Wall Street = Monopoly?

Anything Goes

Postby plop » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:22 am

Western Europe made veeery good with a capitalism with State control. The risk of 1929 is too big to accept it. It is better if the machine doesn't work as efficently as it could... theorically
"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 » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:03 am

Huc wrote:
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.


Hardly apples for apples comparing IT to Finance

When the dot.com bubble burst mainstreet was still OK
cant say the same for the finance sector can we?

The big question is still the same as it has always been
How far do you de-regulate the finance sector?
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Huc » Mon Oct 13, 2008 3:08 am

buttsie wrote:Hardly apples for apples comparing IT to Finance

When the dot.com bubble burst mainstreet was still OK
cant say the same for the finance sector can we?

The big question is still the same as it has always been
How far do you de-regulate the finance sector?

Nope. Economy/business tends to be related to each other. If it wasn't financing, there wouldn't be so many companies that can start. Not every one has half-million dollars to start the company so easily.

When IT crash happened in 2001, mainstreet was not ok. It did go through a small recession.

So your big question is correct, but at the same time, when details roll in that's when the fights begin.
Huc
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2007 7:02 pm

Postby buttsie » Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:19 pm

The financial news from wall street just keeps getting better

Sounds like its been around for a while so you've got to ask whose regulating the finance industryl

Madoff scam could cost banks millions

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/TopStor ... 87165.html

Madoff, a 70-year-old Wall Street veteran who was arrested on Thursday, is alleged by US prosecutors to have confessed to defrauding investors of $US50 billion ($A75.24 billion) in a long-running scam that collapsed as a result of the financial crisis.
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Carlito Brigante » Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:25 pm

I've been predicting a collapse on the market ever since people became in denial about the overall damage the 9/11 did to the US economy which have been dragging itself for the last sevenyears. Wall Steet simply decided to call the bluff, actually hiding the grim picture. The argument against a possible market crash comes from the notion that the system was designed to prevent another 1929 one day market crash, and it is. Yet, it never meant that the system could prevent the market from a gradual collapse, which is exactly what happened here. People were always under the assumption that a gradual collapse could be forseen and prevented.

In my opinion, everything comes down to the one little thing I really don't like about America: legal traps. Every single day, people are always on the lookout for legal traps. These scavengers are looking for one little tiny treasure that only you can provide: your signature. Once you stamp your signature on a piece of paper, it's either the glory of the toilet seat. Which is kind of ironic, because right now thousands and thousands of people are losing their own toilet seats on a daily basis.
Carlito Brigante
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:39 am

Postby plop » Wed Dec 17, 2008 1:02 am

Carlito Brigante wrote:I've been predicting a collapse on the market ever since people became in denial about the overall damage the 9/11 did to the US economy which have been dragging itself for the last sevenyears. Wall Steet simply decided to call the bluff, actually hiding the grim picture. The argument against a possible market crash comes from the notion that the system was designed to prevent another 1929 one day market crash, and it is. Yet, it never meant that the system could prevent the market from a gradual collapse, which is exactly what happened here. People were always under the assumption that a gradual collapse could be forseen and prevented.

In my opinion, everything comes down to the one little thing I really don't like about America: legal traps. Every single day, people are always on the lookout for legal traps. These scavengers are looking for one little tiny treasure that only you can provide: your signature. Once you stamp your signature on a piece of paper, it's either the glory of the toilet seat. Which is kind of ironic, because right now thousands and thousands of people are losing their own toilet seats on a daily basis.


One day of crisis -as September eleven- isn´t enough by far -in my humble opinion- to crunch USA´s economy. Nevertheless, a two-fronts war (and I admit I feel twisted when I write that) is a veeery different thing. Nowadays war is a too expensive activity, specially middle world away from home. C´mon! Europe is unable to move its own army -or armies- without help! Every major militar activity is an invitation to bankrupcty. (And even worse, unable to reach real results. But that is another matter)

So, I think the real problem was... were the wars.
"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 Carlito Brigante » Wed Dec 17, 2008 2:11 am

plop wrote:
Carlito Brigante wrote:I've been predicting a collapse on the market ever since people became in denial about the overall damage the 9/11 did to the US economy which have been dragging itself for the last sevenyears. Wall Steet simply decided to call the bluff, actually hiding the grim picture. The argument against a possible market crash comes from the notion that the system was designed to prevent another 1929 one day market crash, and it is. Yet, it never meant that the system could prevent the market from a gradual collapse, which is exactly what happened here. People were always under the assumption that a gradual collapse could be forseen and prevented.

In my opinion, everything comes down to the one little thing I really don't like about America: legal traps. Every single day, people are always on the lookout for legal traps. These scavengers are looking for one little tiny treasure that only you can provide: your signature. Once you stamp your signature on a piece of paper, it's either the glory of the toilet seat. Which is kind of ironic, because right now thousands and thousands of people are losing their own toilet seats on a daily basis.


One day of crisis -as September eleven- isn´t enough by far -in my humble opinion- to crunch USA´s economy. Nevertheless, a two-fronts war (and I admit I feel twisted when I write that) is a veeery different thing. Nowadays war is a too expensive activity, specially middle world away from home. C´mon! Europe is unable to move its own army -or armies- without help! Every major militar activity is an invitation to bankrupcty. (And even worse, unable to reach real results. But that is another matter)

So, I think the real problem was... were the wars.


I agree with you. And it's also ironic because so many people are in complete denial about how much damage the wars have done to the economy. They figure that 10 billion dollars a month is a relatively low sum of money big picture wise. The reality is that the US is spending too much money dangerously fast.

I think that what 9/11 did was merely start the chain reaction.
Carlito Brigante
 
Posts: 1058
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:39 am

Postby buttsie » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:27 am

I wondr why the previous Government didnt include any bonuses paid out as part of any bail out package?

The disconnect between sustained performance & profit versus bonuses paid is one I will never understand

You can bet your last dollar in a year where they were going gang busters for 9 months and died in the last 3,investors got 4/5ths of fuck all for being involved but those doing the trading a bonus

System needs to change big time


Wall St bonuses 'shameful'

Friday, January 30, 2009 » 02:30pm


US President Barack Obama has slammed massive Wall Street bonuses as 'shameful'.

President Barack Obama has slammed Wall Street titans who raked in billions in bonuses while taxpayers bailed out their industry as 'shameful'.

Obama, anger flashing across his usually calm countenance, said on Thursday that bosses of big finance firms must sacrifice along with other Americans, as the country tries to dig itself out of a deep economic hole.

The president's ire was sparked when he read a newspaper article detailing the $US18.4 billion ($A28.23 billion) in bonuses collected by Wall Street firms last year, even as stock markets plunged and the economy slumped towards a recession.

'That is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful, and part of what we are going to need is for the folks on Wall Street who are asking for help to show some restraint and show some discipline and show some sense of responsibility,' Obama told reporters in the Oval Office.

'The American people understand that we have got a big hole we have got to dig ourselves out of but they don't like the idea that people are digging a bigger hole as they are being asked to fill it up.'

Obama, speaking after meeting Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said he would clearly spell out to Wall Street executives they have to act in a more responsible fashion.

There would be time for them to rake in profits and bonuses later in the economic cycle, he said. 'But now is not that time.'

'We're going to be having conversations as this process moves forward, directly with these folks on Wall Street,' Obama said.

The president, who is piloting an $US800 billion ($A1.23 trillion) plus economic stimulus plan through Congress, pledged to make clear that Wall Street fat cats must 'start acting in a more responsible fashion, if we are to together get this economy rolling again.'

He also brought up the case of Citigroup, which has taken funds under a separate $US700 billion ($A1.07 trillion) Wall Street bailout, and nixed plans to buy a $US42 million ($A64.43 million) corporate jet after the Treasury Department complained.

'Secretary Geithner already had to pull back one institution that had gone forward with a multimillion dollar jet plane purchase at the same time as they're receiving TARP money,' Obama said.

White House aides said the massive bonus figures, divulged in a report Wednesday by the New York state comptroller's office, undercut Obama's appeal for all Americans to share in a new spirit of responsibility.

Total bonuses in the securities industry fell from $US32.9 billion ($A50.47 billion) to $US18.4 billion ($A28.23 billion) in 2008, the largest percentage drop in more than three decades, Wednesday's report said.

'But the size of the bonus pool is still the sixth largest on record,' the comptroller's office said.

Vice President Joseph Biden also took a shot at Wall Street financiers in an interview with CNBC.

'It's been outrageous. I mean, it's just offensive, it just offends the sensibilities, I mean, I'd like to throw these guys in the brig.

'I do know what they're thinking and they're thinking the same old thing that got us here, greed. They're thinking, take care of me.'

There was mixed reaction from Wall Street analysts to Obama's remarks.

'It's good politics for him to say that, but we have to realise that a lot of bonuses were paid on a contract basis, so many people worked on percentages,' said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Avalon Partners.

'I am not defending the action of Wall Street and the bankers but I think that one needs to realise that Wall Street doesn't work on salaries but on bonuses.'

Alan Johnson, managing director of Johnson Associates, a New York-based compensation consulting firm, also understood Obama's anger, but said the situation was complicated.

'I understand the anger that the president has and most taxpayers probably have. I understand that emotional kind of reaction.

'Were they irresponsible? That's a questionable thing, if you say, 'I'm not paying a bonus to anyone,' you'll probably have several of these firms collapse, which would have been worse than people being angry.'
buttsie
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Australia

Previous

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron