Elite Trader's Biggest Racists

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Martinghoul:

+1

I highly recommend this article by Simon Johnson, which makes a similar point extremely well: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/307364/

That's a great article, unfortunately it;'s only "book one" in the crisis (May 2009). It doesn't consider what happened since then with the Federal Reserve and QE, nor what has happened in regulation (which is nothing). It doesn't encompass idiocy like Dodd-Frank, or the like. Would be great to have a nice followup piece by that author.

Additionally, it gives a lot of indirect credit to the IMF, when the IMF, at least at the top, is elbow deep in the fraud. Instead of publicly declaring nothing is fixed, and all the risk that is evident, they release absurdly optimistic forecasts of world GDP, and fail to point out sovereign risk when it is glaringly obvious.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

This is redistribution, albeit righteous. : )

No, it isn't. Giving an old lady back her purse that was taken by a thief is not redistribution. It's return of property.

Redistribution is the confiscation of assets that rightfully belongs to one party, and then giving it to another.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

No, it isn't. Giving an old lady back her purse that was taken by a thief is not redistribution. It's return of property.

Redistribution is the confiscation of assets that rightfully belongs to one party, and then giving it to another.

Semantics. The important thing is how the goods were distributed in the first place. If illegally or immorally, it's "return of property", if legally distributed then it's "redistribution", but there is in both cases a second distribution of property.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Semantics. The important thing is how the goods were distributed in the first place. If illegally or immorally, it's "return of property", if legally distributed then it's "redistribution", but there is in both cases a second distribution of property.

You're being silly, Ricter. No one on this board - no one - would argue that returning stolen property to the original owner is "redistribution", in the political sense (which, let's face it, is where you are trying to get me to go with my comments). There's nothing "socialist" about giving back someone personal property taken from them unlawfully. There is no "second distribution" of anything, since the first "distribution" isn't distribution at all - but theft.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

Semantics...

NO, dumb ass.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

You're being silly, Ricter. No one on this board - no one - would argue that returning stolen property to the original owner is "redistribution", in the political sense (which, let's face it, is where you are trying to get me to go with my comments). There's nothing "socialist" about giving back someone personal property taken from them unlawfully. There is no "second distribution" of anything, since the first "distribution" isn't distribution at all - but theft.

Remember, some of this property was obtained legally, thanks to gaming the system, and even creating the system. Anyway, call it what you like, the result is the same and I'm ok with it.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Remember, some of this property was obtained legally, thanks to gaming the system, and even creating the system. Anyway, call it what you like, the result is the same and I'm ok with it.

Yes, I get that. But we're talking about some hypothetical world where all these loopholes and legislative "get out of jail free cards" are prosecuted. So in that imaginary world, it would all be illegal. This was the platform your Messiah ran on in his first candidacy. The one he reneged on.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

Yes, I get that. But we're talking about some hypothetical world where all these loopholes and legislative "get out of jail free cards" are prosecuted. So in that imaginary world, it would all be illegal. This was the platform your Messiah ran on in his first candidacy. The one he reneged on.

That hypothetical world would become real if we changed the laws. Attempts to change those laws, however, would get you accused of being a socialist.

 

[Martinghoul]

Quote from Tsing Tao:
That's a great article, unfortunately it;'s only "book one" in the crisis (May 2009). It doesn't consider what happened since then with the Federal Reserve and QE, nor what has happened in regulation (which is nothing). It doesn't encompass idiocy like Dodd-Frank, or the like. Would be great to have a nice followup piece by that author.

Additionally, it gives a lot of indirect credit to the IMF, when the IMF, at least at the top, is elbow deep in the fraud. Instead of publicly declaring nothing is fixed, and all the risk that is evident, they release absurdly optimistic forecasts of world GDP, and fail to point out sovereign risk when it is glaringly obvious.

He periodically writes columns for Bloomberg about the current state of affairs. For example, this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-08/fumbling-through-the-fog-around-too-big-to-fail.html

 

[LEAPup]

Quote from Ricter:

Semantics. The important thing is how the goods were distributed in the first place. If illegally or immorally, it's "return of property", if legally distributed then it's "redistribution", but there is in both cases a second distribution of property.

I can't believe what I've just read! I mean this very seriously; Have you been off your meds for a few years?!?!?