On a more serious approach, there are several groups of people you could try this on.
Media - Get the five anchors of the top networks, or the executives who manage them, and give them your future knowledge.
Pro’s, widely disseminated knowledge of the coming crisis may help many people prepare for it, both by diversifying their portfolios, avoiding bad loans, not taking out home equity loans, etc.
Con’s, the media people have no real power to affect change directly and the financial people may counter-spin anything they do and say “well, this loan isn’t like the loan they’re warning you about.” or just re-structure the instruments to further hide their risk under layers of complexity.
Bankers, particularly the Fed and other Central Banks(China, UK, Germany, etc.)
Pro’s - They’re in a much stronger place to slow or stop the effects of cheap money on the marketplace. People won’t make bad loans if they can’t get money cheap.
Con’s - They’re not likely to do it. They would have to deliberately slow the economies of their countries, and that takes some serious political will and they’re not in the place to generate that. Most of them aren’t household names and would be replaced in their appointments if they started being all gloom and doom.
Private Sector - CEO’s and CFOs of big companies like Lehman Brothers or AIG.
Pro’s - They’re in positions to stop a lot of this. They have the influence, the power, and the direct control. They’re the ones being pilloried right now, and for many good reasons.
Con’s - They’re even less likely to do anything. Like Buffett, most of them saw this coming, and instead of trying to stop the whole thing, they were just trying to hedge their bets so they didn’t go down when the bubble popped. The ones at AIG and Lehman Bro’s just failed to hedge their bets properly.
Lawmakers - Phil Graham, senior finance chairs for committees, foreign finance lawmakers.
Pro’s - Probably in the best position to do something about it without a compelling personal interest in the opposite direction. They want their constituents to do well, and financial crisis doesn’t do that. They have the power to set regulations(or not repeal regulations) which can mitigate a lot of the damage or prevent it.
Con’s - Probably the WORST people to actually do something about it. The market is much more nimble than lawmakers, and even a few influential people can’t get the wheels of most modern legislatures moving fast enough to implement effective safeguards. Plus any legislation is going to have serious unintended consequences.
Governmental executives - Heads of state, cabinet members, ministers, etc.
Pro’s - More nimble than lawmakers, can change things without as far reaching effects. Have more of a media presence than subcommittee members. Many come from business backgrounds and have contacts within the industry.
Con’s - Vulnerable to public opinion and need co-operation from other factions(such as lawmakers) to fully execute a plan. Most wouldn’t survive re-election if they started preaching doom and gloom.
Individuals with media access and a reputation for being financial savvy - Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, etc.
Pro’s - They’re not beholden to shareholders or voters. They can say what they want and make the news every time. They’re all percieved as being VERY smart and people following their lead would probably do very well(as Buffett has proved).
Con’s - They have no real power to enact change. They can lead by example, but if this was a 62 TRILLION dollar industry built on buying and re-selling debt, there isn’t really anything they can do against that kind of scale.
So who are my picks?
Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
Enjoy,
Steven
