Everything's done to maximize profits. Business is really pointless otherwise. I find it rather strange that someone like Phanuthier railing against this.
As a personal belief, as an investor, or by definition of a business? If its the 3rd... I would say their actions should be done in the best interests of their investors. That obviously isn't the case here. Maximize profits, sure, but investments should be done in good faith (i.e. not packaging toxic assets to get AAA ratings).
I also believe in a lot tighter gov't control, for no other reason than 99% of the world has no idea what is going on, and as a result, they are victims. With less over-leveraging, I think top talent new grads will start to go more towards companies producing value, rather than financial (as Azure alluded to) to grow the American economy as a whole.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
I just wanted to show a graphic that demonstrates how Iceland's economy has been showing signs of life since telling the bankers to eat their losses....
If this works out for Iceland, it could be a good model for other cash strapped nations to follow. Eg. Ireland, Portugal
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mikey_the_redneck For This Useful Post:
I'm not for the big bonuses and people have every right to be upset about that. But the fact remains if you don't bailout the banks the American people suffer MUCH worse than they are or have. We are talking about unemployment levels in the high teens, banks runs, people losing their entire life savings, like I said earlier worse than the 1930's.
And yes I agree with the terms fraudulent and predatory in describing some of the loans made (ie. NINA) but it takes two to tango. I'm fine with bankers being dolled out the loins share of the blame but the consumer has some discretion and should bare some of the responsibility, without them they loans don't get made in the first place.
Is there any evidence for this? This is just fear mongering. So seriously, this post pisses me off every single time I read it.
Do you really think the "American people" (not rich bankers, but the average joe) would be any worse off? The banks would collapse, the individuals get $100,000 insured (which is far more savings than, say, 90% of people). You might get a staggering number for "wealth" destroyed - and I write that in quotations because that's all paper wealth, not real wealth like production and innovation.
Like others have posted, sticking the bill to the average citizen is not the way for banks to "shoulder blame" for the crisis. What has happened is that the bank took 0% of the blame, and the consumer took 100% of the blame.
Iceland, Malaysia and hopefully others to come give me hope for society, that we can actually break free from this corporate slavery. One day.
Is there any evidence for this? This is just fear mongering. So seriously, this post pisses me off every single time I read it.
Do you really think the "American people" (not rich bankers, but the average joe) would be any worse off? The banks would collapse, the individuals get $100,000 insured (which is far more savings than, say, 90% of people). You might get a staggering number for "wealth" destroyed - and I write that in quotations because that's all paper wealth, not real wealth like production and innovation.
Well it would shock the industry for sure. A credit freeze causes mom and pop's place can't pay their bills and a lot of business's go bankrupt. They would be worse off in the short term for sure, but overall its arguable. However, large masses of people don't deal with economic shocks well.
I wish there was more oversight for the bailouts, rather than the rich getting richer... that should piss you off more.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
The Althingi prosecutor says charges against former Icelandic Prime Minister Geir H. Haarde are nearly ready and will be put to the court trying him for negligence in the banking crisis “very soon”. Prosecutor Sigridur Fridjonsdottir told the parliamentary prosecutor’s committee on Wednesday that her case against Haarde is going well and will be presented soon, Visir.is reported.
I'm not for the big bonuses and people have every right to be upset about that. But the fact remains if you don't bailout the banks the American people suffer MUCH worse than they are or have. We are talking about unemployment levels in the high teens, banks runs, people losing their entire life savings, like I said earlier worse than the 1930's.
I had very little problem with keeping the banks solvent. My problems came from getting/enforcing essentially zero change on the people and processes that caused the problem in the first place.
I don't think you'll find many people who oppose using public money to actually save the entire economy (and I think that's what happened), but they got nothing in return, the perpetrators ALL got rich, and the system has already begun the next round.
As a personal belief, as an investor, or by definition of a business? If its the 3rd... I would say their actions should be done in the best interests of their investors. That obviously isn't the case here. Maximize profits, sure, but investments should be done in good faith (i.e. not packaging toxic assets to get AAA ratings).
Historically, the US banking system has always been riskier than Canada's by a fair amount. They don't have an oligopoly, thus there is much greater competition for people's dollars.
Again, historically, US investors have been okay with this. Consider the massive rise in bank share prices since 2008.
Note that this isn't the first time the gov't massively bailed out financial institutions. I suppose if we go by the logic that these bailouts precede bubbles we can go all the way back to the S&L bailouts in 1989 and then say that everything since then should vapourize any time now (I actually do hear this from time to time from old people).
Quote:
I also believe in a lot tighter gov't control, for no other reason than 99% of the world has no idea what is going on, and as a result, they are victims. With less over-leveraging, I think top talent new grads will start to go more towards companies producing value, rather than financial (as Azure alluded to) to grow the American economy as a whole.
I don't know what that means. I find it rather remarkable that Azure and even yourself find it odd that people would go towards the job that pays highest.
The real problem is that there aren't enough engineers around. We can also say that demand for high-skill people is rising. There's been more studies than I can count since the 90s that have stated that enrollment in fields such as CS and Engineering has been declining steadily.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
I just pray we're all having a dirt nap before the magical ride comes to an end.
Haha! Me too! But, and I hate to throw out the catchy but tired and worn cliche, but this makes us no better than the people that got us here. We want to live this way, and so long as the change doesnt happen while we're around its all ok. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam
Canada requires banks to have a much higher reserve than the US. Europe's even worse in that regard.
Everything's done to maximize profits. Business is really pointless otherwise. I find it rather strange that someone like Phanuthier railing against this.
I think what Phanuthier is saying is that he believes in 'maximizing profits' for shareholders, but not by any means necessary. It is a fundamental principle in our society but it can, and has, been taken too far.
__________________ The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
The World Ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. - Flames Fans
If you thought this season would have a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention.
The Following User Says Thank You to Locke For This Useful Post:
I think what Phanuthier is saying is that he believes in 'maximizing profits' for shareholders, but not by any means necessary. It is a fundamental principle in our society but it can, and has, been taken too far.
Hmm, well, that gets really sticky.
Lots of cocoa for instance is picked by child labour.
If he found out tomorrow that Lululemon sold clothing made by children, would he sell his stock for what he bought it for?
I find most people are just as moral as they find convenient. Usually that involves pointing fingers at other people.
__________________
If you don't pass this sig to ten of your friends, you will become an Oilers fan.
Historically, the US banking system has always been riskier than Canada's by a fair amount. They don't have an oligopoly, thus there is much greater competition for people's dollars.
Again, historically, US investors have been okay with this. Consider the massive rise in bank share prices since 2008.
Yes, true, but I think the internet has really speeded this up. Everything out there, all the news feed on Google Finance et al, are all speculation articles. The stock market is a VLT these days (and I say this as an investor myself).
I think Americans are "ok with it" because they don't know any better. Fundamentally, a stock is an opportunity for the general public to own a portion of a company. i-Banks don't see it that way, they see it as reading the graphs and riding the waves and profit profit profit. But when the market crashes, turn to the bailouts then keep on chugging. I don't think thats right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam
Note that this isn't the first time the gov't massively bailed out financial institutions. I suppose if we go by the logic that these bailouts precede bubbles we can go all the way back to the S&L bailouts in 1989 and then say that everything since then should vapourize any time now (I actually do hear this from time to time from old people).
Yeah, I know. I still disagree with it though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam
I don't know what that means. I find it rather remarkable that Azure and even yourself find it odd that people would go towards the job that pays highest.
The real problem is that there aren't enough engineers around. We can also say that demand for high-skill people is rising. There's been more studies than I can count since the 90s that have stated that enrollment in fields such as CS and Engineering has been declining steadily.
No I don't find it odd, I understand it. I just don't like it. As I said, the biggest industry in the USA is financial - an industry that does not produce value. I remember coming out of Engineering school, a lot of us were recruited for i-Banks, and when you see the the money they throw around, its hard to pass. Some of my friends have, some of them haven't. Granted, Google/Microsoft/Facebook offers a pretty decent starting wage, but I know that a lot of Engineers are targeted by i-Banks.
As for enrollment in CS/Engg... I don't know, I haven't been following that issue at all. I know there are a lot of them here, but I work in the Silicon Valley as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Haha! Me too! But, and I hate to throw out the catchy but tired and worn cliche, but this makes us no better than the people that got us here. We want to live this way, and so long as the change doesnt happen while we're around its all ok. The buck has to stop somewhere.
I think what Phanuthier is saying is that he believes in 'maximizing profits' for shareholders, but not by any means necessary. It is a fundamental principle in our society but it can, and has, been taken too far.
Thanked, for both paragraphs.
Quote:
Hmm, well, that gets really sticky.
Lots of cocoa for instance is picked by child labour.
If he found out tomorrow that Lululemon sold clothing made by children, would he sell his stock for what he bought it for?
I find most people are just as moral as they find convenient. Usually that involves pointing fingers at other people.
Very true, I wouldn't say I'm entirely self-righteous. If you asked me would I sacrifice significant money if it meant a better life for a Bangladesh community, or if it meant stricter oversight to i-Banks to save people's life savings, I would oblige I like to have money, but I make more than I need and I'd gladly give it up to stricter laws to people's finances from themselves.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
The Following User Says Thank You to Phanuthier For This Useful Post:
Canada requires banks to have a much higher reserve than the US. Europe's even worse in that regard.
Everything's done to maximize profits. Business is really pointless otherwise. I find it rather strange that someone like Phanuthier railing against this.
Isn't this a good argument against capitalism? If business will always and forever seek higher profits, shouldn't there be massive controls in place to maintain the interests of the people? Unless you argue that the best interests of big business always line up with the best interest of the people, which would be absurd given the situation in the US.
The only logical conclusion is that government needs to be there to enforce regulation. Heavy regulation at that, otherwise you'll have a society based around maximizing profits. Which seems untenable in a society that maintains that each individual has the right to life.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
The Following User Says Thank You to Weiser Wonder For This Useful Post:
Isn't this a good argument against capitalism? If business will always and forever seek higher profits, shouldn't there be massive controls in place to maintain the interests of the people? Unless you argue that the best interests of big business always line up with the best interest of the people, which would be absurd given the situation in the US.
The only logical conclusion is that government needs to be there to enforce regulation. Heavy regulation at that, otherwise you'll have a society based around maximizing profits. Which seems untenable in a society that maintains that each individual has the right to life.
Thanked, but to add to that, I really think some of these laws, lingo and market derivatives are made so confusing that it confuses 99% of the world. It shouldn't be that complicated. I always followed the rule, if you don't understand it, don't invest in it. I live in a utopia, but part of more oversight/regulation is needing to make these laws, lingo and market derivative understandable.. I don't have a solution for this, but that would go a long ways to improving things.
__________________
"With a coach and a player, sometimes there's just so much respect there that it's boils over"
-Taylor Hall
Haha! Me too! But, and I hate to throw out the catchy but tired and worn cliche, but this makes us no better than the people that got us here. We want to live this way, and so long as the change doesnt happen while we're around its all ok. The buck has to stop somewhere.
Problem is, can any of us truly make a difference?
