« Markets in everything | Main | Paraguay fact of the day »
Assorted links
1. New Zealand accidental millionaires run off.
2. Via Kottke, Dollar Redesign Project.
3. The threat of nuclear war; YouTube version here.
4. Stop your spouse from overspending.
5. But was there a compensating differential?
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 22, 2009 at 03:16 AM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
When I read about the accidental deposit I actually thought about, how, tempting as it might be, one would go about actually getting that money somewhere the bank who misplaced it can't get it. (because, I'm pretty sure most banks monitor at least the larger transactions pretty closely, and then international wire transfer takes time ...) so no wireing to switzerland or the cayman's, but withdrawing it in cash would also likely be noticed, if possible at short notice at all ... so not touching it is probably better ^^ even in this case, it seems like some part or maybe most of the money didn't actually leave the bank, so they now commited a crime for a much smaller sum ... not sure if that's worth being on the run (then again NZ $ is kinda weak anyway)
Posted by: flo at May 22, 2009 4:20:01 AM
The teaser for tonight's news here in NZ has an interview with the mother of the woman who took the money, saying how honest she is...
Posted by: Eric Crampton at May 22, 2009 4:48:32 AM
BBC Radio last night was saying that the couple made off with $6m of the $10m. I'm not sure how they pulled that off.
The story made me think about how much money it would take to walk away from my life. I'd value all of the social capital, credentials, etc. that I'd loose at $5-10m, so were I in this couples position I'm not sure what I would have done. Interestingly, though, given the chance I think I would be far less tempted to actively embezzle $10m from someone else's account.
Posted by: Aguirre at May 22, 2009 9:21:09 AM
3. Why bother with that when we have catastrophic global warming to occupy our minds with?
Posted by: Andrew at May 22, 2009 9:47:51 AM
Probably the best way to keep your spouse from overspending is to marry someone who is frugal to begin with.
Posted by: Ed at May 22, 2009 11:04:01 AM
To your comment that if your spouse won't curb free spending habits after being asked to review the bank accounts, you should consider separate accounts: here in the People's Republic of Michigan the divorce court often makes the higher-earning spouse pay any debts incurred by the lower-earning spouse, even if those debts were incurred without the higher earner knowing about them, let alone agreeing to become liable for them. People should be aware of this, preferably before they get married.
Posted by: Larry at May 22, 2009 11:12:43 AM
One way or the other, this marriage will be my last.
Posted by: Emily at May 22, 2009 11:56:42 AM
Megan Mcartle's article makes it clear why the recently passed credit restrictions are far better at dealing with debtors who exploit "the system" than the conservatives' restrictions on bankruptcy.
The argument for the restriction on bankruptcy from the banks was to make it possible for banks to continue making credit lines easy to get - if it harder to declare bankruptcy, then banks don't need to worry about handing out credit to irresponsible people because they have a long time to extract fees and interest from the people before they can declare bankruptcy. And that allows the credit card debt to be securitized and sold to people who think the debt can't be shed by bankruptcy shifting the loss away from the bank reaping profits from fees and interest surcharges on bad debt.
On the other hand, the prohibitions on raising fees and interest rates to generate high profits while shifting the debt loss to the buyers of securitized credit card debt makes it impossible to discount the debt enough and still make high profits on bad debt. Thus, the only option the banks will have is to issue credit to only responsible borrowers who can and have a record of repaying their debt.
And that means that credit will be denied to the most important customers of the banks, the irresponsible serial bankruptcy declarers, and forced to deny them credit.
And we the public should be horrified that the liberals have interfered with the banks financial innovations, not to mention the fact that the liberals are going to deny credit to millions of Americans.
Posted by: mulp at May 22, 2009 1:11:02 PM
I'm a bit puzzled by tha last sentence. Are 'liberals' not a component of 'we the public'? If not, what are they?
Posted by: Phillip Capper at May 23, 2009 5:59:30 AM
Credit is a cancer. Everyone would be much better off if they were denied credit. It is a crime to loan money to people and profit from them, and in most cases take back the money and take back the house too.
Posted by: Mere at May 29, 2009 11:06:10 AM
