Wall Street = Monopoly?

Anything Goes

Wall Street = Monopoly?

Postby buttsie » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:10 am

Judging by all the recent implosions in the finance sector I cant help feeling blind freddy could have done a better job?

Wall Street awakes to 2 storied firms gone

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080915/ap_ ... l_meltdown

Lehman Brothers, burdened by $60 billion in soured real-estate holdings, said it is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after attempts to rescue the 158-year-old firm failed.

Bank of America Corp. said it is snapping up Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. in an $50 billion all-stock transaction.

The demise of the independent Wall Street institutions came as shock waves from the 14-month-old credit crisis roiled the U.S. financial system six months after the collapse of Bear Stearns.

The world's largest insurance company, American International Group Inc., also was forced into a restructuring.

And a global consortium of banks, working with government officials in New York, announced a $70 billion pool of funds to lend to troubled financial companies.
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Huc » Mon Sep 15, 2008 5:33 am

Blind freddy might get lucky occasionally, but Wallstreet probably will out do him anyways. If Blind freddy can do better, why are other people not doing any better? And I mean that as in critics of Wall Street not doing any better in Wall Street's game.

The fall of Lehmans and sale of Merill is because they played with fire, hoping that it will be something better. Subprime mortgage was taking risk in investing, and they lost.
Huc
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:02 pm

Postby buttsie » Mon Sep 15, 2008 8:37 am

In the long run I agree but in the short term I dont think blind freddy could do any worse.bad lending is just bad business

All I can think is they did it to keep the ball rolling from the previous year when they paid themselves 24billion dollars in bonuses

My blind freddy quip was aimed at the people who bought into the subprime.The marketing to sell the bundled debt must have been slick for no alarm bells to be going off.The green idiots that bought into it really were the lambs being led to the slaughter
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby buttsie » Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:07 am

FBI probes major firms at center of meltdown
Fraud investigation launched as Congress looking at limits on exec pay

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26859850/

MSNBC News Services
updated 9:13 a.m. ET Sept. 24, 2008
WASHINGTON - The FBI is investigating four major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger a $700 billion bailout plan by the Bush administration, The Associated Press has learned.

Two law enforcement officials said Tuesday the FBI is looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and insurer American International Group Inc. Additionally, a senior law enforcement official said Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. also is under investigation.

The inquiries will focus on the financial institutions and the individuals that ran them, the senior law enforcement official said



Sounds like the subject matter for a Gordon Gecko film sequel
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby buttsie » Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:07 am

How is it a public treasury official can get a 40million dollar bonus from a private wall street firm?

Bush’s Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got a $40 million bonus from Sachs last year.

http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5112


Shame the bail out was rejected as all those wall street traders must be really shtting themselves knowing their annual bonus feast might be at an end

Wall Street traders, bankers and salesmen get an annual salary of between $100,000 to $200,000, plus a year-end bonus, which can easily be several dozen times their base salary.

Last year, Wall Street bonuses reached a record $23.9 billion, averaging more than $136,000 per employee.

I wonder how many will be making a donation of their hard earned bonus money to help the bail out :roll:
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby plop » Wed Oct 01, 2008 2:13 am

Uhhh... Wall Street passing from "monopoly to "no-one"poly?
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby maverick88 » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:19 pm

AIG throws big party to celebrate bailout. Nope, it's not from The Onion and it really happened, AIG spent $440.000 on a "retreat" for execs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081008/ap_ ... ncsrnWn414

Is anyone else outraged at this besides me? :x
"If it's Sunday, it's Meet The Press" - Tim Russert
maverick88
 
Posts: 6127
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:08 pm
Location: United States - Wisconsin

.

Postby Spoonbat » Thu Oct 09, 2008 1:49 pm

The American taxpayer paid for that spa trip.

And watch those fucking crooks get away with it scot-free. You want to know why these CEOs create such audacious pay packages for themselves? Because Americans let them get away with it.

If congress doesn't hold these bastards to account then there is going to be an even bigger disillusionment with congress.
Spoonbat
 
Posts: 1729
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 7:27 pm

Postby buttsie » Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:23 pm

I think its about time there was a ceiling placed on executive wages
The freemarket works well except where theres rampant greed at play
Boards are made up of retired executives in the main so is it any wonder the current situation has been allowed to run out of control?

As a multiple of the average wage executive pay has risen from 27 times to 200 times in less than 2 deacdes in Australia.

We talk about Politicians with their snouts in the trough these guys are no different.They dont own the companies they run so if it goes bad they just leave and pick up elsewhere

They can destroy a company ala Alan Bond and the worst outcome they lose their job,go to jail and start afresh a few years later using every legal avenue in the book to shorten the sentence

Given this all started back in 2001 when the dot.com bubble burst when wall street & the banks were looking for their next gravy train I'd be surprised if the first bailout will be enough
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby plop » Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:58 am

^Buttsie, I think you hitted exactly to the point. But I have one dounbt.

Is it really possible to have free market without greed? I am afraid free market is all about the reivindication of greed.

I am not trying to say that communism is better -at least once my condition of believer has to shield me for one criticism- but I am convinced that economy has to be controled to a certain degree. Or it would be like the blind guiding the other blind: both end in the pit. (And tracking us with them in the process)
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby buttsie » Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:29 am

Their are varying levels of greed.I think what ever system you have in place there has to be individual incentive otherwise stagnation is inevitable
If you dont place limits on excessive wealth then the system implodes

The real argument is public versus private.
For mine you need both

I'm having hard time finding a country that actually looks like a worthwhile model to follow

Russia with its Oil Billionaires buying English/Scottish Football/Soccer teams is a joke

India(largest capitalist/democracy)is just as bad.University trained graduates working in call centres hardly seems like sound practice.Communist uprising in many provinces as a backlash to the current growth spurt that sees people being kicked off their land daily

China is the communist/capitalist hybrid which is driving the world but the price its poor are paying for it is shocking

A recent doco I saw on Cuba said their possibly moving in the right direction.Using disused city land to grow food for the locals but giving the growers cash as an incentive

In the end someone will be in control its just a question of which is the system that is fairest to all

Probably wont exist in my lifetime
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby plop » Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:06 am

Well, butssie, I think you could consider the so called "eurocommunism". I am not refering the East Germany and the countries of the old communist block, but to the former West Germany, France et al.

To my knowledge, Putin had nationalized the oils' companies in Russia...

Sure, you need the individual iniciative, as much as the State's control. I agree with that.
"The heart has reasons that reason can not understand" Blaise Pascal :D
User avatar
plop
 
Posts: 5014
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 3:22 pm
Location: Caracas, Venezuela

Postby Huc » Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:25 am

buttsie wrote:A recent doco I saw on Cuba said their possibly moving in the right direction.Using disused city land to grow food for the locals but giving the growers cash as an incentive


LOL. Cuba is a communist fantasy, but reality bites. I gurantee you that you want to come back to Austrailian if you tried living in Cuba for a few years. There has been a growing fantasy of Cuba being the perfect place, and quite honestly its getting old IMO.

In the end someone will be in control its just a question of which is the system that is fairest to all

Probably wont exist in my lifetime

Capitalism is life. In one end, have the pure capitalism which is the ultimate manifest of the invisible hand, and on the other extreme, communism which is where everything is controlled. When it comes to efficiency, nothing beats the "capitalism" that we are in. The greed drives the innovation. Compare the consumer goods that were available in Eastern Bloc nations to that of western bloc nations. There was a vast difference.

Socialism is somewhere inbetween those two. Question is how much restriction there should be. Right now things seem bleak and bad, and a lot of people are calling for hanging executives, but at the same time, are they willing to sacrifice there own life style? Believe it or not as soon as that happens people will STFU. Then the same people who called for hanging of executives are either going to be one or want the good old days, or forget that they are contradicting themselves.

Limiting CEO's pay to certain level seems lucrative, but will back fire with reduced innovation. Although there still will be those who want to be CEOs, the collective ability of those CEOs will be worse(even by a little, that is.)
Huc
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:02 pm

Postby buttsie » Fri Oct 10, 2008 5:40 am

Better less innovation and a more prudent approach than the complete financial system imploding,wouldnt you agree?

The biggest gripe i have,as with board members is their not playing with their own capital so their prepared to aim high and when the shit hits the fan they leave,no harm done except to their reputation

Give it a few years and they'll be back doing something with their contacts
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Huc » Sun Oct 12, 2008 12:11 am

buttsie wrote:Better less innovation and a more prudent approach than the complete financial system imploding,wouldnt you agree?

The biggest gripe i have,as with board members is their not playing with their own capital so their prepared to aim high and when the shit hits the fan they leave,no harm done except to their reputation

Give it a few years and they'll be back doing something with their contacts

Sure. Let's start with limiting pays of Intel, Microsoft, Apple. Let's see if they can fund their operation without investors, who by the way falls under financial system.
Huc
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:02 pm

Next

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests