A thought for the day, or maybe the decade

The following is from a copyrighted newsletter by Bill Bonner.  I find it so insightful that I have to pass it on.  I sure hope it’s “fair use” under the copyright laws:

Neither limits nor adversity are what ruin men. Under pressure, they handle themselves pretty well. It’s the lack of limits they can’t handle. That’s when they run amok. So, if you really want to see what a man is made of let him think he can get away with something.

How true!  And how much of our recent past this explains.  Perhaps such reflections will make it easier to embrace the coming adversity.


6 Responses to “A thought for the day, or maybe the decade”

  1. George Peacock Says:

    Seems to be the argument for regulation.

  2. Ken Metcalfe Says:

    Highly doubtful from Bonner…

    Far more the lack of any interference in the market–especially the moronic variety generally prescribed by government.

    In the financial services industry, for one example of our recent (and long-to-continue) troubles, we long ago set up a system where the liability side of the balance sheet was insured against failure (depositor insurance, quasi-governmental status such as Fannie Mae, etc.), while the asset side was left pretty much alone. Add human nature to this situation and you’re bound to get some pretty wild speculation on the asset side, knowing the Feds are a backstop on all your liabilities.

    Add to that mix some non-sensical regs, e.g., those requiring the lowering of loan standards to increase the borrower pool to include borrowers with no business borrowing.

    Throw in some too-big-to-fail mentality and, of course, the piece de resistance–the ability to create all the “money” you need to cover your bad bets, and voila…

    The only thing the world-improvers could hope and want to do in such a circumstance is to convince everyone that the original cause of the fiasco was the free market run amok, and what is needed is for big brother to come in and save the people with a whole bunch of new “regulations” to try to counter those that insidiously caused the problems in the first place…

    If not the very last person, Bill would certainly be near the end of the line supporting such nonsense (if in fact he could be somehow enticed into such a line at all…)


    • Steve Grannis Says:

      I’m not familiar with Bill Bonner but Lord Acton taught us the main lesson in fewer words.

    • Timothy Peach Says:

      Ken is saying that you lied about the Bonner quote, Granulous.

      Well, lied is a strong word. The possibilities are:

      – You flat out lied
      – You misquoted him somehow, insinuating that you can’t read or were drunk or got a doctored article or whatnot
      – You changed your own name to Bill Bonner, which would be understandable as the name “Granulous” must be a source of endless annoyance
      – Bill Bonner is sending out two newsletters. One to people like Ken, who get it, and the other to people like you, with whom he can mess with impunity.

      So which one is it, Granulous…. I mean, Bill?

      • Ken Metcalfe Says:

        The old reading challenge. (I really have to check in here more often… :-)

        Your little diatribe here, Tim, might make some sense, had I been replying to Mark. But my reply was to GEORGE’S reply to Mark, which was:

        “Seems to be the argument for regulation.”

        So Mark was right on with Bonner–and you unnecessarily used up some time that might have been better spent elsewhere—like looking for some gold and guns to buy… :-)

  3. Nierman Says:

    I thought Bonner was writing about Tiger Woods.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: