Globalisation - markets proving it doesn't work

ven0m

Yup - that's right folks. All those who said globalisation works, are now having proof spoon fed to them why it doesn't work. Globalisation works on a premise that everyone wants to get rich equally, but the idiots pushing it further & further & further are greedy & enough is never enough for them, & hence the ****storm the global markets now find themselves.

I am really & truly enjoyng watching the markets crash & burn further - bye bye globalisation!!!

Maybe once it does crash & burn, the world will have learned a valuable lesson, & then proper politics, proper economics & proper human god damned decency can prevail instead of the American-led-ideological madness we've endured for 30 years.

It should also hopefully right the wrongs of people who have profited off people's misery or exploitation by putting them in a poorhouse or jail.

Hey, I'm all for making money - but there's such a thing as not taking the piss, & they all pushed it too far & will now reap the whirlwind!

Darragh29

ven0m wrote: »

Yup - that's right folks. All those who said globalisation works, are now having proof spoon fed to them why it doesn't work. Globalisation works on a premise that everyone wants to get rich equally, but the idiots pushing it further & further & further are greedy & enough is never enough for them, & hence the ****storm the global markets now find themselves.

I am really & truly enjoyng watching the markets crash & burn further - bye bye globalisation!!!

Maybe once it does crash & burn, the world will have learned a valuable lesson, & then proper politics, proper economics & proper human god damned decency can prevail instead of the American-led-ideological madness we've endured for 30 years.

It should also hopefully right the wrongs of people who have profited off people's misery or exploitation by putting them in a poorhouse or jail.

Hey, I'm all for making money - but there's such a thing as not taking the piss, & they all pushed it too far & will now reap the whirlwind!

I couldn't agree more. There is more than enough out there to go around. I nearly fell off the fu*kin' chair the other day when your man who was running Lehman Brothers said he paid himself 500 MILLION Dollars since 2000!

I haven't seen one single person being held account for this mess yet.

antodeco

Whilst I agree with the fact that the guys who were greedy are getting their just deserts, its the guys who arent greedy getting hit with it. ie most people out there. <- longest sentence ever!

ven0m

I'm not for one minute suggesting we all suddenly start calling each other Komrad, & engage in communism or socialism, but hey - if this was your average Joe Soap causing this level of bull****, they'd be in jail.

Time for the REAL criminals out there to be put away, for governments to fall & proper democracy to arise where PEOPLE ARE PUT FIRST, the way it's supposed to be & for big business to be told where to go & to toe the damned line.

thelordofcheese

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!

ejmaztec

Investments can go up as well as down.

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

Yup - that's right folks. All those who said globalisation works, are now having proof spoon fed to them why it doesn't work.

How is this an example of how globalisation doesnt work? How do you link this crisis to a failing the globalisation framework / ideology?

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

How is this an example of how globalisation doesnt work? How do you link this crisis to a failing the globalisation framework / ideology?

Simple, crosslinking of indexes, & linking of monetary systems via the IMF, & governments investing in foreign markets, as well as debt offsetting through the aforementioned.

Please remember - this whole thing kicked off because the Yank banks & lenders got super greedy, & the whole thing spiraled outwards because of inter-foreign investment & disbursement of financial liabilities into foreign markets as a way of trying of 'cover-up' any possible losses.

This is a FUNDAMENTAL tenet of globalisation; financial disbursement for economic reasoning.

Need I explain further?

thelordofcheese

ven0m wrote: »

Simple, crosslinking of indexes, & linking of monetary systems via the IMF, & governments investing in foreign markets, as well as debt offsetting through the aforementioned.

Please remember - this whole thing kicked off because the Yank banks & lenders got super greedy, & the whole thing spiraled outwards because of inter-foreign investment & disbursement of financial liabilities into foreign markets as a way of trying of 'cover-up' any possible losses.

This is a FUNDAMENTAL tenet of globalisation; financial disbursement for economic reasoning.

Need I explain further?

Ohh please, people are greedy. Inherently so.
It's not globalisations fault we're all a bunch of crass, base, greedy fools with little or no ability to think long-term.

Globalisation isn't going anywhere, because it's powered by that same greed.

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

Simple, crosslinking of indexes

Talking through your ass. Explain the sense and relevance of that sentence.

linking of monetary systems via the IMF

talking complete horse ****e. The supply of money in the market is not the issue. Neither is interest rates. They are tools being used to rectify the problem to some extent, but they are not the cause of the problem. In fact, the coordinated global move on interest rates recently is an example of globalisation coming to the rescue.

governments investing in foreign markets

NOTHING to do with the crises. This is a private sector problem. Governments are only getting involved now to solve it, and they are doing so mostly at local levels - there isnt even an EU wide action plan.

as well as debt offsetting through the aforementioned.

Your not making a lick or sense. Just throwing some paint on a canvass hoping to make a picture.

Please remember - this whole thing kicked off because the Yank banks & lenders got super greedy

Theres a lot of truth to that, but to be more accurate this whole thing started due to a government policy decision by the Clinton administration to rectify what was perceived as discrimination in the housing market.

the whole thing spiraled outwards because of inter-foreign investment & disbursement of financial liabilities into foreign markets as a way of trying of 'cover-up' any possible losses.

Wrong.

A)The problem has spread globally because of access to the US market. It says nothing about the markets of the effected countries or the local government's. Unless we lived in a extreme scenario of tribal protectionism that banned all cross boarder trade this would still have been possible

B)The securities werent passed around as a way of trying to 'cover-up' anything. There was a fundamental bad assumption in the nature of the underlying assets and because of this they were rated badly and over valued.
And the uncertainty in the early days of the crash wasnt because of a cover-up either, it was like the London Reinsurance crises of the 80's - people didnt know their exposures. This has nothing to do with globalisation either, its just lazy management.

This is a FUNDAMENTAL tenet of globalisation; financial disbursement for economic reasoning.

Using big words doesnt make you sound smart when you use them in nonsensical ways.

Need I explain further?

You need to educate yourself on whats going on at the moment and what globalisation actually is.

You are talking rubbish tbh. You sound like a stoned first year college student.

The corporations... and the government... you know man, its the MAN, you gotta fight it... I mean ... woa

andrew

Darragh29 wrote: »

I haven't seen one single person being held account for this mess yet.

Yeah, we should totally arrest the millions of homeowners who took out loans they could never afford.

ven0m

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Ohh please, people are greedy. Inherently so.

It's not globalisations fault we're all a bunch of crass, base, greedy fools with little or no ability to think long-term.

Globalisation isn't going anywhere, because it's powered by that same greed.

I won't disagree with you in the slightest, but it's not Joe Soap who wants a 42" plasma that has helped created this, it's Johnny Maybach-10,000-square-foot-house that has, along with ravenous investment vehicles who have in effect done the equivalent of spread-betting across the the global markets, along with the persistent backing of OPEC, which even now is for once coming under fire from Governments, with the UK insisting they now pass on the decreases in oil prices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7662918.stm

I've worked in the petrochemical industry & the 'unofficial rule of thumb' was the price of petrol at the pump should be 1% of the barrel price. OPEC saw how much they could make with price increases & had oil speculators go crazy on them, & they have pretty much abandoned the said rule. They saw how far they could push speculators with news reports relating to production & they played it spectacularly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7469124.stm

The whole current scenario was also pushed along by Governments bending over excessively to big business & turning blind eyes where it suited them. Your average person on the street is just trying to survive & get by, while all these jumped up Armani'd jackasses continue on their way, unquestioned, unpunished making a ****e of it for all of us.

As far as I'm concerned, let the world burn - I'll have my marshmellows, cocktail weenies & chestnuts ready for roasting

Macha

People in the third world have known that globalisation doesn't work for quite some time.

We get a taste of our own medicine and NOW we decide globalisation doesn't work?

But you have to try and make a distinction between globalisation and unfettered capitalism. They're connected but not quite the same thing.

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

I won't disagree with you in the slightest, but it's not Joe Soap who wants a 42" plasma that has helped created this, it's Johnny Maybach-10,000-square-foot-house that has, along with ravenous investment vehicles who have in effect done the equivalent of spread-betting across the the global markets, along with the persistent backing of OPEC, which even now is for once coming under fire from Governments, with the UK insisting they now pass on the decreases in oil prices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7662918.stm

I've worked in the petrochemical industry & the 'unofficial rule of thumb' was the price of petrol at the pump should be 1% of the barrel price. OPEC saw how much they could make with price increases & had oil speculators go crazy on them, & they have pretty much abandoned the said rule. They saw how far they could push speculators with news reports relating to production & they played it spectacularly.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7469124.stm

The whole current scenario was also pushed along by Governments bending over excessively to big business & turning blind eyes where it suited them. Your average person on the street is just trying to survive & get by, while all these jumped up Armani'd jackasses continue on their way, unquestioned, unpunished making a ****e of it for all of us.

As far as I'm concerned, let the world burn - I'll have my marshmellows, cocktail weenies & chestnuts ready for roasting

That post actually made sense. I wouldnt agree with you that globalisation is the cause of all the worlds woes, I think its a good thing, but that post at least made sense.

What you're trying to say is that corporations have gotten so big and have so much influence that they can strong arm governments?

Thats true to an extent, and its a failing of globalisation, but I think that will be over come with time. Companies come and go, and we're still in the very early days of globalisation

ven0m

1. Supply of money IS an issue. The largest holding of U.S. currency (the most used currency in the world) is held by China, who coincidentally are the largest & fastest growing economy. There are more dollar bills in China than in the U.S.A. which are held by the chinese government, not private enterprise there. The U.S. government is also having issues with balancing it's own income, especially from petroleum which is due to the increased take-up of petro-euros as opposed to traditional petro-dollars. The U.S. has to BUY more items from Europe, which it doesn't like - and European trede ebargoes or hiccups cause them further pain in this area.

2. Interest rates IS an issue, as U.S. lender were lending below the cost of the interest they were charging to people for substantial periods, & making these interested loans to people who couldn't afford them in the first place, & incurring bad debts, all of which are tax servicable, & cost the banks even more at year end.

3. The U.S. national debt which is at a record, is inextricably linked to foreign markets & their 'war activities'. All national debts have foreign aspects to them. It's part of balancing the books so you don't have all your eggs in one basket. Governments invest abroad.

4. The FBI are investigating ALL U.S. finance institutions recently involved in all of this over 'cover-ups', misappropriations etc relating to the banking crisis. Goldman Sachs etc are also all under the spotlight & all of these companies invest globally to minimise risk in their portfolios, instead of investing in a single market, like every single investment vehicle in the worl does.

I've a family who've been involved in investment banking on Wall Street, london & abroad for many many years, & I've had more dinner conversations about economics, investments & offsets than you've had hand-jobs.

The fact is, these are all sentiments that are being echoed by any more estalished economic observers & players, as well as investigative agencies at the moment.

Macha

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Companies come and go, and we're still in the very early days of globalisation

Globalisation is a bit like that word "modernity". How long it's been around is anyone's guess. Evidence has been found of inter-continental trading dating back to Viking times. Globalisation may have increased substantially and rapidly in the last century but it has been around for a long time.

Unless of course you're referring to the Chomsky take on it as the recent trend of neoliberal economic globalisation

Stabshauptmann

taconnol wrote: »

Globalisation is a bit like that word "modernity". How long it's been around is anyone's guess. Evidence has been found of inter-continental trading dating back to Viking times. Globalisation may have increased substantially and rapidly in the last century but it has been around for a long time.

Unless of course you're referring to the Chomsky take on it as the recent trend of neoliberal economic globalisation

Globalisation is not synonomous with trade. Globalisation is the removal of barriers to trade

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Globalisation is not synonomous with trade. Globalisation is the removal of barriers to trade

According to Wikipedia (not the most reliable thing on the web but still):

"Globalization (or globalisation) in its literal sense is the process of transformation of local or regional phenomena into global ones. It can be described as a process by which the people of the world are unified into a single society and function together. This process is a combination of economic, technological, sociocultural and political forces. Globalization is often used to refer to economic globalization, that is, integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flows, migration, and the spread of technology.

Tom G. Palmer of Cato Institute defines "globalization" as "the diminution or elimination of state-enforced restrictions on exchanges across borders and the increasingly integrated and complex global system of production and exchange that has emerged as a result."

A lot of amateur economists turnin up in After Hours today!

Macha

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Globalisation is not synonomous with trade. Globalisation is the removal of barriers to trade

OK so now we have your definition of globalization.

Mine would be the greater integration of national economies, including trade, FDI, migration, etc, which is aided by the removal of barriers to trade.

You can blame greedy bankers all you want. They're just like developers: doing their jobs to make as much money as possible. It's the government's responsibility to sufficiently regulate markets - something that they have clearly failed to do.

Zangetsu

Day dook our joooooooooobs!

ven0m

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of amateur economists turnin up in After Hours today!

I got bored & there's only so many videos of panicked runners on trading floors you can watch before you laugh so hard you fall off the chair in your office (which I did - and it did hurt )

antodeco

ven0m wrote: »

I've had more dinner conversations about economics, investments & offsets than you've had hand-jobs.

Does self love count?

ven0m

antodeco wrote: »

Does self love count?

I dunno - does it?? :D

Cos in that case, I'd have to say I've had more hand-jobs than socio-economic dinner conversations :D:D:D:D

(and in the process nullify my own statement!)

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

You're clueless.

1. Supply of money IS an issue. The largest holding of U.S. currency (the most used currency in the world) is held by China, who coincidentally are the largest & fastest growing economy. There are more dollar bills in China than in the U.S.A. which are held by the chinese government, not private enterprise there.

And what is the connection between that an the current recession?!

2. Interest rates IS an issue, as U.S. lender were lending below the cost of the interest they were charging to people for substantial periods

Lending below the cost of the interest they were charging?

That makes no sense.

& making these interested loans to people who couldn't afford them in the first place, & incurring bad debts, all of which are tax servicable, & cost the banks even more at year end.

Connection with globalisation is...?

3. The U.S. national debt which is at a record, is inextricably linked to foreign markets & their 'war activities'. All national debts have foreign aspects to them. It's part of balancing the books so you don't have all your eggs in one basket. Governments invest abroad.

Connection to current crisis is...?

4. The FBI are investigating ALL U.S. finance institutions recently involved in all of this over 'cover-ups'

misappropriations etc relating to the banking crisis.

Someone misappropriated an asset to a company in another country?
What has misappropriation of funds got to do with "the whole thing spiraled outwards because of inter-foreign investment & disbursement of financial liabilities into foreign markets"

Goldman Sachs etc are also all under the spotlight & all of these companies invest globally to minimise risk in their portfolios

Ah so thats your tenuous (at best) connection. These companies invest globally, well you cant spell globalisation without global.

That pretty much sums up your entire understanding of the banking crisis and globalisation doesnt it? Christ you love talking BS on subjects you dont understand.

instead of investing in a single market, like every single investment vehicle in the worl does.

Thats just patently false

I've a family who've been involved in investment banking on Wall Street, london & abroad for many many years, & I've had more dinner conversations about economics, investments & offsets than you've had hand-jobs.

You've overheard a few conversation, didnt understand them and prattle out your ill informed opinion on an internet forum, with sentence structure that makes understanding what you are trying to say more difficult than shoving your head up your own ass, though you have mastered the latter quite well.

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

And what is the connection between that an the current recession?!




Lending below the cost of the interest they were charging?

That makes no sense.




Connection with globalisation is...?



Connection to current crisis is...?





Someone misappropriated an asset to a company in another country?
What has misappropriation of funds got to do with "the whole thing spiraled outwards because of inter-foreign investment & disbursement of financial liabilities into foreign markets"




Ah so thats your tenuous (at best) connection. These companies invest globally, well you cant spell globalisation without global.

That pretty much sums up your entire understanding of the banking crisis and globalisation doesnt it? Christ you love talking BS on subjects you dont understand.


Thats just patently false



You've overheard a few conversation, didnt understand them and prattle out your ill informed opinion on an internet forum, with sentence structure that makes understanding what you are trying to say more difficult than shoving your head up your own ass, though you have mastered the latter quite well.

I don't normally do this, but jesus you're a berk! How about you leave out the insults - cos that's all you seem intent on doing - flaming while trying to bully your point across.

again I repeat - YOU ARE A BERK!


Government debts linked to crisis - how about tax payers at risk for a start? How about IF the government here HAS to enact on it's deposit guarantees, the costs totally outweigh our current national debt?

I'd spend more time playing connect the dots, but I've proper people with REAL special needs that I'd rather spend my time helping :-)

Stabshauptmann

taconnol and ven0m, do you realise that your definitions of globalisation are not not different from mine? Just longer.

Macha

Ven0m, it's clear that markets don't work because they are based on two false assumptions:
1) people will always act in a perfectly rational way
2) perfect information

Neither of these exist and so the information bias on one side allows that person to profit more. Smith's invisible hand doesn't exist.

So do you think Ireland should move more towards the continental European models?

Edit: Kaptain Redeye - yes, our definitions are quite similar. I'm not suggesting you don't understand the concept of globalisation! I just think when you're discussing something as complex as this, it's good that we all start off understanding each other's definitions. It can remove a lot of misunderstandings.

mcirl2

It is important to know that a lot of this mess (subprime lending) started thanks to a bill introduced by the Clinton Administration in the Mid 1990s.

The Bill was called the Community Reinvestment Act and its main goal was to allow lower income families (poorer people) to buy homes. The administration felt it was unfair that poorer people couldn't own their homes.

The Administration felt it was a good idea due to the fact that historically, house prices always kept up with inflation, thus the loan was safe.

The CRA penalised (fined) lenders who wouldnt lend to people who traditionally would not qualify for a mortgage.

So, most well respected high-street banks started lending to these subprime candidates. As this went on the pool of people to lend to became worse and worse (in terms of their abilities to pay off) i.e. Low income, less educated etc.

This is not to say the banks are innocent, but it shows how the idea that everyone should be entitled to own a home even if they have a **** credit rating / ability to pay off, doesn't work.

Indeed Obama was a big supporter of this bill and Mc Cain actually made a number of efforts to warn of the dangers of sub prime lending around 2005.

Research it, its actually quite interesting.

ven0m

taconnol wrote: »

Ven0m, it's clear that markets don't work because they are based on two false assumptions:
1) people will always act in a perfectly rational way
2) perfect information

Neither of these exist and so the information bias on one side allows that person to profit more. Smith's invisible hand doesn't exist.

So do you think Ireland should move more towards the continental European models?

markets to me have always been nothing more than glorified Betting shops, except at least they're honest about what they do. Used to be the old adage in that comparison that 'the bookie never loses' - they are now & are all panicking like crazy grasping at straws.


MCIRL2 - yes, this is very very true. If Clinton spent more time at the day job, than blow jobs - this mess may not have happened as spectacularily.

ven0m

ven0m wrote: »

I got bored & there's only so many videos of panicked runners on trading floors you can watch before you laugh so hard you fall off the chair in your office (which I did - and it did hurt )

boredom + After Hours =

ven0m

Deleted User wrote: »

boredom + After Hours =

NOT when you bang your head off a locker cos you fell off your chair laughing at a video of little asian traders all getting flustered & losing the plot

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

I don't normally do this, but jesus you're a berk! How about you leave out the insults - cos that's all you seem intent on doing - flaming while trying to bully your point across.

You have written a half dozen sentences that make no sense, Ive highlighted them for you in the hope you will reword them into a coherent sentence.

Ive called you on talking complete BS which you obviously dont understand

And Ive pointed out that the government and global actions you see as the cause of the current crisis are the reactions to it. you logic is completely flawed, because you dont understand what is going on at the moment

again I repeat - YOU ARE A BERK!

Congrats, your superior debating skills and informed opinion have won me over :rolleyes:

Government debts linked to crisis - how about tax payers at risk for a start? How about IF the government here HAS to enact on it's deposit guarantees, the costs totally outweigh our current national debt?

A guarantee on banks is not the reason why the banks need a guarantee. You cant seem to recognise the difference between cause and effect. Nor have you pointed out a single example of globalisation being the root cause of the current problems.

Stabshauptmann

taconnol wrote: »

Ven0m, it's clear that markets don't work because they are based on two false assumptions:
1) people will always act in a perfectly rational way
2) perfect information

Neither of these exist and so the information bias on one side allows that person to profit more. Smith's invisible hand doesn't exist.

So do you think Ireland should move more towards the continental European models?

Edit: Kaptain Redeye - yes, our definitions are quite similar. I'm not suggesting you don't understand the concept of globalisation!

Theres someone who did an into to economics...

Markets are not based on those two assumptions, economic models are. Markets are based on the law of supply and demand.

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

I dunno - does it?? :D

Cos in that case, I'd have to say I've had more hand-jobs than socio-economic dinner conversations :D:D:D:D

(and in the process nullify my own statement!)

I thought you were talking about the old self love, I think you are under utilising your girl friend

Macha

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Theres someone who did an into to economics...

Markets are not based on those two assumptions, economic models are. Markets are based on the law of supply and demand.

Kaptain Redeye, you come across as a very angry person. I don't really know what reaction you expect when you jump in guns blazing & are a bit too trigger-happy with the insults. I suggest you take up yoga or something.

I was writing quickly & forgot to add in "laissez faire" before markets. So sue me.

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You have written a half dozen sentences that make no sense, Ive highlighted them for you in the hope you will reword them into a coherent sentence.

Ive called you on talking complete BS which you obviously dont understand

And Ive pointed out that the government and global actions you see as the cause of the current crisis are the reactions to it. you logic is completely flawed, because you dont understand what is going on at the moment




Congrats, your superior debating skills and informed opinion have won me over :rolleyes:



A guarantee on banks is not the reason why the banks need a guarantee. You cant seem to recognise the difference between cause and effect. Nor have you pointed out a single example of globalisation being the root cause of the current problems.

yawn & your continued bullying down of 'you haven't proved blah blah blah' has just made me not bothering getting into a pissing contest with someone, especially someone who likes to use phrases like 'you're talking out of your ass', which is deliberately intended to inflame, as well as use various other forms of insult to inflame. And, if you don't mind - leave my missus out of it. Insults towards me are one thing, involve my missus - whole other ball game sunshine!

Facts are there, people can go read for themselves. You proved the argument about globalisation for me (your own definition & how all the other markets spiraled in a domino style effect from the U.S. fallout), so why would I need to prove something YOU thankfully proved for me, so uh cheers

But then again, why lower myself further to your level of bullying, which I already did in my calling you a berk - something I already regret.

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of amateur economists turnin up in After Hours today!

Is there any other kind?

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

Facts are there, people can go read for themselves.

I wish to Christ you would

You proved the argument about globalisation for me (your own definition & how all the other markets spiraled in a domino style effect from the U.S. fallout)

You still dont understand globalisation, nor half the big words you stuck into sentences beside each other that made no sense

so why would I need to prove something YOU thankfully proved for me, so uh cheers

I'm not looking for you to prove anything, I just like pointed out stupid things people say. Some of the **** you've said - priceless.

But then again, why lower myself to your level of bullying, which I already did in my calling you a berk - something I already regret.

See, this is just market forces - the invisible hand if you will. The behaviour of others (like me for example) towards you when you say stupid things should stop you from saying stupid things. :pac:

Stabshauptmann

taconnol wrote: »

Kaptain Redeye, you come across as a very angry person. I don't really know what reaction you expect when you jump in guns blazing & are a bit too trigger-happy with the insults. I suggest you take up yoga or something.

I was writing quickly & forgot to add in "laissez faire" before markets. So sue me.

In all fairness theres a big difference between the concept of a market and a particular strain of economic thought.

Posting on internet bulletin boards is my yoga, it does wonders

Didnt mean to jump down your throat

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I wish to Christ you would


You still dont understand globalisation, nor half the big words you stuck into sentences beside each other that made no sense



I'm not looking for you to prove anything, I just like pointed out stupid things people say. Some of the **** you've said - priceless.



See, this is just market forces - the invisible hand if you will. The behaviour of others (like me for example) towards you when you say stupid things should stop you from saying stupid things. :pac:

yawn, keep going - get it all out. You're one of those know-it-all's who is never wrong, & everyone else is & likes to make sure everyone knows they're wrong, & who goes out of their way to BULLY their arguments down people's throats at any cost. I'm bored with you already, & frankly dropping a note to moderators for some of your comments in the messages, as I'm not the only one in this thread who's found your manner & postings questionable in their tone & content.

Macha

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

In all fairness theres a big difference between the concept of a market and a particular strain of economic thought.

Posting on internet bulletin boards is my yoga, it does wonders

Didnt mean to jump down your throat

Ah no worries. Actually I am a bit rusty on my economics as I'm doing a thesis on a different topic at the moment and all brain power has been channeled into that.

My solution is to line up all the Finance ministers in Europe and the US and shoot them all. We could also line up some bankers, starting with the head of Lehman Brothers:

http://capital.trendaz.com/?show=news&newsid=1312909&catid=583&subcatid=540&lang=EN

(first time I've every referenced an Azerbaijani newspaper..)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ven0m wrote: »

Yup - that's right folks. All those who said globalisation works, are now having proof spoon fed to them why it doesn't work. Globalisation works on a premise that everyone wants to get rich equally, but the idiots pushing it further & further & further are greedy & enough is never enough for them, & hence the ****storm the global markets now find themselves.

I am really & truly enjoyng watching the markets crash & burn further - bye bye globalisation!!!

Maybe once it does crash & burn, the world will have learned a valuable lesson, & then proper politics, proper economics & proper human god damned decency can prevail instead of the American-led-ideological madness we've endured for 30 years.

It should also hopefully right the wrongs of people who have profited off people's misery or exploitation by putting them in a poorhouse or jail.

Hey, I'm all for making money - but there's such a thing as not taking the piss, & they all pushed it too far & will now reap the whirlwind!

There is a sense of karma about all this, and I know it puts my job at risk probably as much as anyone else's (dunno how much 'safer' I am in Germany, if any) but yes. Watching a bucnh of greedy idiots running around like demented chickens is fun.

I wonder what Gordon Gecko thinks of it all...?

ven0m

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I wonder what Gordon Gecko thinks of it all...?

was actually thinking about that movie as I watched the videos actually, & was thinking about boiler room then after.

Stabshauptmann

taconnol wrote: »

Ah no worries. Actually I am a bit rusty on my economics as I'm doing a thesis on a different topic at the moment and all brain power has been channeled into that.

My solution is to line up all the Finance ministers in Europe and the US and shoot them all. We could also line up some bankers, starting with the head of Lehman Brothers:

http://capital.trendaz.com/?show=news&newsid=1312909&catid=583&subcatid=540&lang=EN

(first time I've every referenced an Azerbaijani newspaper..)

See I honestly dont think the governments or regulators messed up. I think the rating agencies are primarily to blame, how nobody spotted that "property prices will always go up" was a fatal logical fallacy is mind boggling.

Strange as all this might seem to the guy on the street, but there has been no fraud, no rules were broken, just some very short sighted bad business decisions

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

See I honestly dont think the governments or regulators messed up. I think the rating agencies are primarily to blame, how nobody spotted that "property prices will always go up" was a fatal logical fallacy is mind boggling.

Strange as all this might seem to the guy on the street, but there has been no fraud, no rules were broken, just some very short sighted bad business decisions

And the FBI are investigating what - littering offenses? smoking inside a building?

Indymac collapsed & the FBI investigated for fraud & are still investigating under those circumstances. They are also investigating others relating to the meltdown:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26859850/

"looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and insurer American International Group Inc. Additionally, a senior law enforcement official said Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. also is under investigation. Officials said the new inquiries bring to 26 the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the past year."


Regulators did fail if 26 are under FBI investigation - one or two I'd accept regulatory blame shouldn't be apportioned, but 26?

you don't break out FBI investigations on those scales for 'bad business decisions'.

Stabshauptmann

Well to be quite honest, nothing has been said in any news paper or on any news programme what exactly they've found or are looking for.

This might turn out to be an even bigger scandal than Enron, but what I would suspect they are investigating is insider trading or unrelated embezzlement - the type of **** that happens when rats start to flee a sinking ship.

I don't think, nor have I seen or heard anything yet that would lead me to think, that the cause of the current market problems is fraud.

Macha

OK, so you say that no fraud has happened, just bad business decisions.

I suppose my response would be that loose lending criteria is an example of bad business and a lack of regulation. If we look at the Irish situation, right lots of people got mortgages they shouldn't have but that's not where the real bad debts are. The really bad debts were to the developers, who were given millions and millions on projects when the banks knew that the bubble was about to burst.

Regulation is there to stop these types of bad business decisions because unfortunately, if a bank goes under, it doesn't go by itself: it takes a lot of people with it.

Would you consider the ridiculous bonuses given to bank chiefs as fraud or just bad business decisions? I would lean towards the former..

Ven0m, what type of fraud are they suggesting, or do they have any idea yet?

ven0m

They're not saying what kind of fraud - only the names of SOME of the orgnisations so far & their involvement in the banking crisis - the fact it's now a federal investigation doesn't bode well. This news was covered on ALL major outlets, as my first viewing on the FBI's investigation came from watching a BBC World news report on the TV, & again on Sky News & also from an article in the Wall Street Journal last week.

As for my earlier statements about how globalisation & the markets are linked & how it can have negative effects:

http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&piPK=64165421&theSitePK=469372&menuPK=64166093&entityID=000016406_20070329111516

For your reading pleasure one & all (took me some time to dig through my friggin browser history for this!!!). This along with the fact ALOT of the bailouts backed by governments to include in some countries caveats being put in place by the governments regarding internal policy reviews & remuneration reviews, & also the investigations starting in the U.S.A. in federal terms, I think SHOULD help people understand what I'm getting at with my initial statement.

When you've read the above, look at what's happening & read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7662846.stm

Do the maths on it all, & it makes for more than worrying times ahead, & it's not going to have a 'happy ending'.

I'm not talking out my ass, I'm someone who's done my reading, understands economics (ought to, forms a part of my business qualification!) & family in finance/investments for a long time, as well as a general interest in economics & social anthropology (I just couldn't spend my days working in Finance - it'd do my head in, plus I like to relax not have **** attacks every 10 minutes as many friends & family who do at various levels in the industry!)

Maybe the above link will better explain my argument Kaptain, seeing as maybe I wasn't as eloquent as you'd have liked.

Mikel

ven0m wrote: »

I'm not talking out my ass, I'm someone who's done my reading, understands economics (ought to, forms a part of my business qualification!) & family in finance/investments for a long time...

Oh really, then why are you posting incoherent nonsense?
You obviously don't have the first clue what is happening, and when someone called bs on your ramblings you threw your toys out of the pram.
Appealing to the fact that your family are 'in investments for a long time' just about sums it up.
You're obviously just repeating what you think you heard someone else say, and are making a pigs ear of it.

Black Swan

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Theres a lot of truth to that, but to be more accurate this whole thing started due to a government policy decision by the Clinton administration to rectify what was perceived as discrimination in the housing market.

I'm not sure how Clinton's policies intended "to rectify what was perceived as discrimination in the housing market" affected the housing markets in Ireland (or other developed countries), where the housing bubble grew and burst too? See:

The global housing boom, 16 June 2005, From The Economist print edition:

"NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?"

"According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history."