IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Where did I say "bank"?
--

Drew
New When you got sarcastic
and went from my post into "bastions"..

I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Okay, two things
First, I don't see the word "bank" until it appears in your subject line.

Second, to an outsider like me the groups "banks" and "investment houses" aren't as distinct from each other as they may appear to finance people. And even if I didn't feel that way before, the consolidation that's been going on the last decade has blurred the lines.

You can say (again) that of course there were some firms that did that, and that it was never a good idea. That "well run" banks or investment houses didn't. Let's assume that when I'm talking about who broke the economy I'm talking about the ones that weren't run well.
--

Drew
New Lets just assume
that the folks in congress in 99 that voted overwhelmingly to allow it were more guilty than most.

generalities won't fix whats broken...and blaming the wrong people won't get it done either.


I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
New Re that '99 Triumph of Lobbying-via intentional obfuscation
as Planned Strategy: through the math sleight-of-Many-hands. That event was today dissected with Terry Gross, on Fresh Air.

Frank Partnoy, author of the '97 book, Fiasco: The Inside Story of a Wall Street Trader.
(Not to be confused with recent book of same Title re Iraq. Lately.. Fiascoes R'US.)

http://www.amazon.co...der/dp/0140278796

The very incongruity of the 'instruments' spawned by The International Swaps and Derivatives Assn -- was employed to ridicule any in Congress who opposed their aim of separating all such [Vegas gambling, pure and simple] from regulation: Successfully. While various letters between Regulators and the Regulated had given indications of laissez-faiire in their Unregistered gambling avocations:

The head of ISDA, one Mark Brickel (sp?) wanted an 'official' Act to remove any chance of later litigation, should something er, happen to go awry(?) Brickel + a critical mass of Very-Interested lobbyists -- formulated the tactics to be used. And Applied Them.

That which has now become common knowledge: that these er, Tarballs Could NOT be unravelled (so as to track those liabilities so intentionally sliced/diced and expertly concealed-by-Design) was their prime means of intimidation! This bogus MO was presented to the recalcitrant, as argument that, "the complaining Congresscritter must simply lack ECON KNOWLEDGE cha cha cha".
Repeat: the ruse worked perfectly: psychologically Successful.

The rule change (per author) was midnight insertion in that Huge Bill, via ___ One of the Gramms; (Phil?)

Aside: the only reason Partnoy Could write his '97 exposé was: an apparent oversight, when he resigned from one of the big Investment Banking Houses! They neglected to ask him to sign an NDA -- then Required ~100% in that nascent scam-Industry. (Partnoy recounted "shaking hands, etc." on day of his departure.)

POINT: This. was. 12. Years. Ago.
How Many MBA-mills ever mentioned him, his book -- and the math-scam of these intricately-crafted derivatives? Obviously: Not enough. (If.. a single one?) Partnoy is now teaching at San Diego UC, IIRC and has certainly not kept silent Since 1997. Are financial types evidently as inept as any other biz-Suit? (not just about math and ethics.) Case made.

He's reprinting the '97 book and has a new one: Ivar Kruger, The Match King: the Man Behind a Century of Wall St. Scandals

http://www.amazon.co...als/dp/1586487434



But like the Doomsday Bomb in Strangelove
Of what use is discovering and writing about:
an entire er, (formerly-) 'Financial Community' renegade group, transformed; now absorbed in making multiple insurance-bets ('multiple': re any Single transaction! then multipy by n) and gambling under cover of darkness, Trillions - - - -

IF Econ-types, 'Professionals' from the MBA-mills across the academic board - DON'T EVER GET THE WORD ??
Is it that their reading habits are the same as Shrub's? Or is Theory ever so much more fun than Observation? (which needs all that work and stuff.)

'ECON': it's whatever you think you can make of it, if you have the Gift-of-Gab.
And (YAN new book reviewed en passant) Infectious Greed
Sadly, Beep -- it seems that many of your cohorts are either Bush-grade dumb, Cheney-grade criminal or both. Didn't your mother warn you about hanging with the wrong crowd?


[PS:]
Next I'd like to run down the exact moment when the word usury was removed from any reference to Our Next Scandal: the bestiality that is: the Unlimited invention of 'fees' not-to-be confused with Usurious Interest Rates (a 'technical term': when you Want it it be): ie the Entire Credit Card Scam (right up to today.)

I think That One will be Loverly, when a New Admin finally turns the spotlights on their floating crap game.
R e g u l a t i o n -- Oooh I LIKE the mellifluous sound of that word.
(And it will Sooo piss off all the Reactionaries (who even lie about their actual philosophy (masquerading as 'Conservatives'.))

Obama: >KILL< the Obfuscators with your S(w)inging Sword of truthiness!
Expand Edited by Ashton March 26, 2009, 02:26:27 AM EDT
     Johnson and Kwak on Geithner's plan. - (Another Scott) - (28)
         Interesting, though. - (beepster) - (27)
             They only show a profit before writedowns. - (Another Scott)
             And? - (hnick) - (25)
                 The predictions of their demise - (beepster) - (24)
                     So what *is* the right solution? -NT - (drook) - (23)
                         If the Fed failed so miserably at a rescue... - (beepster) - (22)
                             So, one vote for the Japanese solution, then? - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 yup - (boxley)
                             A: Change which rules? B: What about the current problem? - (drook) - (19)
                                 Re: A: Change which rules? B: What about the current problem - (beepster) - (18)
                                     Industry != business - (jake123) - (17)
                                         industry is making bricks, trade is - (boxley) - (5)
                                             Question for you - (drook) - (4)
                                                 no bricks for you :-) - (boxley)
                                                 Answer for you - (beepster) - (2)
                                                     That doesn't sound like the last several years -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                         Its certainly more complicated - (beepster)
                                         Ok...does the "business" add value? - (beepster) - (10)
                                             No. - (jake123) - (9)
                                                 Then we disagree - (beepster) - (8)
                                                     You're talking about banking - (jake123)
                                                     Let me try another angle - (drook) - (6)
                                                         most of them were NOT at the banks - (beepster) - (5)
                                                             Where did I say "bank"? -NT - (drook) - (4)
                                                                 When you got sarcastic - (beepster) - (3)
                                                                     Okay, two things - (drook) - (2)
                                                                         Lets just assume - (beepster) - (1)
                                                                             Re that '99 Triumph of Lobbying-via intentional obfuscation - (Ashton)

Coffee, tea, or me?
177 ms