51–60 of 83 posts
Either that, or he will be me- a lucky satirist.
The problem is: Greenspan may very well be right in his assessment that Burry may just have been 'a supremely lucky flipper of coins'. There are thousands of people in similar positions making predictions about all kinds of phenomena. Whatever the outcome, there are always a number of predictions that are 'uncannily' close to that outcome. Unfortunately, these 'correct' predictions are only seldomly made by the same…
Saying someone was just a "supremely lucky flipper of coins" always seems like a cop out to me. It's not so much the fact that he was right but the reasons he gives for being right. He gives very good explanations for his reasoning and it was sound. Explain how his reasoning was not sound and then you can make statements about how he was just "super lucky." Otherwise you're just guessing about how lucky he is and tha…
Audit the fed: http://www.auditthefed.com/ Whereas: Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the U.S. Treasury have put the American taxpayer on the hook for over $12 trillion in bailouts and loans; and Whereas: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently refused to tell Congress who has received trillions in these funds from the Federal Reserve; and Whereas: Allowing the Fed to operate our nation's monetary system in a…
The banks paid TARP back, with interest. That means the taxpayers made money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Saying someone was just a "supremely lucky flipper of coins" always seems like a cop out to me. It's not so much the fact that he was right but the reasons he gives for being right. He gives very good explanations for his reasoning and it was sound. Explain how his reasoning was not sound and then you can make statements about how he was just "super lucky." Otherwise you're just guessing about how lucky he is and tha…
A lot of reasons can sound totally justified in retrospect. "The Colts will win the Super Bowl because they have superior talent." "The Saints will win the Super Bowl because the Colts' ego will go to their head." A lot of people take actions and have reasons for them -- when those actions turn out to be right, the reasons are often given undue credibility.
The point is that the reason isn't justified because the person correctly predicted an outcome. The reason is justified because the reason was based on true fact and is demonstrably capable of causing the effect.
Now if the Colts win the super bowl despite having worse talent because the opposing Saints team members all got drunk the night before and were playing with hangovers, then you would be justified in saying the predictor was lucky. It's not enough to say someone could have been lucky and then dismiss them. You should show they were lucky or accept they were correct in their reasoning.
This is an obvious case of corruption of our government. No one was regulating because they didn't want to regulate it.
This is why there needs to be things like campaign finance reform and people should seriously go to jail without chance of being pardoned for these types of crimes.
Willful ignorance of this shit should have been considered aiding & abetting theft.
But no, no one will go to jail because the rich and powerful never go to jail. They didn't get rich and powerful by not being corrupt.
It is a fucking conspiracy. fed is run by the banks, banks didn't want fed to intervene bc they were making big bonuses and it was good for the people there. duh. This is an obvious case of corruption of our government. No one was regulating because they didn't want to regulate it . This is why there needs to be things like campaign finance reform and people should seriously go to jail without chance of being pardone…
Greenspan was a goddamned Rayndian. Stephen Friedman had super strong ties to goldman sachs, In fact, almost everyone high up in the fed has ties to banking in one form or another. None of the people involved are even interested fair in regulation.
I don't understand why this is controversial. it is a fucking conspiracy and I'm calling it as it is.
Would my post have been better if I had suggested execution, or is the real reason it is downvoted because it is unpopular to call something a conspiracy?
we all tell ourselves these fairy tales about how the world is fair and there are no conspiracies and closed door deals between those in power, but it is all a lie.
It is a fucking conspiracy. fed is run by the banks, banks didn't want fed to intervene bc they were making big bonuses and it was good for the people there. duh. This is an obvious case of corruption of our government. No one was regulating because they didn't want to regulate it . This is why there needs to be things like campaign finance reform and people should seriously go to jail without chance of being pardone…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Figuring out the "when" is definitely the most difficult part. I had been watching the markets and the housing bubble very carefully for years before the crisis finally arrived. It is so amazing how long these things take to play out, and how distorted the markets can get before they finally snap. Despite the attention I paid to it, I still failed to make a profit. When things finally started unravelling, I took seve…
For ordinary investors, the housing bubble was a tricky thing to play. There were two public companies that had CDS portfolios where they stood to make a lot of money. A direct equity investment or LEAPS would have worked well there. I took this approach. Alternatively, it seems like out the money puts on financial institutions would have done really well. Michael Lewis chronicles a few guys from Cornwall Capital tha…
Nor do they do so well when the SEC decides to suddenly ban short selling on a certain subset of stocks.
Audit the fed: http://www.auditthefed.com/ Whereas: Congress, the Federal Reserve, and the U.S. Treasury have put the American taxpayer on the hook for over $12 trillion in bailouts and loans; and Whereas: Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently refused to tell Congress who has received trillions in these funds from the Federal Reserve; and Whereas: Allowing the Fed to operate our nation's monetary system in a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Notably he did speak up about Fannie and Freddie in the early 2000s but was silenced by the GOP's drive to make war Wrong. Fannie and Freddie were protected by Dems, not Repubs. Mccain got his teeth kicked in over this one. Interestingly enough, Fannie and Freddie execs during that time were largely Dems, most of whom who landed in the Obama administration. While at Fannie and Freddie, they took out millions. Oh, a…
Everything you say is accurate except the insinuation that Democrats are mostly at fault. George W. Bush was in office for the worst of it, and he spent his political capital trying to convince people that a war was necessary. He spent 99% of his political capital on war and at best 1% on everything else. He was far from powerless, having control of both houses of congress. The fact is he was perfectly fine with the…
In this matter, Bush's sins are sins of omission - as you point out, he didn't do anything. Dems did something, but what they did was wrong. For example, they actively protected Fannie and Freddie. Those are sins of comission.
Note that Bush didn't change the regulatory structure - he went with what Clinton left him. Again - omission vs comission.
It's the difference between manslaughter and murder.
And, that's ignoring ACORN's role. Among other things, they picketed banks that didn't make enough loans to folks who couldn't afford them. They tried to intervene with regulators. And so on.
Yes, Bush might have been able to keep this from happening, but he would have been fighting Dems the whole way.
He didn't fight. They pushed bad policies. There is a difference.
And, I note that Barney Frank is still in office and Gorelick, among others, are in the Obama administration.
Bush? Not in office.