Most of that money never existed, it’s what would have been earned if his investment had performed as he promised (which was impossible, and there were no investments). The amount of money he actually took, while still staggering, is much lower- maybe you could call it $20 billion if you assume investors withdrew a lot over the years.
Think about who created this system and who has the most influence over the legislature. It’s not that hard to figure out.
According to an economist, money that you expected that didn’t pan out is still lost. Money exists by our belief in it, and hence our belief creates it. Imagine, for example, that someone expects to earn $3000 from Bernie. So he takes out a loan for $3000 now. Even though Madoff’s $3000 never came into being, it still left a $3000 debt. And the problem is that often enough, that’s exactly what happens.
“everyone believed that housing prices would continue to rise eternally.” It’s very hard for me to believe that these people who created these credit default instuments didn’t understand that the actual rise in property values adjusted after inflation was way, way lower than the numbers they were using and eventually the house of cards would tumble.
I think they knew, went for the quick money and figured the Government would step in to clean up their mess.
I know the physical loss isn’t as much as we hear reported, bus as Sage Rat says, these investors were expecting sum X and many probably acted in reliance on that. I’m not going to lose sleep over the people who knew this was shady, but the small investors whose hedge funds bought in heavily are a different story. Same deal with AIG. I’m not concerned with the executives who won’t (or shouldn’t) get their bonuses, its the small guys who thought AIG was one of the safest places to put their money who have my sympathy.
I don’t harbor any illusions about the fairness issue, I’m just complaining a bit. You’d be amazed how little a catharsis it really is, though. 
What is a “dress of grievances”? Is is like a wedding dress but to be worn on the day of one’s divorce?
Now, this is really stupid and childish. It is his country as much as anybody else’s and he has the right to be critical and to try to change it for what he thinks is the better.
Sorry Tom, thought this was the Pit.
Possible, but:
A) The standard of law in this nation is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
B) In general in it is better to assume stupidity over malice. For separate corporations, organizations, and politicians to all buy in on the same deal would require thousands if not tens of thousands of people to have all been thinking that exact nefarious thought. Real conspiracies are generally perpetrated by closely knit, small bands of people working in secret. So it’s nearly impossible in this case.
Now that’s not to say that greed can’t produce stupidity. I wouldn’t be surprised if the fallback presented by the government was swimming around in many people’s minds and they went for it. But that’s many people. This isn’t the first economic bubble and it won’t be the last. And it’s always going to be due to overspeculation. There’s going to be a cutoff line between the people who were on the edge and who were being more conservative in their investment portfolio. But there’s no knowing where that line is. Really all we’ve learned is that whoever was managing AIG’s portfolio in real estate is someone who is less conservative. In other areas of their business they’ve probably got guys who only buy in on safe investments. All of these people probably had strong track records or they wouldn’t have been promoted, and from there you just have to trust them to keep it up. But the financial world is and will always be playing the lottery. Track record or no, conservative investor or not, eventually you might get burned. There’s no knowing which investments are going to pan out, and where the safe zone is. That would require the ability to see the future.
The Tao’s Revenge was clearly mocking Magiver by repeating what Magiver said to me, almost word to word.
It’s not something I’m going to fight over either way, but it depends on how you put it. I think it’s fair to say he committed as much as $65 billion in fraud, but not that he stole $65 billion. Lying about the existence of money is not the same as taking it from someone, although both are definitely harmful and the guy is scum in any case.
And it has already received Moderator attention twice in this thread.
So thank you for your assistance, but I suspect that it will be resolved more quickly with fewer posters jumping in to “help.”
[ /Modding ]
Yo, lets talk about it here.