31–40 of 51 posts
Ironic that he of all people ended up buying a house at the height of the bubble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't care that much, but I can see why people might. He didn't create value. Like, when PG creates something, it adds a certain value to society. Even when PG puts money behind a firm like Disqus, he enables value to be added. This guy didn't create any value or enable value creation. He just saw a situation he could take advantage of. The banks had created value, but not as much as everyone had thought and he too…
>He didn't create value. ??? He created $15 billion of value for his shareholders. >The banks had created value The banks have destroyed their shareholders' and depositors' money by investing in junk and failing to prepare for a downturn. Your 'moral' arguments are upside down.
I don't see this person doing anything wrong. People are envious of someone else doing well.
I don't care that much, but I can see why people might. He didn't create value. Like, when PG creates something, it adds a certain value to society. Even when PG puts money behind a firm like Disqus, he enables value to be added. This guy didn't create any value or enable value creation. He just saw a situation he could take advantage of. The banks had created value, but not as much as everyone had thought and he too…
Left unexamined is the uncomfortable moral dimension of Paulson’s achievement. If he saw all of this coming, was it right for him to keep his own counsel, quietly trading while the financial system melted down? Give me a break. He should have gone on Faux News to be shouted down and laughed at? Who would have listened to this guy? This line is so indicative of bad journalism (practically a tautology, that phrase) tha…
Its not like anyone would have listened to him if he played the whistle blower roll. The recent Madoff debacle is proof of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He didn't create value. ??? He created $15 billion of value for his shareholders. >The banks had created value The banks have destroyed their shareholders' and depositors' money by investing in junk and failing to prepare for a downturn. Your 'moral' arguments are upside down.
he created $15B of net worth for his investors, not value. It was a wealth transfer, no net creation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banks can make money by exploiting market inefficiency but banks also create real value. A loan to start a business creates value if the business works.
Surely; but suppose Paulson didn't do what he did. The capital that didn't go into his fund would have gone into other instruments that produce effects elsewhere (ultimately ending up in some conversion to value somewhere in the chain, big or small). The money made from these other instruments will be used for X purpose. The money lost is simply lost. Paulson simply sped up the reaction. At the cost of the happiness…
You cannot consider happiness as part of the equation. People were happy enough to sell financial instruments to Paulson at a profit. Now they are sad because they lost money in that transaction... Why all the complain? Everyone should just learn a lesson in investment from this situation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
he created $15B of net worth for his investors, not value. It was a wealth transfer, no net creation.
He offered the service of buying financial assets from people who wanted to increase their gains by amplifying risk. Whenever you offer a service you expect a reward.
Ironic that he of all people ended up buying a house at the height of the bubble.
When you make 15 Billion, you probably don't care too much about the price of the house you bought last year was. Especially since you most likely don't have a mortgage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>He didn't create value. ??? He created $15 billion of value for his shareholders. >The banks had created value The banks have destroyed their shareholders' and depositors' money by investing in junk and failing to prepare for a downturn. Your 'moral' arguments are upside down.
he created $15B of net worth for his investors, not value. It was a wealth transfer, no net creation.
It was a wealth transfer, no net creation.
He allocated resources correctly. That's what putting money in the stock market is fundamentally about. If you allocate resources correctly, you win. Allocate them incorrectly and you lose.
He made $15 billion by pushing down prices of assets that were overvalued (that's what short selling does.) i.e. He made the crisis slightly less terrible by driving down prices of junk securities (only slightly because 15 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the size of the market as a whole.)