Today Britain votes on remaining part of the EU

[LegendKiller]

What if Canada and Mexico pulled out of NAFTA - Would affect the USA negatively?

Depends.

 

[Greenman]

I understand very well what Democracy means. Doesn't change the fact that 40-45% of people are literally not qualified to vote.

To come back to your example, if maybe really "only people with PHDs" would be allowed to vote, as anti-democratic this certainly is, we LIKELY would live in a much nicer world. Hitler could not have happened, dictatorships, religious fanatism etc. would not happen.

TOO BAD....huge percentages of people ARE not "PHDs", they are outright retarded and vote based on emotions, hate, anger etc

Yes, this is "democracy", but the very real outcome of this democracy, letting "simple minded" people decide the future of nations....is BAD....nothing good does arise when dumb people is given power. Sadly a fact.

This is why elitists and other pseudo intellectuals don't do well in politics. You're so convinced that you know everything, you don't want anyone to even have the opportunity to disagree with you. In one simple sentence you state that 45% of the population should be stripped of their rights because you know better than they do. Who the fuck do you think you are? Tell me what great inventions you've produced, tell me about about the medical breakthroughs you have personally made, tell me about the vast contributions you've made to the human race that allow you to declare yourself superior.
You're an ignorant jerkoff with delusions of grandeur that has a tantrum when he doesn't get his way.

 

[TheGardener]

Fair enough.

So, as a number crunching professional, is it really your stance that this Brexit won't affect the UK negatively?

I don't profess to know what the impact is going to be. Most every talking head in the US media this weekend starts off saying we are in uncharted waters, and they don't know what will happen. Then they go off telling us what will happen. They do this of course, because they need to earn a paycheck.

My opinion is that there are valid reasons for the UK voting to exit the EU. I don't think it is wrong for people act in a way to protect their physical well being, their nation and their culture. I don't know enough about the history of the last 40 years of EU trade and currency, as to reasons why the UK and the EU had differences. Whether the Brexit decision will turn out best for the UK, I don't know. All I know is that democracy, for better or worse, has spoken.

There are too many global political and business elitists out there who don't respect democracy, because they tell us that they know better. Especially when they don't get their way that benefits them.

I hope this works out for the people of the UK.

 

[Perknose]

There are too many global political and business elitists out there who don't respect democracy, because they tell us that they know better.

The screaming irony here is you and I live in a country whose founding fathers didn't trust the democratic masses to know enough to let them vote for either our President or our Senators.

The very idea of the Electoral College was to vote for your local betters (business elites!) because they knew better who should be Prez.

For the US Senate, you got to vote for your state legislators, who then decided for you (political elites!) who your US Senators would be.

 

[shady28]

The screaming irony here is you and I live in a country whose founding fathers didn't trust the democratic masses to know enough to let them vote for either our President or our Senators.

The very idea of the Electoral College was to vote for your local betters (business elites!) because they knew better who should be Prez.

For the US Senate, you got to vote for your state legislators, who then decided for you (political elites!) who your US Senators would be.

Is that what you know, or what you think you know after convincing yourself that you're superior to the average person?


From Records of the Federal Convention :

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[11]

 

[Perknose]

Is that what you know, or what you think you know after convincing yourself that you're superior to the average person?

Dude, you do realize that this says more about what you have convinced yourself you know about me, and not one thing about me or the post of mine you're responding to. Just saying. <shrug>

From Records of the Federal Convention :

Here, I take your point that the deliberations were far more complex than I described. In this exchange, you are my better.

But hear this: The very fact that they would even consider and then enact interposed elites AT ALL speaks to the other side of what I was saying about our founding fathers: They weren't exactly all in on unfettered democracy of the hoi polloi nor at all down on the "business and political" elites as the poster I was responding to, who said this around Brexit:

There are too many global political and business elitists out there who don't respect democracy, because they tell us that they know better.

The irony? Our founding fathers were the business and political elites, and they did feel they knew better! :biggrin:

 

[shady28]

...
But hear this: The very fact that they would even consider and then enact interposed elites AT ALL speaks to the other side of what I was saying about our founding fathers: They weren't exactly all in on unfettered democracy of the hoi polloi nor at all down on the "business and political" elites as the poster I was responding to, who said this around Brexit:


The irony? Our founding fathers were the business and political elites, and they did feel they knew better! :biggrin:

That's an assumption that is only partially correct.

Four people are credited with the majority of the Constitution. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams.

To wit, Hamilton was the bastard child of a half French / half English woman. His mother died when he was a child after her 2nd husband abandoned her, because he thought her prior marriage might still be valid. That left Hamilton an orphan. "Elite"? Not quite.

John Adams was not wealthy, his family was very middle-class like. His father was a shoe maker.

Madison was moderately wealthy via inheritance - though not in the same terms we think of wealth today. He had a plantation, but not a business empire.

Jefferson would also qualify as moderately wealthy, inheriting 5000 acres after his parents died when he was ~21. Put that in perspective : 5000 acres of farm land at 5k - 10k / acre is about $25 - $50M in todays dollars. That's less than what Hillary is worth, and I would not call her a financial elite.

So there you have it.

Not exactly a bunch of elites.

The reason they used delegates was to insulate against inconsistent rights within the states (like slavery) and - actually just the opposite of what you state - to remove politics from the process.

Imagine if they had decided to have the congress of each state choose the delegates. That is what the elites of the time would want, given that the states were virtually their own little countries at that time.

 

[norseamd]

That's less than what Hillary is worth, and I would not call her a financial elite.

Hillary is certainly an elite, financial or not.

 

[shady28]

Hillary is certainly an elite, financial or not.

Political yes, financial no.

 

[Perknose]

So there you have it.

Not exactly a bunch of elites.

Yes, your description is quite accurate for each, as far as that goes. :thumbsup:

But really, the fact that all four could afford the time and expense to attend to the founding of our country puts them amongst the financial elite, and the fact that they "founded our country" made them, ipso facto, our political elite.

Hell, the mere fact that they were highly literate and none worked directly and primarily with his hands makes them the x% of their time.

If you said to them, per Brexit, "Hey, let's just have a referendum on the Constitution and let everyone over 21 who wants vote on it, majority rules, what do you think their response would have been?"

That was my point about the inherent irony in the other poster's seeming anger at, as he put it, "the business and political elites."

 

[Blackjack200]

Fair enough.

So, as a number crunching professional, is it really your stance that this Brexit won't affect the UK negatively?

Don't buy his bullshit. The ratings agencies are not at all worthless. If his firm doesn't have a subscription to them, it's because they don't need it or it's not appropriate. For example, if he's sitting on the buy side at a distressed debt shop, rating agencies don't help, you need much more detail than they can provide. Rating agencies mostly make sure that the FI instruments that mutual funds and pensions buy are actually investment grade.

He's absolutely full of shit in pretending not to know if the exit would hurt economically or not. There are tons of firms in London that absolutely cannot remain there if Britain leaves the EU.

LK likes to pretend he's a heavy hitter, $20k on equipment and subscriptions. Lol. He's got a cozy little analyst job with a focus on a very narrow slice of the financial world (fixed income, probably distressed debt) and pretends this gives him great insight into broader economic issues. But he sounds like every other shitheel that reads Zero hedge.

 

[norseamd]

Don't buy his bullshit. The ratings agencies are not at all worthless. If his firm doesn't have a subscription to them, it's because they don't need it or it's not appropriate. For example, if he's sitting on the buy side at a distressed debt shop, rating agencies don't help, you need much more detail than they can provide. Rating agencies mostly make sure that the FI instruments that mutual funds and pensions buy are actually investment grade.

He's absolutely full of shit in pretending not to know if the exit would hurt economically or not. There are tons of firms in London that absolutely cannot remain there if Britain leaves the EU.

LK likes to pretend he's a heavy hitter, $20k on equipment and subscriptions. Lol. He's got a cozy little analyst job with a focus on a very narrow slice of the financial world (fixed income, probably distressed debt) and pretends this gives him great insight into broader economic issues. But he sounds like every other shitheel that reads Zero hedge.

For someone who loves to say business and money are so good, he sure seems to not follow that line when it comes to white populism. I would not be surprised if he loves Putin long time.

Same with Ducati696.

 

[Jaskalas]

I think the founders would have been very happy indeed to see the British declare their own independence. You might even think that was something they believed in.

 

[norseamd]

Political yes, financial no.

What was that theory you told me about a while ago that was about how states or other organizations, structures, or objects fail because of increasing complexity over time?

 

[LegendKiller]

Don't buy his bullshit. The ratings agencies are not at all worthless. If his firm doesn't have a subscription to them, it's because they don't need it or it's not appropriate. For example, if he's sitting on the buy side at a distressed debt shop, rating agencies don't help, you need much more detail than they can provide. Rating agencies mostly make sure that the FI instruments that mutual funds and pensions buy are actually investment grade.

He's absolutely full of shit in pretending not to know if the exit would hurt economically or not. There are tons of firms in London that absolutely cannot remain there if Britain leaves the EU.

LK likes to pretend he's a heavy hitter, $20k on equipment and subscriptions. Lol. He's got a cozy little analyst job with a focus on a very narrow slice of the financial world (fixed income, probably distressed debt) and pretends this gives him great insight into broader economic issues. But he sounds like every other shitheel that reads Zero hedge.

LOL, you're too funny.

The number of calls I have seen them get wrong is far too many. Sure, I'll glance at a report, listen into a call, but I rarely take them seriously. Why? Because they aren't on the hook for anything and people have short memories.

Not only did they screw the pooch on the mortgage crisis (CDOs, wrappers, non-agency) , S&P getting taken out of CMBS for how long? 2 years? How many fuckups on the Corp side have they had? Putting $75bn of FFELP bonds on negative watch over legal final issues? LOL. They didn't even run models on a huge portion, the rest they could have easily remedied but failed to do so. Poor navient, caught in the middle.

Ohh, ZH is funny, but far more wrong than they are right. I do enjoy reading them, as does pretty much everybody.

I have never said that there won't be disruption and I have fully admitted that banks will have to leave. It's a negative for commercial RE, but how bad? Don't know yet.

We are 48hrs removed from Brexit, Moody's blew their load early, as they done before. We'll see how far it goes.

 

[LegendKiller]

For someone who loves to say business and money are so good, he sure seems to not follow that line when it comes to white populism. I would not be surprised if he loves Putin long time.

Same with Ducati696.

It's simple - I recognize the long term outlook for fucking the proles. It ain't good. Call it pragmatic capitalism.

 

[Artdeco]

Don't buy his bullshit. The ratings agencies are not at all worthless. If his firm doesn't have a subscription to them, it's because they don't need it or it's not appropriate. For example, if he's sitting on the buy side at a distressed debt shop, rating agencies don't help, you need much more detail than they can provide. Rating agencies mostly make sure that the FI instruments that mutual funds and pensions buy are actually investment grade.

He's absolutely full of shit in pretending not to know if the exit would hurt economically or not. There are tons of firms in London that absolutely cannot remain there if Britain leaves the EU.

LK likes to pretend he's a heavy hitter, $20k on equipment and subscriptions. Lol. He's got a cozy little analyst job with a focus on a very narrow slice of the financial world (fixed income, probably distressed debt) and pretends this gives him great insight into broader economic issues. But he sounds like every other shitheel that reads Zero hedge.

Meh, he's about right. And the rating agencies should have gone to flipping prison over the mortgagee crisis.

 

[Svnla]

Wimbledon prizes will be lower because of the exit - http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tenni...rly--300k-due-to-brexit-180311792-tennis.html

.

 

[Blackjack200]

Meh, he's about right.

No, he's wrong. He doesn't even understand the role that the ratings agencies play in the market. The agencies rate huge amounts of paper. Do you know how many Municipal and Corporate debt issues there are out there? The markets couldn't function without firms specializing in providing a reasonably reliable score of their creditworthiness. There are pension funds that buy billions of dollars of bonds every year, do you think they're going to hire analysts to examine each issue? No, they just have a policy that says "AAA rated bonds only" or something like that.

Are they perfect? No. Do they get shit wrong sometimes? Of course. Does that mean they're worthless or criminal?

And the rating agencies should have gone to flipping prison over the mortgagee crisis.

Why? Because they were fooled like everyone else? They were not equipped to handle the complexity of those instruments, because they were brand new and very few people understood the risks.

 

[mxnerd]

Now north England wants to join Scotland.

Allow the north of England to secede from the UK & join Scotland petition: over 50,000 and counting.

https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-gov...gland-to-secede-from-the-uk-and-join-scotland

 

[shady28]

Yes, your description is quite accurate for each, as far as that goes. :thumbsup:

But really, the fact that all four could afford the time and expense to attend to the founding of our country puts them amongst the financial elite, and the fact that they "founded our country" made them, ipso facto, our political elite.

That's a circular argument. By that definition a bell boy could have signed it and would be a member of the political elite.

Hell, the mere fact that they were highly literate and none worked directly and primarily with his hands makes them the x% of their time.

But they weren't aristocracy, which were the elites of the time. Did you know that the Congress (of the Confederation, which existed until ratification) almost had the delegates removed? Not exactly how you treat elites.

I think you also greatly underestimate early America. Literacy rates were around 70% by 1800. Today it's about 85%.

I'm also certain they would be horrified at what we have today in terms of money and power brokers, and lifetime politicians. Corporations for example - not a new concept - up until the late 1800s to become a corporation the business had to prove that the corporation was in some way of benefit to the people. It wasn't a slam dunk. Also, they were barred from engaging in any politics *at all* in most states, with jail time if they broke that law.

Like I said, they'd be horrified at what we have now.

If you said to them, per Brexit, "Hey, let's just have a referendum on the Constitution and let everyone over 21 who wants vote on it, majority rules, what do you think their response would have been?"

That was my point about the inherent irony in the other poster's seeming anger at, as he put it, "the business and political elites."

At the time that would have been very impractical.

As far as Brexit, I'm certain they would approve.

 

[LegendKiller]

No, he's wrong. He doesn't even understand the role that the ratings agencies play in the market. The agencies rate huge amounts of paper. Do you know how many Municipal and Corporate debt issues there are out there? The markets couldn't function without firms specializing in providing a reasonably reliable score of their creditworthiness. There are pension funds that buy billions of dollars of bonds every year, do you think they're going to hire analysts to examine each issue? No, they just have a policy that says "AAA rated bonds only" or something like that.

lol - yeah, I don't understand the role. I understand it perfectly but disagree wholeheartedly. Smart firms do their own underwriting.

Are the agencies mostly right? Sure, they absolutely are. Are they always right? No, they aren't. However, when they are wrong, they are wrong big and they are usually far too slow to see it coming. Re-reviewing credits every 6-12mos doesn't help. They get paid for the work they do, same with Trustees. Which is why good firms have their own staff and aren't beholden to some doof's rating.

The probabilistic game played by investors, especially fixed income, doesn't leave a large margin for error when dealing with declining credit that doesn't get a review for 6-12 months, or a sector under duress. Only fundamental analysis shows that. Do you think PIMCO or Blackrock give a flying fuck through a rolling donut about the RAs? My firm is in the majority.

Some of my best trades were unrated stuff. Some of the worst I have seen were rated.

Why? Because they were fooled like everyone else? They were not equipped to handle the complexity of those instruments, because they were brand new and very few people understood the risks.

If they weren't equipped they should have recognized it. However, I know, in particular, that they were equipped. Some analysts knew and received pressure from committees to change ratings that were suitable to driving business. That correlative analysis was ignored, or that systemic RE declines could never happen is sheer lunacy.

Do I trust them to be able to accurately forecast Brexit 48hrs after the fact? Fuck no. This was a hedge, nothing more.

 

[LegendKiller]

Now north England wants to join Scotland.

Allow the north of England to secede from the UK & join Scotland petition: over 50,000 and counting.

https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-gov...gland-to-secede-from-the-uk-and-join-scotland

Even more ridiculous than Texit. I can see Ireland and Scotland since they are far more independent, but this is just getting ridiculous.

 

[spacejamz]

Now north England wants to join Scotland.

Allow the north of England to secede from the UK & join Scotland petition: over 50,000 and counting.

https://www.change.org/p/the-uk-gov...gland-to-secede-from-the-uk-and-join-scotland

40K of those were from a year ago????

 

[flexy]

I think the founders would have been very happy indeed to see the British declare their own independence. You might even think that was something they believed in.

This "independence" and "now we're free" talk is annoying as hell.

No one fricking OCCUPIED the UK, I am not all-up-to-date how it was in the 70s when they joined the EU, but it is hardly that anyone *forced* them.

There is a "slight" difference between the US having declared their independence...and the EU joining the EU and now exiting.

States joined the EU since it provided benefits....above everything...and they did it voluntarily. And I also am pretty sure that every nation who joined always and still can exit.