Originally posted by FMFlet's be clear -- you are refusing to describe how I allegedly misinterpreted whodey's post?
You know exactly what the deliberate misinterpretation was. You were simply intent on putting whodey down. As your almost non-sequitur retort shows.
You are unable to articulate a defense for your allegations?
You are unwilling to engage on the substance of the matter?
You are only willing to hurl personal remarks?
As Dylan sang:
You got a lotta nerve
To say you got a helping hand to lend
You just want to be on
The side that's winning
..
You say you lost your faith
But that's not where it's at
You had no faith to lose
And you know it
..
Do you take me for such a fool
To think I'd make contact
With the one who tries to hide
What he don't know to begin with
..
And now I know you're dissatisfied
With your position and your place
Don't you understand
It's not my problem
I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
And just for that one moment
I could be you
Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You'd know what a drag it is
To see you
Originally posted by ScriabinYou started it. You always start it. Sometimes it is all you do. You have even admitted that you do it on purpose, for your own amusement, and because you are convinced that everyone finds you really really funny - even the insults you cut and paste from Insults Web sites. You even perceive jealousy in others - including me. How utterly creepy! Jealousy? Of what exactly? You even mention "polls" and "popularity". You heaped abuse on whodey because the wavelength on which he chose to express his pertinent point was not the exact one that you wanted. Then again, you don't really need a reason to hurl personal remarks. You are who you are and you post what you post.
You are only willing to hurl personal remarks?
Originally posted by ScriabinThe one point I agree with is that no single company should ever be allowed to get so big that its failure theatens the global economy. That can only be a bad thing.
Given the subject, snarking seems the least one can do -- and perhaps the most one can do.
Misinterpreted? pray tell how. The information provided above that useless post showed the unprecedented and terrifying scale of the giant conglomerate AIG's impact on the world's economy. $1 trillion in total assets -- hundreds of billions in toxic guarantees a ...[text shortened]... dig.
Something's overdone and gone rotten in Indonesia -- and it just might be you.
Originally posted by buffalobillEEEKKKSSSS!!! Yet another simplistic inane post like the one I posted.
The one point I agree with is that no single company should ever be allowed to get so big that its failure theatens the global economy. That can only be a bad thing.
Well I guess things are as complicated as you let them get. 😛
Originally posted by buffalobillok, to return to substance, it may well be a choice not to allow any single company to get too big to fail.
The one point I agree with is that no single company should ever be allowed to get so big that its failure theatens the global economy. That can only be a bad thing.
But there is no legal or regulatory framework, no Constitutional principle that allows either Federal or State governments to put such a limit on private property interests.
Nor is there international authority on this.
It would be rather difficult to see how one would craft such a limitation -- for example, how would governments know that a firm, such as AIG, was so big that it no longer could be allowed to fail?
It wasn't so much the size of AIG's assets --$1 trillion-- it was the interconnectedness of the kind of business entities that made up the conglomerate -- mutliple insurance entitites operating in over 130 countries.
Most of what AIG did was overseen by "functional regulators" such as state insurance commissions or foreign government regulators.
Trying to "allow" or "prohibit" how big, how wide, how deep or how interconnected a company gets leads to questions about how far the legal authority of governments go with respect to the rights of property interests.
Why not try, just for the mental exercise, to ask some of those questions? I've identified a few here. What are some other questions raised by the idea that companies should not be allowed to get too big to fail?
I ask this because I sense a lot of the sentiment supporting the idea that failing companies should be allowed to fail, not bailed out, comes from a distaste for excessive government interference or authority with respect to property rights.
But if you say that government should not allow companies to become "too big to fail" then what have you done to property rights vs. the authority of government?
How do we sort this out?
Originally posted by whodeyguess you missed the clear allusion to hypocrisy in the Dylan lyrics
Who wouldn't want to be on the winning side? 😀
-- FMF doesn't engage on the issues, he just gets surly.
He never shows he's even got a sense of humor!
He's so oversensitive that it is just too hard to refrain from jerking his chain -- he's so easy.
He can't or won't make jokes on himself -- He calls me some character out of a TV show I never watched, so I looked it up and so its a "knowitall" character - I then admitted the point by associating myself with Bullwinkle, who used to do the Mr Knowitall segment. And anyone taking Bullwinkle's knowitall advice always came to a bad end.
Maybe I should change my RHP identity to Coyote -- since the Trickster's schemes always turn on himself.
FMF won't do anything comparable with humor -- he's got to be perfect, you know. Seems really insecure -- more than I may be.
You, at least, roll with the punches, even when you deserve them. I think that's because you've got a sense of humor or you would not have answered in so light a vein -- which I appreciate, btw. I guess I'm going to have to ease up on you.
just try not to oversimplify complex stuff without doing just a little background reading, OK? Unless all you're doing is jerking my chain -- in which case, keep it up, 'cause it sure works 😉
Originally posted by FMFwhat, you going to cry now?
You started it. You always start it. Sometimes it is all you do. You have even admitted that you do it on purpose, for your own amusement, and because you are convinced that everyone finds you really really funny - even the insults you cut and paste from Insults Web sites. You even perceive jealousy in others - including me. How utterly creepy! Jealousy? Of what ...[text shortened]... lly need a reason to hurl personal remarks. You are who you are and you post what you post.
Originally posted by ScriabinIt seems as though the complexity of the issues at hand are at the root of ouri ills. You hear about assets that were so convoluded that not even Warren Buffett can understand them. You hear calls for transparancy, simplicity, etc., but all I see is more of the same. If the interconnectedness and complexity of the global economy is to blame rather than the size of individual corporations, then perhaps this should be dealt with rather than ignored. In effect, simplify the system so that the average Joe like me can understand it rather than the few like yourself that claim to understand it all. After all, whats wrong with beautiful simplicity? I'll tell you whats wrong with it. It has a tendancy to shine a light where the roaches thrive. Complexity is simply a vehicle for which people can hide their "sins" because if you don't understand it, chances are you have no ability to label it immoral or blow a whistle preventing it. Another example is the tax code of the US. Make it so complex that only the "little people" who don't have the resources nor understanding to evade the tax system will end up paying the bulk of the taxes.
just try not to oversimplify complex stuff without doing just a little background reading, OK? Unless all you're doing is jerking my chain -- in which case, keep it up, 'cause it sure works 😉[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyI don't understand it all - no, sir, I sure do not. I cannot understand how lenders were permitted to abandon underwriting and risk management by regulators and by Fannie and Freddie - greed is a fine answer, but it won't wash on such a grand scale. I cannot understand how regulators who are so deeply involved in the inner affairs of such companies as AIG still did not see the risk from guaranteeing more billions of dollars than a $1trillion concern could pay to cover potential losses stemming from toxic assets. Toxic assets being loans anyone with just my level of understanding could and did see as insanely bad risk. I kept harping on the inherent insanity of our entire economy being based on mortgage debt, much of which was being bundled with these ALT-A or subprime loans. It had to collapse, I said. No one agreed with me or seemed to care at the time. Only a few commentators said so, too, and they also were disregarded.
It seems as though the complexity of the issues at hand are at the root of ouri ills. You hear about assets that were so convoluded that not even Warren Buffett can understand them. You hear calls for transparancy, simplicity, etc., but all I see is more of the same. If the interconnectedness and complexity of the global economy is to blame rather than the urces nor understanding to evade the tax system will end up paying the bulk of the taxes.
I complained for years about the policy of deregulation. Now I think the Republicans and the Democrats who supported this idea ought to be at the very least removed from office or even prosecuted for aiding and abetting the biggest fraud in all history.
I think the answer is more and tighter regulation -- and that's going to mean an entirely new way to look at the relationship between government and business.
We cannot have business running the government -- we are going to have to accept government running businesses. At least until some degree of risk management and responsible stewardship is established with tough enough sanctions to deter the kind of greed-based, short-sighted criminal fraud and abuse that has served as corporate governance up to now.
Unfortunately, we cannot attack complexity for its own sake. Life is not a simple matter. Finances, especially. Could they be made less so? I'm sure they could. But who is willing to insist that happens? Who is going to simplify things and how?
It all comes back to authority to regulate and the nature of regulation.
We have come through a 3-decade period where government was thought to be the problem, where regulations were too numerous, too complex, and too burdensome. Yet by pushing this idea, look what has happened.
And still the GOP plays the same old tunes.
Question is, who's buying it?
I'm with Krugman, who said on July 28, 2008, in the NYT:
"The back story to the current crisis is the way traditional banks — banks with federally insured deposits, which are limited in the risks they're allowed to take and the amount of leverage they can take on — have been pushed aside by unregulated financial players. We were assured by the likes of Alan Greenspan that this was no problem: the market would enforce disciplined risk-taking, and anyway, taxpayer funds weren't on the line.
"And then reality struck.
"Far from being disciplined in their risk-taking, lenders went wild. Concerns about the ability of borrowers to repay were waved aside; so were questions about whether soaring house prices made sense.
Lenders ignored the warning signs because they were part of a system built around the principle of heads I win, tails someone else loses. Mortgage originators didn't worry about the solvency of borrowers, because they quickly sold off the loans they made, generally to investors who had no idea what they were buying. Throughout the financial industry, executives received huge bonuses when they seemed to be earning big profits, but didn't have to give the money back when those profits turned into even bigger losses.
"And as for that business about taxpayers' money not being at risk? Never mind. Over the past year the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury have put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars on the line, propping up financial institutions deemed too big or too strategic to fail. (I'm not blaming them — I don't think they had any alternative.)
Meanwhile, those traditional, regulated banks played a minor role in the lending frenzy, except to the extent that they had unregulated, "off balance sheet" subsidiaries. The case of IndyMac — which failed because it specialized in risky Alt-A loans while regulators looked the other way — is the exception that proves the rule.
"The moral of this story seems clear — and it's what Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has been saying for some time: financial regulation needs to be extended to cover a much wider range of institutions. Basically, the financial framework created in the 1930s, which brought generations of relative stability, needs to be updated to 21st-century conditions.
"The desperate rescue efforts of the past year make expanded regulation even more urgent. If the government is going to stand behind financial institutions, those institutions had better be carefully regulated — because otherwise the game of heads I win, tails you lose will be played more furiously than ever, at taxpayers' expense.
Of course, proponents of expanded regulation, no matter how compelling their arguments, will have to contend with very well-financed opposition from the financial industry. And as Upton Sinclair pointed out, it's hard to get a man to understand something when his salary — or, we might add, his campaign war chest — depends on his not understanding it.
"But let's hope that the sheer scale of this financial crisis has concentrated enough minds to make reform possible. Otherwise, the next crisis will be even bigger. "
I'm also in agreement with Krugman when he said on Oct 3, 2008, in the NYT:
"During financial crises like this one, after people have had their fill of discussions about margin calls and credit-default swaps, they experience a strong desire to have the whole thing put in some larger and more human context. Invariably they come around to some variation of, "Isn't this really just a story about excessive greed?"
"I've never really figured out how to answer that question. In a capitalist economy like ours, the basic premise is that everyone is motivated by a healthy dose of economic self-interest -- the shopper looking for the best bargain on tomatoes and the farmer looking to get the highest price for his produce, the grocery clerk looking to earn the highest wages for restocking shelves and the investor looking to earn the biggest profit from Safeway stock. Without some measure of greed and the tension it brings to most economic transactions, capitalism wouldn't be as good as it is in allocating resources and spurring innovation.
"Perhaps that's why most definitions of greed refer to an excessive desire for wealth that is beyond what anyone really needs or deserves. The obvious problem with that, of course, is that those are terribly subjective criteria. Do you draw the greed line at two cars, a three-bedroom house, two weeks at the beach in the summer and college tuition for the kids? Or is it at seven houses, 50 pairs of designer shoes, a yacht, two Bentleys and a Renoir?
"Others suggest that for greed to really be greed, the money or goods that are desired have to be denied to somebody else who might want, need or deserve them. A landowner who gets rich by overcharging tenant farmers who can barely feed and clothe their families -- he's obviously greedy. But somehow the owner of a restaurant in the Hamptons who overcharges his millionaire patrons for lobster salad and foie gras is a lot less greedy.
"In many minds, greed may have less to do with the amount of wealth or possessions someone has, or aspires to have, than it does with the way in which it is earned. Even before they decided to give away most of their money, nobody seemed to begrudge Bill Gates or Warren Buffett their billions or criticize them for their "unbridled" greed. That seems to have a lot to do with the fact that Gates and Buffett made their money on the basis of their own ingenuity, skill and hard work. On the other hand, when people line up to buy tickets to a Powerball lottery with a $10 million payout, we don't consider them particularly greedy just because they want to get rich through dumb luck.
"If the person who wins that lottery, however, doesn't send some of that money to his struggling Aunt Mildred or offer to fix up the local Little League field, most people would call him greedy. But no matter how many millions the overpaid corporate chief executive gives away to charity, in the minds of many, greed will always be his middle name.
Which brings us to the now widespread belief that the cause of the current financial crisis has been "the greed on Wall Street." ...
"If there is a surprise here, it is that anyone should be surprised by the level of greed on Wall Street. Wall Street is nothing if not an organized system of greed, a high-stakes game in which the object is to take advantage of customers and counterparties by buying pieces of paper from them at less than they are really worth and selling them to others for more than they are worth. And while it's hard to see a grand social purpose in all that, it has proven a relatively efficient process for connecting people who have money with the households and businesses that want to borrow it.
"The big problem with Wall Street isn't that it's greedy-- it's that it keeps making the same mistakes over and over. Each cycle, the masters of finance start out with reasonably good products and good intentions, only to get swept away by their success. They become arrogant, take too many risks and begin to believe their own marketing spiels. Then, when the cycle turns against them and the risks turn sour, they try to cover it up and begin lying to their customers, to regulators and to each other. Trust erodes, and the whole thing collapses.
"In the populist "greed" fantasy, it is ordinary people who are the losers while the Wall Street bigwigs walk off with all the loot. But in the real life version, most of the bigwigs lose as well. They lose their jobs, their stock becomes worthless, their reputations are ruined. They spend the next several years shelling out $700 an hour to lawyers to defend themselves against lawsuits and regulatory inquiries and $250 to psychiatrists to help figure out where they went wrong. Bottom line: They wind up worse off than they would have been if they had simply done their jobs well, put their customers first and managed their companies for the long term.
"To some, that may be a story of greed. To me, it looks more like old-fashioned incompetence."