PSA: The market isn't always perfect. Economic actors are not always rational.

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: yllus
You both misunderstand. I nor anybody else is claiming that the market is perfect. That it's not is obvious. What we are doing is debating whether some level of government intervention is necessary even in the hypothetical perfect market - because if it's necessary in a perfect market, it's sure as hell going to be needed in ours.

You're framing the argument to end the debate before it begins. I think most free marketers would agree that government is necessary. You seem to be making the same mistake many people do though, and that is equating a free market with anarchy.

The government has a very important part to play in a free market, and that part is education and preventing coercion. What free marketers are against is direct market intervention by specifically listing what is allowed and what is disallowed, or worse direct competition with private enterprise. That isn't a market at all, it's a command economy which is what we seem to be moving to. The concept of "too big to fail" is another way of saying "big enough that government must control it." I have even less faith in our elected leaders than corporate executives, which is why I support free markets.

No, FM'ers advocate anarchy. They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business. This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
So you would rather deal with wall street hucksters who almost destroyed the world economy (but thankfully gov't stepped in and saved us) vs. for example, canada's banks that are well regulated and don't have to really deal with this subprime mess?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...opinion/28tedesco.html

You, my friend, are irrational. That is why your extreme ideology is dangerous and thankfully you are considered the lunatic fringe and you nutjobs will never have a say in government.

You calling me a nut is nothing less than a total compliment.

You are a nut. You LOLbertarians will never have a seat at the table because we all know your free market fundamentalism would destroy our economy.

It is all about control. The government is smarter than the sheep and when you can destroy a free market you can control the market. I do not trust people who say they know how to control something that have never been in charge of a company, make a profit, or just theorize why they they think thier version is better in anything.

Motives are also something we need to look at. Many elites oppertunity where there isn't financial freedom. Just look at our newly created GM. Government Motors will have such an advavntage over Ford, which said FU to the government, that the very thing the government is called to do will be to break up its own monopoly GM. Ford cannot survive Cafe standards that Obama has imposed while trying to survive and make a profit against a company that regulates the industry. Do you want to go into any detail where governments own automobile manufacturers?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fern

As regards the above bolded portion of your remarks - we agree. However, what you wrote afterwards is silly; people with substantial personal investment in markets definately WANT to know what's going on. In fact, only because of their confidence will they do so. Only in hindsight can we be so judgemental, otherwise we'd all be bazillionaires.

You don't invest a billion $'s and not "want to understand", that't absurd. To risk a $ billion indicates they felt, wrongly, quite sure of what they were doing (they were so confident they bet a billion on it). Such things are NOT undertaken lightly, no matter what many on the 'outside' may think.

Fern

this article seems to disagree. in fact, they were outright told it wasn't suitable for risk management and used it anyway! that's even worse than burying their heads in the sand! they knew it was fucked and they did it anyway!

 

[Deleted member 4644]

thanks for the heads up

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
So you would rather deal with wall street hucksters who almost destroyed the world economy (but thankfully gov't stepped in and saved us) vs. for example, canada's banks that are well regulated and don't have to really deal with this subprime mess?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...opinion/28tedesco.html

You, my friend, are irrational. That is why your extreme ideology is dangerous and thankfully you are considered the lunatic fringe and you nutjobs will never have a say in government.

You calling me a nut is nothing less than a total compliment.

You are a nut. You LOLbertarians will never have a seat at the table because we all know your free market fundamentalism would destroy our economy.

Yeah, because the Federal Reserve system did so well to keep it going.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fern

As regards the above bolded portion of your remarks - we agree. However, what you wrote afterwards is silly; people with substantial personal investment in markets definately WANT to know what's going on. In fact, only because of their confidence will they do so. Only in hindsight can we be so judgemental, otherwise we'd all be bazillionaires.

You don't invest a billion $'s and not "want to understand", that't absurd. To risk a $ billion indicates they felt, wrongly, quite sure of what they were doing (they were so confident they bet a billion on it). Such things are NOT undertaken lightly, no matter what many on the 'outside' may think.

Fern

this article seems to disagree. in fact, they were outright told it wasn't suitable for risk management and used it anyway! that's even worse than burying their heads in the sand! they knew it was fucked and they did it anyway!

The article you link is quite lengthy and doesn't appear to support your contention. At the very least the guy creating the formula isn't influential, so no one is going to pay attention to him, and 'after-the-fact' people come out of the woodwork with 'see - I was right' all the time. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. No big deal, you would'nt bet a billion dollars on this guy.

Moreover, and I'll have to spend more time than I have now, but at first blush it appears his mathmatical theories only emboldended them to to assume this risk - it wasn't a warning as you say. No matter, he was of no influence. And I can tell you from from personal experience, being 'correct' or even reasonably 'persuasive' isn't much unless you have the 'rep' to make people listen. He never had it, and still doesn't or he would be on WS making big $'s.

After something 'big' happens, there are always those who come of the woodwork to say "I told you so". We used to have a member a here who said the same about hurricanes etc. (I'm not 'dissing' him/her, just saying it aint unusual - in fact quite the opposite)

Fern

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Phokus
It's obvious people are not always rational actors, you can find numerous instances of this. For example: people will sometimes avoid preventative healthcare to save on short term costs, but pay dearly for it in the long term. Only idiot 'true believers' in the free market believe people are rational actors 100% of the time.

Your argument sounds like people should be governed and micro managed. An anti-thesis to individual liberty and freedom. Is that what you truly stand for?

We digress. The argument of free markets is not about rationality. This is a subject about ownership and control. It is about power. Who should hold this power, the peasants or their lords? Apparently you think the peasants make mistakes, so to strive for perfection this power should be taken out of their hands. I disagree, perfection is not what we should strive for at the sacrifice of liberty.

I would rather live freely in an imperfect world than in a perfect cage.

what, are you a marxist now? :roll:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Phokus
So you would rather deal with wall street hucksters who almost destroyed the world economy (but thankfully gov't stepped in and saved us) vs. for example, canada's banks that are well regulated and don't have to really deal with this subprime mess?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...opinion/28tedesco.html

You, my friend, are irrational. That is why your extreme ideology is dangerous and thankfully you are considered the lunatic fringe and you nutjobs will never have a say in government.

You calling me a nut is nothing less than a total compliment.

You are a nut. You LOLbertarians will never have a seat at the table because we all know your free market fundamentalism would destroy our economy.

Yeah, because the Federal Reserve system did so well to keep it going.

Too much blame is put on the Fed and not nearly enough on the market itself. The Fed didn't regulate CDOs, nor any off-bs structure. The FRB is also constrained by the current regulatory environment (or lack thereof), which completely glossed over securitization structures, mortgage origination/underwriting, rating agencies, not to mention they have no control over the leverage ratios, which are set by the UST (reduced in 2005 by Paulson).

Overall, the FRB cannot control or prevent problems with regards to leverage. They can alter the Fed Funds market, but as you can see, they have limited control over long-term rates, which is what drove the securitization market . One only has to look at the compression of risk spreads in from 2002--2007 to see that they were very compressed. That is the "free market", not the FRB.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Fern
The article you link is quite lengthy and doesn't appear to support your contention. At the very least the guy creating the formula isn't influential, so no one is going to pay attention to him, and 'after-the-fact' people come out of the woodwork with 'see - I was right' all the time. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. No big deal, you would'nt bet a billion dollars on this guy.

uh, this is exactly a warning:

Investment banks would regularly phone Stanford's Duffie and ask him to come in and talk to them about exactly what Li's copula was. Every time, he would warn them that it was not suitable for use in risk management or valuation.

Moreover, and I'll have to spend more time than I have now, but at first blush it appears his mathmatical theories only emboldended them to to assume this risk - it wasn't a warning as you say. No matter, he was of no influence. And I can tell you from from personal experience, being 'correct' or even reasonably 'persuasive' isn't much unless you have the 'rep' to make people listen. He never had it, and still doesn't or he would be on WS making big $'s.

the formula wasn't a warning, and no one is saying it is. where did you get that from?

and if people are betting billions or trillions on his formula being right, how is he not influential?

heck, the WSJ ran an article back in 2005 regarding the cracks in the formula and how it was starting to burn people, but i'll bet it was still used until the wheels fell completely off in 2008. i don't know about you, but i'd say the WSJ is pretty influential.

After something 'big' happens, there are always those who come of the woodwork to say "I told you so". We used to have a member a here who said the same about hurricanes etc. (I'm not 'dissing' him/her, just saying it aint unusual - in fact quite the opposite)

Fern

i'm going to take a gander here and assume the quants knew of the issues with the formula. i can't believe that all those math phds didn't know what they were looking at. i'm going to go out on a limb and assume they informed their managers of the issues. i don't think either of those is a particularly huge leap of faith. so the question here isn't of negligence, but of recklessness at the very least.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
No, FM'ers advocate anarchy.

You're a kook. Gone off the deep end. You can't even see the world clearly because the foam from your mouth has gotten in your eyes.

They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business.

The free market is trying but government keeps propping those risk takers up even after they've soundly trashed the market.

This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Hide the risk, in otherwords fraud? Free marketers aren't against prosecution of fraud. In fact they're highly in support of those misrepresenting themselves or their product.

You've gone completely, batshit insane.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: yllus
You both misunderstand. I nor anybody else is claiming that the market is perfect. That it's not is obvious. What we are doing is debating whether some level of government intervention is necessary even in the hypothetical perfect market - because if it's necessary in a perfect market, it's sure as hell going to be needed in ours.

You're framing the argument to end the debate before it begins. I think most free marketers would agree that government is necessary. You seem to be making the same mistake many people do though, and that is equating a free market with anarchy.

The government has a very important part to play in a free market, and that part is education and preventing coercion. What free marketers are against is direct market intervention by specifically listing what is allowed and what is disallowed, or worse direct competition with private enterprise. That isn't a market at all, it's a command economy which is what we seem to be moving to. The concept of "too big to fail" is another way of saying "big enough that government must control it." I have even less faith in our elected leaders than corporate executives, which is why I support free markets.

No, FM'ers advocate anarchy. They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business. This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Exactly, that Cassano asshole is living the good life in London right now. He has several hundred million to live on and he's the one that created the CDS mess!

Conservatives/Free Marketers are all for accountability (unless you're a thieving rich asshole) :thumbsdown:

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
No, FM'ers advocate anarchy.

You're a kook. Gone off the deep end. You can't even see the world clearly because the foam from your mouth has gotten in your eyes.

They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business.

The free market is trying but government keeps propping those risk takers up even after they've soundly trashed the market.

This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Hide the risk, in otherwords fraud? Free marketers aren't against prosecution of fraud. In fact they're highly in support of those misrepresenting themselves or their product.

You've gone completely, batshit insane.

I usually agree or understand LKs positions but agree that reply was on the looney side. I dont know any free market advocates that want fraud to go unpunished or do they desire anarchy.

Also if it werent for the govt, many of the risk takers would have been taken to the cleaners. Instead the govt is pumping the market and bailing out the risk takers. I agree the market wont work if there isnt much risk.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: yllus
You both misunderstand. I nor anybody else is claiming that the market is perfect. That it's not is obvious. What we are doing is debating whether some level of government intervention is necessary even in the hypothetical perfect market - because if it's necessary in a perfect market, it's sure as hell going to be needed in ours.

You're framing the argument to end the debate before it begins. I think most free marketers would agree that government is necessary. You seem to be making the same mistake many people do though, and that is equating a free market with anarchy.

The government has a very important part to play in a free market, and that part is education and preventing coercion. What free marketers are against is direct market intervention by specifically listing what is allowed and what is disallowed, or worse direct competition with private enterprise. That isn't a market at all, it's a command economy which is what we seem to be moving to. The concept of "too big to fail" is another way of saying "big enough that government must control it." I have even less faith in our elected leaders than corporate executives, which is why I support free markets.

No, FM'ers advocate anarchy. They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business. This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Yep, you've gone completely off the deep end.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
No, FM'ers advocate anarchy.

You're a kook. Gone off the deep end. You can't even see the world clearly because the foam from your mouth has gotten in your eyes.

They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business.

The free market is trying but government keeps propping those risk takers up even after they've soundly trashed the market.

This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Hide the risk, in otherwords fraud? Free marketers aren't against prosecution of fraud. In fact they're highly in support of those misrepresenting themselves or their product.

You've gone completely, batshit insane.

Please explain to me how the free market will/would punish the creator of the CDS (Cassano) if it wasn't for that gosh darn GUBMIT getting in the way?

Republicans.txt

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: yllus
You both misunderstand. I nor anybody else is claiming that the market is perfect. That it's not is obvious. What we are doing is debating whether some level of government intervention is necessary even in the hypothetical perfect market - because if it's necessary in a perfect market, it's sure as hell going to be needed in ours.

You're framing the argument to end the debate before it begins. I think most free marketers would agree that government is necessary. You seem to be making the same mistake many people do though, and that is equating a free market with anarchy.

The government has a very important part to play in a free market, and that part is education and preventing coercion. What free marketers are against is direct market intervention by specifically listing what is allowed and what is disallowed, or worse direct competition with private enterprise. That isn't a market at all, it's a command economy which is what we seem to be moving to. The concept of "too big to fail" is another way of saying "big enough that government must control it." I have even less faith in our elected leaders than corporate executives, which is why I support free markets.

No, FM'ers advocate anarchy. They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business. This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Exactly, that Cassano asshole is living the good life in London right now. He has several hundred million to live on and he's the one that created the CDS mess!

Conservatives/Free Marketers are all for accountability (unless you're a thieving rich asshole) :thumbsdown:

That is a strawman argument and you know it. Actually I'd say that is an outright lie.
You think Cassano was a free market thinker? I doubt it. He prefered to grease the wheels of govt to get what he needed so he could do what he wanted legally.

Oh he was a backer of your heroes Dodd and Obama. Hard to imagine why he would back the head of the banking committee and a future presidential candidate. Must be one of those free market small govt types right?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: yllus
You both misunderstand. I nor anybody else is claiming that the market is perfect. That it's not is obvious. What we are doing is debating whether some level of government intervention is necessary even in the hypothetical perfect market - because if it's necessary in a perfect market, it's sure as hell going to be needed in ours.

You're framing the argument to end the debate before it begins. I think most free marketers would agree that government is necessary. You seem to be making the same mistake many people do though, and that is equating a free market with anarchy.

The government has a very important part to play in a free market, and that part is education and preventing coercion. What free marketers are against is direct market intervention by specifically listing what is allowed and what is disallowed, or worse direct competition with private enterprise. That isn't a market at all, it's a command economy which is what we seem to be moving to. The concept of "too big to fail" is another way of saying "big enough that government must control it." I have even less faith in our elected leaders than corporate executives, which is why I support free markets.

No, FM'ers advocate anarchy. They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business. This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Exactly, that Cassano asshole is living the good life in London right now. He has several hundred million to live on and he's the one that created the CDS mess!

Conservatives/Free Marketers are all for accountability (unless you're a thieving rich asshole) :thumbsdown:

That is a strawman argument and you know it. Actually I'd say that is an outright lie.
You think Cassano was a free market thinker? I doubt it. He prefered to grease the wheels of govt to get what he needed so he could do what he wanted legally.

Oh he was a backer of your heroes Dodd and Obama. Hard to imagine why he would back the head of the banking committee and a future presidential candidate. Must be one of those free market small govt types right?

:roll: you're deflecting and not answering the question (typical Genx). What he did was legal and within the scope of the free market. Please explain how the free market will punish him after he got all his riches.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: yllus
You both misunderstand. I nor anybody else is claiming that the market is perfect. That it's not is obvious. What we are doing is debating whether some level of government intervention is necessary even in the hypothetical perfect market - because if it's necessary in a perfect market, it's sure as hell going to be needed in ours.

You're framing the argument to end the debate before it begins. I think most free marketers would agree that government is necessary. You seem to be making the same mistake many people do though, and that is equating a free market with anarchy.

The government has a very important part to play in a free market, and that part is education and preventing coercion. What free marketers are against is direct market intervention by specifically listing what is allowed and what is disallowed, or worse direct competition with private enterprise. That isn't a market at all, it's a command economy which is what we seem to be moving to. The concept of "too big to fail" is another way of saying "big enough that government must control it." I have even less faith in our elected leaders than corporate executives, which is why I support free markets.

No, FM'ers advocate anarchy. They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business. This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Exactly, that Cassano asshole is living the good life in London right now. He has several hundred million to live on and he's the one that created the CDS mess!

Conservatives/Free Marketers are all for accountability (unless you're a thieving rich asshole) :thumbsdown:

That is a strawman argument and you know it. Actually I'd say that is an outright lie.
You think Cassano was a free market thinker? I doubt it. He prefered to grease the wheels of govt to get what he needed so he could do what he wanted legally.

Oh he was a backer of your heroes Dodd and Obama. Hard to imagine why he would back the head of the banking committee and a future presidential candidate. Must be one of those free market small govt types right?

:roll: you're deflecting and not answering the question (typical Genx). What he did was legal and within the scope of the free market. Please explain how the free market will punish him after he got all his riches.

Did he take any risk? Doesnt sound like he did does it? If he comitted a crime he should be tossed in jail to rot. And what lack of regulation he used to do what he did should be closed. Your focus on Cassano is the true deflection in all of this. You want to pin this on a single douche when the fact is our govt failed in its regulatory duties. Something many\most free market thinkers believe is a legitimate role of our govt in a free market. To create a framework for a market to work that allows for a level playing field and punishment for frauds comitted.

But you are too stupid and rabid in the mouth to attack anything that doesnt fit with your acute ideological view of the world to realize this.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: yllus
You both misunderstand. I nor anybody else is claiming that the market is perfect. That it's not is obvious. What we are doing is debating whether some level of government intervention is necessary even in the hypothetical perfect market - because if it's necessary in a perfect market, it's sure as hell going to be needed in ours.

You're framing the argument to end the debate before it begins. I think most free marketers would agree that government is necessary. You seem to be making the same mistake many people do though, and that is equating a free market with anarchy.

The government has a very important part to play in a free market, and that part is education and preventing coercion. What free marketers are against is direct market intervention by specifically listing what is allowed and what is disallowed, or worse direct competition with private enterprise. That isn't a market at all, it's a command economy which is what we seem to be moving to. The concept of "too big to fail" is another way of saying "big enough that government must control it." I have even less faith in our elected leaders than corporate executives, which is why I support free markets.

No, FM'ers advocate anarchy. They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business. This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Exactly, that Cassano asshole is living the good life in London right now. He has several hundred million to live on and he's the one that created the CDS mess!

Conservatives/Free Marketers are all for accountability (unless you're a thieving rich asshole) :thumbsdown:

That is a strawman argument and you know it. Actually I'd say that is an outright lie.
You think Cassano was a free market thinker? I doubt it. He prefered to grease the wheels of govt to get what he needed so he could do what he wanted legally.

Oh he was a backer of your heroes Dodd and Obama. Hard to imagine why he would back the head of the banking committee and a future presidential candidate. Must be one of those free market small govt types right?

:roll: you're deflecting and not answering the question (typical Genx). What he did was legal and within the scope of the free market. Please explain how the free market will punish him after he got all his riches.

Did he take any risk? Doesnt sound like he did does it? If he comitted a crime he should be tossed in jail to rot. And what lack of regulation he used to do what he did should be closed. Your focus on Cassano is the true deflection in all of this. You want to pin this on a single douche when the fact is our govt failed in its regulatory duties. Something many\most free market thinkers believe is a legitimate role of our govt in a free market. To create a framework for a market to work that allows for a level playing field and punishment for frauds comitted.

But you are too stupid and rabid in the mouth to attack anything that doesnt fit with your acute ideological view of the world to realize this.

:laugh: you're such a liar. Cassano was 'patient zero' in this mess. Focusing on him isn't deflection when we're talking about the wall street meltdown :roll: Government regulation is the antithesis of the free market. You're damn right he didn't take any risk, that's how the board of directors set up his compensation (ZOMG FREE MARKET!) If i say government should regulate wall street compensation ,would you agree with me then? If i say government should regulate how much leverage these firms should be allowed to take on, would you agree with me then? If you do, then congratulations, you're a liberal.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
No, FM'ers advocate anarchy.

You're a kook. Gone off the deep end. You can't even see the world clearly because the foam from your mouth has gotten in your eyes.

They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business.

The free market is trying but government keeps propping those risk takers up even after they've soundly trashed the market.

This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Hide the risk, in otherwords fraud? Free marketers aren't against prosecution of fraud. In fact they're highly in support of those misrepresenting themselves or their product.

You've gone completely, batshit insane.

I usually agree or understand LKs positions but agree that reply was on the looney side. I dont know any free market advocates that want fraud to go unpunished or do they desire anarchy.

Also if it werent for the govt, many of the risk takers would have been taken to the cleaners. Instead the govt is pumping the market and bailing out the risk takers. I agree the market wont work if there isnt much risk.

How was under(de)regulation of the securitization industry fraud? I think you define fraud so vaguely and broadly so you can point to it at any moment in a declarative nature and absolve yourself from critical thought.

What exactly do you think was fraudulent that the "free market" couldn't have discovered? If the free market were so efficient, then why wasn't this problem found and dealt with before it got to be a problem? Even if you think that the government prevented the ceasation of the problem, why didn't somebody with capital start betting against the housing markets and banks? If it were rational, then why didn't a lot of people do so, enough to balance the markets and prevent the bubble in the first place?

Why was it that risk spreads for securitizations and other debts become massively depressed? Was it because the government, or because the market was irrational and thus, the free market being disfunctional?

This is the crux of the problem with "free markets" and their advocates. If the free market were efficient, thus humans were rational in their thinking, then boom/busts wouldn't occur in the first place, even outside of supposed government manipulations.

That same irrationality is why free markets cannot exist nor will they. Additionally, it depends on the market being rational enough to ferrett out irrationality.

 

[Genx87]

you're such a liar. Cassano was 'patient zero' in this mess. Focusing on him isn't deflection when we're talking about the wall street meltdown

You dumbass are you saying if Cassano never existed this mess never would have happened? Really? See what happens when your worldview amounts to a 5 degree angle?

Government regulation is the antithesis of the free market.

Incorrect, govt over regulation and interference\intervention is the antithesis of a free market.

If i say government should regulate wall street compensation ,would you agree with me then?

No I wouldnt agree. And what the hell does that have to do with regulating for example the CDS market? Do you usually propose something completely unrelated to the problem at hand as the solution?

If i say government should regulate how much leverage these firms should be allowed to take on, would you agree with me then? If you do, then congratulations, you're not a free marketer anymore.

Depends on what purpose the firm is serving. If it is an insurance firm then I would agree, there should be some form of regulation that requires the firm to have a % of assets to pay claims. How does that make me against the free markets? This more of your mind numbing black and white, us vs them thinking on display again?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
No, FM'ers advocate anarchy.

You're a kook. Gone off the deep end. You can't even see the world clearly because the foam from your mouth has gotten in your eyes.

They believe that people who risk a lot will be punished by the market, or that the market will discover the risks and put the risk-takers out of business.

The free market is trying but government keeps propping those risk takers up even after they've soundly trashed the market.

This is a foolish thought since most risk-takers can hide the risk long enough to harm the investors and get away with their own personal misbegotten wealth.

Hide the risk, in otherwords fraud? Free marketers aren't against prosecution of fraud. In fact they're highly in support of those misrepresenting themselves or their product.

You've gone completely, batshit insane.

I usually agree or understand LKs positions but agree that reply was on the looney side. I dont know any free market advocates that want fraud to go unpunished or do they desire anarchy.

Also if it werent for the govt, many of the risk takers would have been taken to the cleaners. Instead the govt is pumping the market and bailing out the risk takers. I agree the market wont work if there isnt much risk.

How was under(de)regulation of the securitization industry fraud? I think you define fraud so vaguely and broadly so you can point to it at any moment in a declarative nature and absolve yourself from critical thought.

What exactly do you think was fraudulent that the "free market" couldn't have discovered? If the free market were so efficient, then why wasn't this problem found and dealt with before it got to be a problem? Even if you think that the government prevented the ceasation of the problem, why didn't somebody with capital start betting against the housing markets and banks? If it were rational, then why didn't a lot of people do so, enough to balance the markets and prevent the bubble in the first place?

Why was it that risk spreads for securitizations and other debts become massively depressed? Was it because the government, or because the market was irrational and thus, the free market being disfunctional?

This is the crux of the problem with "free markets" and their advocates. If the free market were efficient, thus humans were rational in their thinking, then boom/busts wouldn't occur in the first place, even outside of supposed government manipulations.

That same irrationality is why free markets cannot exist nor will they. Additionally, it depends on the market being rational enough to ferrett out irrationality.

Uh your example was indicating to me at least they were hiding losses or shifting money around to other investors ala pyramid scheme to scam more investors out of money before it came crumbling down. As far as I know cooking the books and pyramid schemes are still illegal in this country. If that wasnt what you were saying I apologize.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87

you're such a liar. Cassano was 'patient zero' in this mess. Focusing on him isn't deflection when we're talking about the wall street meltdown

You dumbass are you saying if Cassano never existed this mess never would have happened? Really? See what happens when your worldview amounts to a 5 degree angle?

you are a liar and a dumbass, i never said the mess wouldn't happen if cassano never existed. I'm using him as an example, you retard.

Government regulation is the antithesis of the free market.

Incorrect, govt over regulation and interference\intervention is the antithesis of a free market.

Remember folks, only republicans can define which government regulations are ok and which aren't and still be a 'free marketer'. If a liberal suggest gov't regulations, he's a commie! :Q:

If i say government should regulate wall street compensation ,would you agree with me then?

No I wouldnt agree. And what the hell does that have to do with regulating the CDS market? Do you usually propose something completely unrelated to the problem at hand as the solution?

Again, only republicans can determine which regulations are good and bad and still remain 'free market! If Cassano's compensation were structured so that his bonuses were clawed back, this might not have happened, or at the very least, he would have lost everything he had, had he still gone through with creating CDS's. This is entirely the board of director's fault, which, guess what, is within the realm of the free market!

If i say government should regulate how much leverage these firms should be allowed to take on, would you agree with me then? If you do, then congratulations, you're not a free marketer anymore. /q]

Depends on what purpose the firm is serving. If it is an insurance firm then I would agree, there should be some form of regulation that requires the firm to have a % of assets to pay claims. How does that make me against the free markets? This more of your mind numbing black and white, us vs them thinking on display again?

HOW DARE YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TELL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT DO!?!?! Don't you know that individuals know best and they'd KNOW that doing business with an overleveraged firm is a bad idea? We don't need government regulation you commie! :roll:

Republicans: it's not communism when we do it.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87

you're such a liar. Cassano was 'patient zero' in this mess. Focusing on him isn't deflection when we're talking about the wall street meltdown

You dumbass are you saying if Cassano never existed this mess never would have happened? Really? See what happens when your worldview amounts to a 5 degree angle?

you are a liar and a dumbass, i never said the mess wouldn't happen if cassano never existed. I'm using him as an example, you retard.

Government regulation is the antithesis of the free market.

Incorrect, govt over regulation and interference\intervention is the antithesis of a free market.

Remember folks, only republicans can define which government regulations are ok and which aren't and still be a 'free marketer'. If a liberal suggest gov't regulations, he's a commie! :Q:

If i say government should regulate wall street compensation ,would you agree with me then?

No I wouldnt agree. And what the hell does that have to do with regulating the CDS market? Do you usually propose something completely unrelated to the problem at hand as the solution?

Again, only republicans can determine which regulations are good and bad and still remain 'free market! If Cassano's compensation were structured so that his bonuses were clawed back, this might not have happened, or at the very least, he would have lost everything he had, had he still gone through with creating CDS's. This is entirely the board of director's fault, which, guess what, is within the realm of the free market!

If i say government should regulate how much leverage these firms should be allowed to take on, would you agree with me then? If you do, then congratulations, you're not a free marketer anymore. /q]

Depends on what purpose the firm is serving. If it is an insurance firm then I would agree, there should be some form of regulation that requires the firm to have a % of assets to pay claims. How does that make me against the free markets? This more of your mind numbing black and white, us vs them thinking on display again?

HOW DARE YOU THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD TELL PRIVATE ENTERPRISE WHAT THEY CAN OR CANNOT DO!?!?! Don't you know that individuals know best and they'd KNOW that doing business with an overleveraged firm is a bad idea? We don't need government regulation you commie! :roll:

Republicans: it's not communism when we do it.

*sigh*

More kneejerk blathering strawmen arguments and hyperbole. Make sure you bold and fail to quote correctly. It helps your arugment 60% of the time.

 

[Phokus]

So comrade Genx, what other commie regulations do you suggest so this mess doesn't happen again?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Damn, owned again by Phokus... i guess i should stick to calling him a troll/stupid/etc because i have no argument... it's the only way to deflect attention away from my stupidity

Fixed. "Comrade" Genx87 has no argument.