You’d be the first to admit it.
If you’re too stupid to know that blocking traffic is against the law, then your judgment is not worth anything anyway. Of course they were breaking the law. They should have known that. It’s okay to do that, but don’t complain about being arrested for it then.
But that’s not quite the point, is it, Lefty? If they were misinformed, that’s one thing, if deliberately misinformed, that’s quite another. “What is your source of information?” is a perfectly legitimate question. no?
Scylla, the rating agencies were effectively giving AAA ratings to any product as long as someone wrote a check. You should know how this stuff works. At least when I was in the business, one could meet with the rating agency analysts and get feedback on “what do I need to o to get a AAA (or whatever rating) on this product?” You would have to make some modifications such as add 5% more of tranche A. And they would basically tell you. Or one could “explain” things the analysts were missing and get a better rating.
Now I will grant you that caveat emptor applies and any serious investor out there that took the rating agencies at face value was delusional. Unfortunately, we all know that unsophisticated investors do take AAA ratings as gospel and they actually listen to ibank analysts that give a BUY recommendation.
Net net, the rating agencies poured a huge amount of high octane gas onto the fire.
Back to Greenspan. No one can see the future, but every Central Banker knows there are economic cycles and there are global economic crisis. It is a judgement call on when to keep your powder dry and when to intervene. Greenspan was a great believer in the power of the markets to self-regulate. He’s been proven wrong on that point, or are you arguing that the financial markets over the past 15 year or so are an example of successful self-regulation?
Years ago, when I was involved with a non-profit that offered a pension fund, the people who ran it had an interesting approach. The would put a third of my money in risky but promising investments. Start ups, that sort of thing. Another third would go to more or less established companies, and the last third would be put into rock-solid securities, triple A’s. Triple A, and nothing but nothing less.
By comparison, the mentioned other pension funds that were not set up that way, suggesting that most pension fiduciaries were required to put the funds entrusted to them only in triple A investments. Returns, modest, security, high.
I got the impression, perhaps erroneous, that a triple A rating meant that pension funds were available that might not otherwise be available. And that this is why so many people who thought their retirement funds were securely invested had such a rude awakening, i.e., “You fucked up, you trusted us.”
Yes? No? Maybe?
Despite the fact that this is the Pit rather than GD, what we are having here is a debate.
If your best rebuttal is, “your ideas stink but I can’t be bothered to tell you why,” then that speaks for itself.
It doesn’t matter whether your motivation is laziness or cowardliness or just that you don’t have a counterargument. The fact is, you don’t have a rebuttal here. The rest is just noise to cover that up.
If you don’t want to debate, go somewhere else. Maybe you could start a thread in ATMB asking for a “baldfaced assertions I don’t want to justify or defend” forum. It would be just the thing for you.
Not with you so much
It’s not that your ideas stink, it is that they don’t exist. Again, it’s like of you are watching a baseball game, and you scream out “goal,” or are insisting that the third pitch is a first down.
I was trying to correct some of it, but it doesn’t really rise to the level of intelligibility.
I’m not trying to insult you so much, butnit is legitimately frustrating tom try to discuss something with somebody who is pretending that they are making sense.
You don’t know what you are talking about and you can string buzzwords together and throw shit up against the wall, but it is not my duty to clean it off.
If you wish to debate it is your responsibility to say something worthwhile.
It doesn’t matter whether your motivation is laziness or cowardliness or just that you don’t have a counterargument. The fact is, you don’t have a rebuttal here. The rest is just noise to cover that up.
If you don’t want to debate, go somewhere else. Maybe you could start a thread in ATMB asking for a “baldfaced assertions I don’t want to justify or defend” forum. It would be just the thing for you.
[/QUOTE]
I suppose the actions of the bankers was legal? When compared to "blocking traffic’, I think cheating and lying to customers, paying off rating agencies, bribing politicians and crashing the economy wins.
They are sending a message to Obama. He has to deal with the thieves who looted our system. Many will not be satisfied if he does not prosecute a few of them.
But they may be blocking traffic. What will the children think? How can we allow such transgressions and keep a civilized society.
Sorry you can’t handle it. Why don’t you go do battle with a blimp or something? That’s really more your speed. Coward. 
In nutshell, yes. Investment banks took pure crap, added a very thin veneer of gold plating to make it shiny, and the rating agencies called it AAA. And AAA means it should be essentially as safe as US federal government debt.
All is well and good until there is a slowdown. And probably a run in the mill recession in the US might not even wear away the gold plating veneer. When something like 2008 happens, then that gold plating disappears and you’re left with pure crap. And all these pension funds with by-laws limiting investment to AAA, which were sold to individuals as being only AAA and safe, took itrut in the shorts. IMHO, it was pure fraud and people from the rating agencies and the investment banks colluded to perpetrate the fraud and should be in jail.
There is one truth in investing: if something pays more yield than US Treasuries, then it contains more risk. The buyer needs to understand that risk. For example, GE or Microsoft are AAA rated, but they are not as safe as Treasuries although they pay slightly more interest. And they come with more risk of non-payment that Uncle Sugar.
Ah! So, when they returned that fraudulently obtained money to the customers, how much interest did they have to pay?
Oh, you mean recognized and published quality. Yes, that is more my speed. Thanks for reminding me that my writing here is so highly regarded that my posts have been published internationally, and that I’ve even been sought out by the wall street journal,
Yes, you 've really brought me low by reminding me of that.
How have your posts done in the world?
Be less stupid. Make sense. Maybe I can answer you.
Oh, pop your ego bubble already…you had some enjoyable and funny posts here. That doesn’t make you Hemingway. Frankly, getting to know you better through your other posts has diminished my enjoyment of those long-ago ones. A shame, that.
Sorry about that. I’ve actually always thought well of you.
You’re funnier than Ann Coulter, but she has tits. Sorta.
My source of information on this issue was my kindergarten teacher. I mean, seriously, don’t walk down the middle of the street isn’t something you learn in law school. If the people in question didn’t know that it was against the law to walk down the middle of Brooklyn Bridge, I can hardly blame the cops for that.
It’s pretty clear (i.e., according to the marchers themselves) that the cops reminded the front row of people that it’s against the law to walk in the middle of the road, especially in a way that blocks all traffic. It also seems likely that, once people started disobeying this order, they decided to round up folks en masse rather than issue a few arrests at a time.
This might have been a little tricky, but the trick was in how they effected the arrest. There’s no evidence at all that I’ve seen that any cop said, “You know that thing you learned in kindergarten about not walking in traffic? We’re gonna let you do it this time.”
You said this, right? That they complained that they were “tricked”. Do I misunderstand your meaning?
I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Right here with you and me,
But, Joe, I said, you got arrested yesterday for blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge,
I was tricked, said he.
It may be an impotent publicity stunt by middle class managerial liberals but hey, speaking half-truths to power is better than no truths at all.
This may also be applicable:
Now I’ve got Billy Joel’s “Big Shot” going through my head. Thanks 
In ScyllaWorld, being able to write a comical post about blimps that gets some attention ==> superior debating skillz. Maybe you’ll even get a call from President Mike Myers or Vice President Dana Carvey.
No, you did that to yourself. You’re the one who’s confusing humor and notoriety with being accurate and being right.
Be less stupid.
Nah, write some more posts about how you don’t even need to address my arguments, because you’ve been sought out by the Wall Street Journal.
Can’t wait to see what you’ll come up with next, now that you’ve already brought the bravery of Sir Robin and the ironclad logic of Sir Bedevere to the table. 