Re: As the markets tank... Some Benchmark Stuff to distract you from the collapse...

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > > From: indeep@indeep.com > > Subject: Re: As the markets tank... Some Benchmark Stuff to distract > you from the collapse... > > Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:12:22 -0700 > > To: informix-list@iiug.org > > > > > > > > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > > On Sep 29, 2:27 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: > > >> http://adtmag.com/article.aspx?id=23330 > > > > > > And this surprises anyone? > > > > > > Granted the article's author clearly has a Microsoft bias and probably > > > a woody in his shorts when he hears Bill Gate's name mentioned. > > > > > > But the point is that for some reason, no one wants to do this > > > benchmark. > > > > > > Where's IDS's entry? > > > > > > If you think about it, if IDS were to use RTL and Time Series, it > > > would crush the benchmarks. > > > > > > -G > > > > Well, I think you got the point instantly. There's no benchmark out > there of IDS. > > > > Hey, by the way, any jumpers in your neighborhood from the market > tanking? > > > > We had a few here, lots of people sky diving into wind mills, > screaming "Its OVER!" > > > > Dramatic, and to the point. > > > > *<8o) > > Sorry, the only panic I've seen are the tourists and soccer moms who > are walking down Mag Mile. Also the blue collar workers stumbling out > of a bar after the Sox win! > > Seriously, its the people who don't understand that this isnt' a > bailout of the banks/financial institutions, but of the economy to > ensure that there is liquidity. > There was a lot of frustrations and I urge everyone who lives and can > vote in the US, to look at how their congress critter voted in the > House and if they voted no, toss them out of office. They failed to > understand the issue, and they failed their constituents concerning > themselves with vote getting. You vote Democrat, don't you? I can tell, because you have no grasp of economics. You have entirely failed to grasp the issue, which is that this is nothing but a land grab by Paulson for his mates in the banks, whereby they offload their piss-poor business decisions onto the good old taxpayers. The fed already chucked a trillion dollars of liquidity at the market: http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/9/29/3906360.html so it's got sweet FA to do with liquidity. Not to mention the fact that the $700M number was a random number plucked out of thin air because it sounded good. You should be applauding your congress for standing up for the taxpayer (in the USA and the rest of the world) for a change. As a Brit, I am of course delighted to have contributed in some small way to the failure of this boondoggle, thanks to my wonderful Prime Mentalist Jonah Brown's endorsement of the rescue, which naturally doomed it to failure. Anything that he endorses is automatically a) a bad idea and b) doomed to fail. > > The funniest thing I saw on TV last night were news crews interviewing > CBOE traders as they walked out of building last night. > I don't think any of them called their congress critters a nice word > for failing the world. Hardly an unbiased crowd then. And they didn't fail the world. God bless them! -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

On Sep 30, 5:03 pm, Obnoxio The Clown <obno...@serendipita.com> wrote: > You vote Democrat, don't you? I can tell, because you have no grasp of > economics. You have entirely failed to grasp the issue, which is that > this is nothing but a land grab by Paulson for his mates in the banks, > whereby they offload their piss-poor business decisions onto the good > old taxpayers. The fed already chucked a trillion dollars of liquidity > at the market:http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/9/29/390636... > so it's got sweet FA to do with liquidity. > Actually no, I'm an independent. And yes this bailout has everything to do with liquidity. Some of the ideas floating about suspending the "mark to market" requirements were laughable. (All its going to do is hide their toxic products.) There's also the placebo effect. > Not to mention the fact that the $700M number was a random number > plucked out of thin air because it sounded good. > $700 Billion. Yup that's right. No one has time to run the models and do the assumptions. Its not just interest rate risks, but now you have a credit crunch which can cause a rise in prepayment risk and assumptions. So no one really knows or understands the full potential downside risk to these derivatives. The key is that if you can reduce the prepayment risk (a foreclosure is a prepayment risk) > You should be applauding your congress for standing up for the taxpayer > (in the USA and the rest of the world) for a change. As a Brit, I am of > course delighted to have contributed in some small way to the failure of > this boondoggle, thanks to my wonderful Prime Mentalist Jonah Brown's > endorsement of the rescue, which naturally doomed it to failure. > Anything that he endorses is automatically a) a bad idea and b) doomed > to fail. Now you're being a fscking twit. Did you see the market after the house failed to pass the bill? And then the roll over in to Japan and Asia's market? And then EU? (Although by that time, the markets calmed a bit down.) Kinda scary, but if the US markets tank, kiss the world's markets goodbye. Brown, Pelosi , there's a lot of congress criiters (not that Brown's a congress critter, just a labor party brit) that just don't get it. Not doing anything isnt' a good option... unless you've got a ton of cash stuck away in a mattress along with deep pockets and a ton of T- Bills and other government backed securities. > > > > > The funniest thing I saw on TV last night were news crews interviewing > > CBOE traders as they walked out of building last night. > > I don't think any of them called their congress critters a nice word > > for failing the world. > > Hardly an unbiased crowd then. And they didn't fail the world. > And did you watch the markets tank? Sure the rebounded today but its the volatility that isn't a good thing.

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> >> >> > From: indeep@indeep.com >> > Subject: Re: As the markets tank... Some Benchmark Stuff to distract >> you from the collapse... >> > Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 21:12:22 -0700 >> > To: informix-list@iiug.org >> > >> > >> > >> > Ian Michael Gumby wrote: >> > > On Sep 29, 2:27 pm, InDeep <ind...@indeep.com> wrote: >> > >> http://adtmag.com/article.aspx?id=23330 >> > > >> > > And this surprises anyone? >> > > >> > > Granted the article's author clearly has a Microsoft bias and >> probably >> > > a woody in his shorts when he hears Bill Gate's name mentioned. >> > > >> > > But the point is that for some reason, no one wants to do this >> > > benchmark. >> > > >> > > Where's IDS's entry? >> > > >> > > If you think about it, if IDS were to use RTL and Time Series, it >> > > would crush the benchmarks. >> > > >> > > -G >> > >> > Well, I think you got the point instantly. There's no benchmark out >> there of IDS. >> > >> > Hey, by the way, any jumpers in your neighborhood from the market >> tanking? >> > >> > We had a few here, lots of people sky diving into wind mills, >> screaming "Its OVER!" >> > >> > Dramatic, and to the point. >> > >> > *<8o) >> >> Sorry, the only panic I've seen are the tourists and soccer moms who >> are walking down Mag Mile. Also the blue collar workers stumbling out >> of a bar after the Sox win! >> >> Seriously, its the people who don't understand that this isnt' a >> bailout of the banks/financial institutions, but of the economy to >> ensure that there is liquidity. >> There was a lot of frustrations and I urge everyone who lives and can >> vote in the US, to look at how their congress critter voted in the >> House and if they voted no, toss them out of office. They failed to >> understand the issue, and they failed their constituents concerning >> themselves with vote getting. > > You vote Democrat, don't you? I can tell, because you have no grasp of > economics. You have entirely failed to grasp the issue, which is that > this is nothing but a land grab by Paulson for his mates in the banks, > whereby they offload their piss-poor business decisions onto the good > old taxpayers. The fed already chucked a trillion dollars of liquidity > at the market: > http://thejournal.parker-joseph.co.uk/blog/_archives/2008/9/29/3906360.html > so it's got sweet FA to do with liquidity. > I couldn't agree more. As much as I have hatred and absolute contempt for the republicans, they actually did the right thing. I'd rather see this economy completely tank, and get it over with. Those bastards in NY that have been living in a vacuum of wealth have no clue as to how the rest of the US is doing. We have acquaintences in Manhattan and they are simply astonished that people are doing badly, that jobs are going to India, etc etc etc, that people might not be able to find work. They haven't a clue how the rest of the world is doing, and yet their very type wants a bailout, and are more concerned about their next shopping spree. Nay I say, let them now eat their own dogfood. Their preoccupation with greed and self-indulgent, narcissistic materialism is now coming home to roost. I am ever more confident that I will not be the only one in the bread line, but at least I will not be among the greedy corporate sychophants that cared nothing for their fellow man and wanted only more and more and more. I will be more than happy to help burn all of wall street to fucking hell those bastards can't die enough deaths to satisfy the people they made their money off of. Let them eat static. > Not to mention the fact that the $700M number was a random number > plucked out of thin air because it sounded good. > You should see the actual wording that Paulson and his legion of doom had in the bill. They insisted on having NO oversight, and no review, and no ability to challenge what he and his bastards wanted to do. It was Machiavellian what he wanted to do of historic proportions, undermining the very existence of our country and constitution, warped as we are. Paulson would have set us back 200 years. He should be arrested and jailed for trying to pull what he and his assmunch associates wanted to do. And Bush would be impeached if we didn't have an election coming. Thank god we are finally done with this moron. Now all we have to do is make sure the republicans lose and lose badly. Enough is fucking enough of GWBush. > You should be applauding your congress for standing up for the taxpayer > (in the USA and the rest of the world) for a change. As a Brit, I am of > course delighted to have contributed in some small way to the failure of > this boondoggle, thanks to my wonderful Prime Mentalist Jonah Brown's > endorsement of the rescue, which naturally doomed it to failure. > Anything that he endorses is automatically a) a bad idea and b) doomed > to fail. >> Here here! Another pint for this man!

InDeep wrote: > I couldn't agree more. As much as I have hatred and absolute contempt > for the republicans, they actually did the right thing. Which part of the fact that these very same Republicans nominated and elected GWB twice don't you get? It wasn't the Democrats that put Bush and Cheney into power? It wasn't the Democrats that nominated the clowns that presided over this mess. Or the mess in Iraq. Or the mess in New Orleans. etc. etc. ad nauseum. A person with a reasonable supply of working synapses can find reason to vilify both parties. To blame one, or the other, is worse than nonsense and plays into the hands of those who are cashing in. -- Daniel A. Morgan

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > InDeep wrote: >> >> You should see the actual wording that Paulson and his legion of doom >> had in the bill. They insisted on having NO oversight, and no review, >> and no ability to challenge what he and his bastards wanted to do. It >> was Machiavellian what he wanted to do of historic proportions, >> undermining the very existence of our country and constitution, warped >> as we are. Paulson would have set us back 200 years. He should be >> arrested and jailed for trying to pull what he and his assmunch >> associates wanted to do. And Bush would be impeached if we didn't have >> an election coming. Thank god we are finally done with this moron. Now >> all we have to do is make sure the republicans lose and lose badly. >> Enough is fucking enough of GWBush. >> > > Giving Bear Stearns Bank a bailout was vital - otherwise the financial > system and the thing that unkind people call the "credit/money bubble", > would have collapsed. > > Bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was also vital - otherwise the > financial system would have collapsed. Senator Dodd and and Senator > Obama were not paid a fortune by Fannie and Freddie for nothing. > LOL. The real quandary for the political elite from any party is to come to the realization that there is a finite market to grow up & into and then you hit a wall. It's not an ever-expanding universe, as was the car salesman's' pitch, eventually all the available market is tapped and there is nowhere else to go but to feed inwardly on your own young or in this case, fuck the homeowner and tax payer once, and then come back and rape them again and again. The 'securitization' of debt and other financial schemes are only now being understood by us mere mortals, as we try to either take yet another ass pounding from GWBush, or finally say stop, I'm bleeding you'll have to give me a break for a while. GW's rating is as low as it's ever been, history will not be kind to this complete flaming asshole. Our country has to stop living by keywords uttered by statistically driven politicians, and using religion to run the government. We're in as deep of shit as Iran, only dressed up in 'christian' values. Most of these people prove to be the least informed, the sad part is Iran knows it's all bullshit, here in the US people volunteer to be and stay ignorant. > And bailing out AIG was vital to - otherwise, again, the financial > system would have collapsed. > > And now all the "bad housing debt" of /all/ the financial services > companies must be taken up by the government - otherwise the financial > system will collapse. > > As to that asshole Bush: > http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 > -- originally published in 1999, remind me who was Prez in 1999? > Yes, we actually had a balanced budget, something scientists say is impossible despite it having already been proven to indeed be possible. *<8o)

Ian Michael Gumby wrote: > > And did you watch the markets tank? > > Sure the rebounded today but its the volatility that isn't a good > thing. > Bollocks. The volatility is a consequence of all the government fucking around with the markets. This is just another corporatist grab that taxpayers will be funding. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

DA Morgan wrote: > InDeep wrote: > >> I couldn't agree more. As much as I have hatred and absolute contempt >> for the republicans, they actually did the right thing. > > Which part of the fact that these very same Republicans nominated and > elected GWB twice don't you get? It wasn't the Democrats that put Bush > and Cheney into power? It wasn't the Democrats that nominated the > clowns that presided over this mess. Or the mess in Iraq. Or the mess > in New Orleans. etc. etc. ad nauseum. > > A person with a reasonable supply of working synapses can find reason > to vilify both parties. To blame one, or the other, is worse than > nonsense and plays into the hands of those who are cashing in. This runs much deeper than just a bunch of republicans doing a couple of nefarious things and cashing out. This strikes at the very core of the entire corporate world, that has basically taken over the country and dictated terms as if corporate-america were the final arbiter of my and my families future. It's all about a few elitists falling in to corporate-american status quo, and doing the right robotic things and then not taking any responsibility for any of it, all at the expense of the middle to lower class, who were the very people who got these bastards the stinking wealth that they achieved. All on the backs of the working and poor. It's disgraceful, and without morals. It's actually psychotic behavior, what the banks and financial companies have been doing, but because most Americans are too fast-food about everything they don't even have a clue as to what the problem is. Real morality is what you do when nobody is watching. Most of the masses of working middle-class people in the US will achieve little beyond $48,000.00 for the entire year before 27% taxes are taken out and then health insurance, geez, and more if you add in state tax on top of that. For anyone to think that Wall Street deserves anything more than a lashing really doesn't understand how corporate america has conspired with congress to continue to spend taxpayer money unchecked and raped every year. Our country is in so much debt now. Clinton balanced the budget, why can't Bush? Because he let it go crazy with a free-for-all on the taxpayer. Out of control spending, no regulation, and nothing for the working man. Working is not something to be despised and spit upon, it is decency. Our government has spit upon us by listening to corporate america, and raping our country of everything that we worked for and deserve. Today our roads are crumbling and jobs declining and people going homeless. Enough ranting for one night...

InDeep wrote: > > You should see the actual wording that Paulson and his legion of doom > had in the bill. They insisted on having NO oversight, and no review, > and no ability to challenge what he and his bastards wanted to do. It > was Machiavellian what he wanted to do of historic proportions, > undermining the very existence of our country and constitution, warped > as we are. Paulson would have set us back 200 years. He should be > arrested and jailed for trying to pull what he and his assmunch > associates wanted to do. And Bush would be impeached if we didn't have > an election coming. Thank god we are finally done with this moron. Now > all we have to do is make sure the republicans lose and lose badly. > Enough is fucking enough of GWBush. > Giving Bear Stearns Bank a bailout was vital - otherwise the financial system and the thing that unkind people call the "credit/money bubble", would have collapsed. Bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was also vital - otherwise the financial system would have collapsed. Senator Dodd and and Senator Obama were not paid a fortune by Fannie and Freddie for nothing. And bailing out AIG was vital to - otherwise, again, the financial system would have collapsed. And now all the "bad housing debt" of /all/ the financial services companies must be taken up by the government - otherwise the financial system will collapse. As to that asshole Bush: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 -- originally published in 1999, remind me who was Prez in 1999? -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

InDeep wrote: > DA Morgan wrote: > >> InDeep wrote: >> >> >>> I couldn't agree more. As much as I have hatred and absolute contempt >>> for the republicans, they actually did the right thing. >>> >> Which part of the fact that these very same Republicans nominated and >> elected GWB twice don't you get? It wasn't the Democrats that put Bush >> and Cheney into power? It wasn't the Democrats that nominated the >> clowns that presided over this mess. Or the mess in Iraq. Or the mess >> in New Orleans. etc. etc. ad nauseum. >> >> A person with a reasonable supply of working synapses can find reason >> to vilify both parties. To blame one, or the other, is worse than >> nonsense and plays into the hands of those who are cashing in. >> > > This runs much deeper than just a bunch of republicans doing a couple of > nefarious things and cashing out. This strikes at the very core of the > entire corporate world, that has basically taken over the country and > dictated terms as if corporate-america were the final arbiter of my and > my families future. It's all about a few elitists falling in to > corporate-american status quo, and doing the right robotic things and > then not taking any responsibility for any of it, all at the expense of > the middle to lower class, who were the very people who got these > bastards the stinking wealth that they achieved. All on the backs of > the working and poor. It's disgraceful, and without morals. It's > actually psychotic behavior, what the banks and financial companies > have been doing, but because most Americans are too fast-food about > everything they don't even have a clue as to what the problem is. > > Real morality is what you do when nobody is watching. > > Most of the masses of working middle-class people in the US will achieve > little beyond $48,000.00 for the entire year before 27% taxes are taken > out and then health insurance, geez, and more if you add in state tax on > top of that. For anyone to think that Wall Street deserves anything > more than a lashing really doesn't understand how corporate america has > conspired with congress to continue to spend taxpayer money unchecked > and raped every year. Our country is in so much debt now. Clinton > balanced the budget, why can't Bush? Because he let it go crazy with a > free-for-all on the taxpayer. Out of control spending, no regulation, > and nothing for the working man. Working is not something to be > despised and spit upon, it is decency. Our government has spit upon us > by listening to corporate america, and raping our country of everything > that we worked for and deserve. Today our roads are crumbling and jobs > declining and people going homeless. > Actually, I think you're being a little unfair. In a nutshell, the real problem is that the government on the one hand pushed legislation that encouraged sub-prime mortgages with federal guarantees on one hand which conflicted with a normally risk-averse market on the other. In order to attract investment by portraying a healthy balance sheet, they had to sell off their higher risks, but financial legislation actually makes it impossible to do so honestly. Hence, derivatives were born. The problem was not that there was no regulation, it was that the "something must be done" tendency meant that the wrong regulation was introduced. Northern Rock in the UK was actually completely compliant with BASEL II funding requirements, it just turned out that the BASEL II requirements were somewhat less than useful. And I see that the EU is bigging up the idea of absolute reserves again. So when the whole thing goes to the wall next time, they will introduce more regulations and more requirements which will do progressively less to encourage faith in the banks. The financial guys will always find a way of working around the regulations, the problem is that these become more and more opaque, so people have less and less idea about what is going on. What really needs to be done is for these banks to fail and the government to limit their commitment to just the depositors' holdings. As NWA would say: "Fuck da Bankaz". -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com

Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > Actually, I think you're being a little unfair. In a nutshell, the real > problem is that the government on the one hand pushed legislation that > encouraged sub-prime mortgages with federal guarantees on one hand which > conflicted with a normally risk-averse market on the other. Government may have taken an action that enabled what has happened. But government, at least American government, did not do this in a vacuum. The government took action because specific individuals decided to pay hired guns, we politely call them lobbyists, to advocate these actions. What you might wish to recall is that a couple of hundred years ago, December 16, 1773 to be exact, we on this side of the pond demonstrated our love of king and corporations in Boston harbour. Glad to see c.d.i. has a new lease on life discussing the rise and fall of republican democracy. Morgan

DA Morgan wrote: > Obnoxio The Clown wrote: > > >> Actually, I think you're being a little unfair. In a nutshell, the real >> problem is that the government on the one hand pushed legislation that >> encouraged sub-prime mortgages with federal guarantees on one hand which >> conflicted with a normally risk-averse market on the other. >> > > Government may have taken an action that enabled what has happened. But > government, at least American government, did not do this in a vacuum. > The government took action because specific individuals decided to pay > hired guns, we politely call them lobbyists, to advocate these actions. > > What you might wish to recall is that a couple of hundred years ago, > December 16, 1773 to be exact, we on this side of the pond demonstrated > our love of king and corporations in Boston harbour. > > Glad to see c.d.i. has a new lease on life discussing the rise and fall > of republican democracy. > It's perfectly rational to indulge in rent-seeking if it is a more cost-effective way of making money. The problem is entirely that the government allows such rent-seeking. It's also important to understand that regulation rarely benefits the market, in general it benefits the incumbent corporations because they already have the infrastructure to deal with the regulations and don't need to add it to their start-up costs. And finally, you overblown corporate lobbyist, CDI doesn't have a new lease of life. It's just an interesting diversion that we can afford to have because we don't have to spend our days picking up the shit of the company you're shilling for. -- Cheers, Obnoxio the Clown http://obotheclown.blogspot.com