10,000 separate firms all survive, or will thousands of them be failing? Will it be simpler to deal with thousands of failing firms, versus just one? Will it be cheaper to deal with thousands of failing firms, versus just one? Will it be less pressure on FDIC reserves to deal with thousands of failing firms, versus just one? And you think about that large single bank... there is a tipping point where it fails. Before that failure though, you have a low-profit or break-even situation. Nothing is going to the FDIC at that point. But if you have lots of itty-bitty banks, you have thousands going to the FDIC already. I forget which book it was about the Great Depression, but they mentioned that one of the problems was that the banking system was very fragmented. It was an overwhelming amount of paperwork and meetings to administer all over the country with so many individual banks failing. It would have been easier to deal with if you have fewer phone numbers to dial.

It appears to be the government's goal to: discourage diversification (force only the highly diversified firms to deleverage) allow higher leverage if you are less diversified (allow higher leverage only at the relatively less diversified firms)

It solves the moral hazard. Tiny banks are the ones that draw on the FDIC's reserves when they fail. The big banks pay a lot of money towards establishing those FDIC reserves. You can see where this is leading... the small banks aren't paying their own fare. This interference with the free market creates moral hazard. I would like to see your support on this data point. I am not certain this is true when given the largest failures drive much larger losses given the way the FDIC bidding process is organized. A larger more diversified portfolio is inherently safer. A less leveraged portfolio is inherently safer. Small banks are relatively less diversified (fewer products spread among less-diverse geography) Small banks are more heavily leveraged (the government penalizes large firms with higher capital and supplementary leverage ratios) Now, if you shatter a Bank of America into thousands of tiny pieces, you'll get some pieces concentrated in New York lending, and some pieces concentrated in California lending. There will be times when the New York economy is booming and California is in a bad recession. At this time, the California pieces will be going into FDIC hands, and the New York pieces will be as profitable as ever. Instead, under the current system, the loan losses of Bank of America attributed from a bad recession in California is buffered by the fat profits from the New York arm of Bank of America. The FDIC sits around bored. So highly fragmented banking means an active FDIC that is handling a lot of small banks failing (in an environment where many are flourishing), versus highly concentrated banking where the losses are just being absorbed by gains elsewhere.

Also, I suspect the price weakness has a lot to do with the direction of the 10-year yield. It's headed south quite a bit over the past 5 months.

Out of 28 analyst estimates for BAC's 2015 earnings, we have a low estimate of $1.33 and a high estimate of $1.79. Who is forecasting $1.33? I wonder if that changes with this "last" big settlement landing in 2014.

His thinking is in line with mine. Heaven is a psychological state you experience in this life, and so is hell. You don't wait to die to experience hell, or heaven. Therefore, these religions that just forgive you automatically for doing sins should not be misconstrued as a free hall pass.

So proselytizing then would make the drug even more powerful, because your prayers would become more effective if everyone around you agrees that God is the most powerful being in the universe. So powerful that he even created the universe. The more everyone repeats the same thing, then the more success you'll have convincing your mind that you are conversing with the single most powerful social connection in the universe. Thus, you get rewarded with the most powerful dose of brain chemicals possible for a social conversation. Even though it's a make-believe one. You need others to believe in order to help you believe even harder -- the "social proof" effect. Thus, somebody of another religion, if converted or killed off, will either increase your belief if converted (and thus your chemical reward) or will prevent your faith from being shaken by counterarguments (if killed). I don't know if singing a song like "I've Got a Friend Named Jesus" carries the same sort of psychological importance as the typical name dropping that goes on (I went to a dinner party and met the President!).

Expanding on that idea, I believe as humans we want to feel a social connection to important or powerful people. Some sort of instinct to be running with the strongest, perhaps. Social climbers exhibit this. So by "conversing" with the most powerful of all, the All Mighty, we just increase the amount of pleasure by having this special friend that we talk to. The more powerful you make him up to be, the better the psychological reward ought to be.

I haven't ever done so sincerely. However, there is convincing evidence that it would enrich me psychologically (what others call "spiritually"): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/18/how-does-prayer-meditation-affect-brain-activity_n_1974621.html When praying, you are being tickled by the "feel good" brain chemicals that reward you for social behavior (see, now we're back to the social instincts thing). Sort of like how you can have sexual pleasure without a partner I guess, you can also have conversational pleasure without a partner. Some form of conversational masturbation.

The Egyptian civilization and religion existed much longer then christianity. Yet barely anyone is talking about it now. There are some really strange things about the bible. For example the tower of bable. They build a tower towards god, so god punishes them for reaching that far into the sky and let them all speak a different language. Now several thousand years later, NASA comes along... Arc of Noah. Why the hell flood the earth? Why make the one guy who did things right suffer for your fuck up by making him build a impossibly large ship. Your god you can do anything... Not to speak about the logical fallacy that God is allmighty and knows everything. Yet multiple times he messes up his creation. And fails to see 'bugs' in his creation. Everyone knows that if you tell someone not to do something they will do it due to how the brain processes language. ::) And then the second time he fks up again with arc of noah. Yeah a brilliant all foreseeing god alright. And finally it turns out people are still bad! Yet now god says, aawww fk it. I give up. No more mass murders. Very consistent and whise alright. Not to say, he is suposed to be an all good god. Yet when one of his creations makes the equivalent mistake of a child taking candy without asking, he kicks them out of paradise. That is like kicking your 5 year old out of your house when he takes candy without asking... Very forgiving and reasonable God alright. I think you can safely say that the bible is mostly bullshit and that this version of god does not exist. No offense but you are a fking idiot if you believe in the god of the bible. And I do not respect your belief and I think your an idiot. Saying anything else would be sugar coating it. If someone tells me they believe in any current religion then I will think much less of them. They are the equivalent of the idiot in the local looney bin claiming he is santa claus. Except this form of insanity is somehow socially accepted. And yeah I am very annoyed by religion, my parents are extremists who tried to jam this crap down my throat during my child hood so that is why I have this irrational dislike towards relgious people. The amount of hypocracy I saw... :o I agree with the Tower of Babel. One would thing, if a tower that large existed, there would be something of it still around. I suppose you think Prem Watsa and John Templeton are idiots then. They are/were both Christians. I believe psychology can rule out somebody being an "idiot" for their beliefs in these matters. Social proof (for one thing) can be a powerful thing. There are many, many reasons for why we believe the things we do.

Would you be opposed to changing the language on the dollar bill to read: "In God We Don't Trust" For the record, I oppose it just as much as I oppose the current statement of "In God We Trust". Get rid of it, get rid of the "One nation Under God" crap too, and maybe, just maybe you'll get your wish of these atheist billboards going away. The atheist billboards are retaliatory -- it's fortunate the atheists show more restraint than the Missourians who forced the proselytizing Mormons out of Missouri at gunpoint..

There is a "network effect" element to it. Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways. For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions. Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed. Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership. Well, I'd counter that to say if God wasn't at work, the religions would stay relatively small. After all, if God is gonna interact in someway, chances are the results are gonna be pretty large. :P Then why the need to send armies of people to the doorsteps of our private homes to recruit us? How about the major religions instituting a self-imposed ban on proselytizing? See how that works out for the theory that they grow due to the greatness of God. It feels more like they grow due to an army of door-to-door salesmen. If I had to guess, it's more of a maturing process. By sharing the faith, it helps with human bonding. If He does everything automatically, not a whole lot of learning would be done. Do you then not agree that atheist billboards are just trying to aid in human bonding, and without them the learning would not happen?

There is now a 400 mile range battery EV. The Tesla Roadster: http://www.gtspirit.com/2014/08/15/tesla-roadster-to-receive-new-battery-pack-with-400-mile-range/ “The Roadster had an old generation battery. We’ll upgrade it to a new generation battery pack and it should have a range of about 400 miles, which will allow you to drive from LA to San Francisco non-stop,” he said.

There's a great Mythbusters on that topic:

There is a "network effect" element to it. Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways. For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions. Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed. Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership. Well, I'd counter that to say if God wasn't at work, the religions would stay relatively small. After all, if God is gonna interact in someway, chances are the results are gonna be pretty large. :P Then why the need to send armies of people to the doorsteps of our private homes to recruit us? How about the major religions instituting a self-imposed ban on proselytizing? See how that works out for the theory that they grow due to the greatness of God. It feels more like they grow due to an army of door-to-door salesmen.

There is a "network effect" element to it. Or perhaps that's the wrong term... anyways. rather, something more like "social proof". For example, your belief is apparently reinforced by the occurrence of Jesus in two major religions. Were these to be minor religions, you would not be impressed. Thus, it's like a snowball that gets more impressive as it grows membership.

That's awesome! So it is scientifically possible for a God to exist. Now then, we just need to work on what created God.

Dolly's a clone. Identical twins are clones too. Some DNA edits and we'll perhaps have a new species. This new species will then have a creator. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/health/a-powerful-new-way-to-edit-dna.html?_r=0 Then there will be evidence of God -- the new creator will be God, even if none exists today.

Dolly the Sheep has a unique perspective on creationism.

I don't know, but if you buy a Tesla you'll not only have a blast driving it around, but you're investing in the planet at the same time (the more that are purchased... the sooner GM itself will mass-produce long-range electric cars... and the sooner we get off of oil dependency). My entire adult life (I was 17 when the US got involved in Iraq-Kuwait) has been tainted by nearly constant war. I can only hope that by the time my children are adults we've put an end to oil wars. It's just... you can spend the money on yourself while serving a greater cause at the same time. Yes, I could have spent $40,000 less and hoarded the extra cash... prudent? Or perhaps I've just found a self-serving way to "give" -- created jobs in California (my local community) while also hopefully cutting down on future violence (oil wars), and meanwhile perhaps being on the right side of the carbon debate (future generations). In doing so, I'm also having a great time. However, I don't get my name put on a placard... there is no ribbon cutting ceremony... I'm not hailed as a great philanthropist with my name on a foundation... well, my ego will just have to survive by gaining socially elevating points some other way. Or if there is a job at home that needs to get done, pay someone to do it. Creating a job in your community is not shamefull -- sure you could clean your own house and your work ethic makes you feel guilty for giving the job to another.... but why don't you go on a strenuous hike instead?

The conclusion of the war was arrived at when the Allies began targeting women and children directly. They became the primary targets. Killed by the hundreds of thousands. On purpose. Bin Laden did that to a few thousand, and it was called... terrorism.

Perhaps one can if one is less attached to one's family. One can feel varying degrees of guilt based on level of attachment. Me, for example, I don't go in to work and so I'm less likely to have a romance at the office. Thus, it would have to be a more conscious decision for me -- I wouldn't already be in love with the other woman. I think many times the person falls in love with the younger woman from the office, then leaves. That makes it easier from the guilt perspective as a new attachment has formed already -- they already have that new social bond. I've never seen that. It's far less prevalent, let's put it that way. Like for example, it's not written on every single dollar bill in circulation. And it's not recited by children in public schools. I mean, that's plain unnecessary and ridiculous. Of course they do. I was commenting that the "missionaries" coming to my house to recruit me are not risking their lives... however I joked that perhaps on some doorsteps they are (the angry guy with the "get the hell off my land" complex).