BF2S Forums Fraud, lies and your neighborhood banker

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't include the "answer" because I was responding to Turq, and Turq should be very familiar to my idea of a solution.

People don't need regulation. People need to understand and accept the risks of living with beings designed for self-fulfillment. It's not greed in the typical sense, it's the basic instinct to take what we want. That's not avarice unless you can't play by a very simple rule - take what you earn.

People wanting something from nothing is the problem. People whine bitch and moan about the financial sectors and how corrupt they are, but they refuse to see that the business is built on the average joe trying to manipulate the system, trying to make an unearned percentage off what they already earned by "investing" in people they don't know and products they don't understand. When it works they have no problem taking the money, when it fails pitchforks and torches for all.

It is possible to regulate without interfering with the consequences of greed.

For example, making sure that people only leverage by a certain maximum ratio is just a way to keep the market more stable.  There are rational reasonable limits to risk taking that should be the difference between what's legal and what isn't.

The government must play at least a minimal role in business, and even our founders understood that with things like the Contract Clause.

Now, obviously, we can debate as to what extent the government should get involved, but it's not like any reasonably advanced society was put together with limitless risk taking allowed.

I think, if anything, most of the populace has already learned a lot of lessons from this crisis.  Probably the most important one is that we can no longer afford to believe in the concept of "too big to fail."  Antitrust regulations need to be more strict.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For example, making sure that people only leverage by a certain maximum ratio is just a way to keep the market more stable.  There are rational reasonable limits to risk taking that should be the difference between what's legal and what isn't.

It doesn't matter how reasonable the limits are. The point is there isn't anyone who can reliably enforce those limits.

Really?  And why is that?

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The government must play at least a minimal role in business, and even our founders understood that with things like the Contract Clause.

In that the government keeps the peace, yes. Maintaining Civil law and interfering with business practices are two completely different things.

I would include market stability among the idea of "keeping the peace."

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Now, obviously, we can debate as to what extent the government should get involved, but it's not like any reasonably advanced society was put together with limitless risk taking allowed.

"Reasonably advanced" societies haven't been put together period until the last few centuries, and we have hardly gotten it right.

...only from the viewpoint of someone who has unrealistic expectations.  I'm a cynic myself, but I do try to be realistic.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think, if anything, most of the populace has already learned a lot of lessons from this crisis.  Probably the most important one is that we can no longer afford to believe in the concept of "too big to fail."  Antitrust regulations need to be more strict.

Or you could just, you know, leave out the anti-trust regulation and let them fail anyways.

There's no need for a failure of that magnitude when you prevent some mergers from occurring.

In my above earlier rant I talked about some things that were said on CNBC... well here's the links

www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1470775945&play=1
at 0:30 Cramer comes rushing to defend his friends at GS... the blood letting had begun and then Cramer is the outlet for GS damage control.
One thing to note is the tone of this guy... my guess is that the GS crew were taken by surprise and they were in full spin mode, my guess is that they needed the time for their traders to reposition themselves and Cramer was the guy to buy them sometime.


In a later piece (of CNBC BS)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1 … amp;play=1
At 1:48 the commentator says he thought that things were looking bad for GS until Cramer came on and spoke about his secret source who told them that GS didn't do it.
This has started me to thinking if Cramer isn't the GS straight man... he uses his show to put the public on to stocks which GS has positions, they could really make a killing playing the public like that.

And remember the Cramer rant.

^^^^Ex Goldman Sachs employee              ^^^^^^^^another ex Goldman Sachs employee.

MMMM could this rant have been a put on.

Now just suppose that you have a super bubble in the financials that's about to explode but you need a primer cap like the commodity bubble... So GS gets into position but you need someone to yell stampede... because you can't do that yourself and not draw attention to the fact that you are about to make billions, kill your competition and ruin the economy.... so you call your PR guy.... Rant--->bubble pop--->crash---> billions.

I am really beginning to think that that was what happened... And to think that the rant made Cramer a household name and elevated his credibility... amazing... we've been had folks

Anyway I couldn't count how many times CNBC said "GS would vigorously defend itself." talk about trying to prop GS up... what a talk shop... I'd be watching my market money really closely right now because you can't trust these guys at all.

I've posted before that I thought we were being set up for 2010 pre-election crash... I now believe that this little surprise charge of fraud on GS and the commodity deflation that just occurred has greatly reduced the risk of another manipulated crash this fall. I doubt that GS will be able to recover suffciently to cause another crash. So as far as political timing on this one... its definitely political and its timing is perfect to save the upcoming election from being influenced by market manipulation and to make the assholes on capital hill who are taking GS money from being able to work in the shadows... the country needs to focus on financial reform and by making GS polical money poisonous we might have a chance at taking the country back.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

For example, making sure that people only leverage by a certain maximum ratio is just a way to keep the market more stable.  There are rational reasonable limits to risk taking that should be the difference between what's legal and what isn't.

It doesn't matter how reasonable the limits are. The point is there isn't anyone who can reliably enforce those limits.

Really?  And why is that?

The burden of proof is on you my friend. The OP is a perfect example of why.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The government must play at least a minimal role in business, and even our founders understood that with things like the Contract Clause.

In that the government keeps the peace, yes. Maintaining Civil law and interfering with business practices are two completely different things.

I would include market stability among the idea of "keeping the peace."

It's not. Market stability has nothing to do with social contract.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Now, obviously, we can debate as to what extent the government should get involved, but it's not like any reasonably advanced society was put together with limitless risk taking allowed.

"Reasonably advanced" societies haven't been put together period until the last few centuries, and we have hardly gotten it right.

...only from the viewpoint of someone who has unrealistic expectations.  I'm a cynic myself, but I do try to be realistic.

So what is a "realistic" viewpoint?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I think, if anything, most of the populace has already learned a lot of lessons from this crisis.  Probably the most important one is that we can no longer afford to believe in the concept of "too big to fail."  Antitrust regulations need to be more strict.

Or you could just, you know, leave out the anti-trust regulation and let them fail anyways.

There's no need for a failure of that magnitude when you prevent some mergers from occurring.

Except that you have no moral or ethical grounds for preventing such a merger. You could achieve the same ends by holding the aforementioned gun to everyone's head.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The burden of proof is on you my friend. The OP is a perfect example of why.

There's no proving anything.  You made a subjective statement.  You're saying no one can reliably regulate business, but that all depends on how you define "reliable."  If it's anything like how you define "reasonably advanced", then I'm sure any example I give will fall short of your unrealistic expectations.

Do you call the OP "reliable"?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It's not. Market stability has nothing to do with social contract.

But if the contract itself is only protecting an unstable market, then that contract isn't worth much.

Uh, why?

You act like the world would crumble, despite no evidence or reason to believe that is so.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So what is a "realistic" viewpoint?

...having standards that actually involve societies that have existed.  You have a habit of holding people to unrealistic ideals.  I only expect a certain amount of integrity out of people, because if I held them to Platonic ideals, then I'd never be satisfied with anything.

And satisfaction is a fundamental right? You deserve satisfaction despite being presented with anything satisfactory?

You pointlessly shift your standards for no gain other than personal relief. That seems pretty selfish to me. To comprehend an ideal and not hold those capable of it to that standard, instead allowing the unacceptable in the name of the past despite the future, is patronizing yourself and the human race.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Except that you have no moral or ethical grounds for preventing such a merger. You could achieve the same ends by holding the aforementioned gun to everyone's head.

Bullshit.  My ethical grounds are to prevent a future disaster and oligopolies/monopolies in a given market.

Inaction is actually criminal neglect.

What is disaster? Natural business cycle fluctuations? Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Oligopolies and monopolies are not evil, they are not unbreakable by the market, the stigma that surrounds them made of more dogma than reason. /generic response to inevitably be followed by the rehashing of the same discussion

Inaction is criminal neglect...when something bad actually happens.

Hey numbnuts, read what I said in context and realize I am saying the article in the OP is a legitimate article displaying the failings of regulation. Essentially I am agreeing with you.

Don't worry, I dismiss your sources when they suck, not because it's you.

Lets hope Goldman Sachs are finished. Somehow doubt it but you never know.

FM wrote:

Oligopolies and monopolies are not evil, they are not unbreakable by the market, the stigma that surrounds them made of more dogma than reason.

Hey I know, lets let serial killers run free, either they'll run out of people to murder, die of old age or get lynched. Let the market regulate itself.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-04-17 05:03:42)

stock market is gambling anyway

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Lol govs entering the markets just fuck shit up more. There is a risk in investment, and people should know it. More risk = more return. Stock market isn't that hard to fucking understand... There's always going to be an up and down cycle.

Even casinos are regulated, they aren't allowed to put magnets under the roulette wheels any more - which is what Goldman Sachs were basically doing.

but they can still kick you out for counting cards in your head, which is not even close to cheating so......

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yes but Casinos are no longer allowed to cheat, investment banks are.

they never pay out though....i mean if a company made billions and paid out like .005% back to the investors, they would be investigated and shut down.  casinos stay open.

11 Bravo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Yes but Casinos are no longer allowed to cheat, investment banks are.

they never pay out though....i mean if a company made billions and paid out like .005% back to the investors, they would be investigated and shut down.  casinos stay open.

No they wouldn't, their shares would drop in value, thats it.

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

they never pay out though....i mean if a company made billions and paid out like .005% back to the investors, they would be investigated and shut down.  casinos stay open.

No they wouldn't, their shares would drop in value, thats it.

Yeah which means they lose A SHIT TON OF MONEY. Shares dropping a lot is terribad for a company.

No, the shareholders lose a shit ton of money.
Only matters to the company if they plan to raise more money or are worried about a hostile takeover.
Otherwise doesn't matter a damn.