From: David Ruether on

"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T6idnUo7yoT1bE7WnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bd18a78$1$27723$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:_cGdnRmAKMX-y0zWnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

>>> The customers that were buying these derivatives were highly sophisticated gamblers. They should have known better. I certainly
>>> didn't buy them, because I don't play the markets that way. I have my retirement funds invested in much more stable instruments.
>>> I don't, in general gamble in the stock market, although I have been known to take a chance now and then, but always on a small
>>> scale. (relatively) And, when I do, I am never surprised when I lose.

I have been "lucky" in the stock market (dumb luck?), although I've
made my share of dumb moves (once buying a "penny" stock, and
being also impatient and selling a real winner or two far too soon...).
In the last year, if you couldn't make "a killing" almost by throwing a
dart at a list of stocks, well.... (and Ford and Apple were SO obvious!).

>> The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities were pension fund managers who were duped into believing
>> they were buying AA rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bullshit.
>> --
>> Peter

'Course! A good example of an unregulated "hidden" market at work...

> Who rated them, "AA", and why isn't there a comfortable jail cell for those who have this power and misuse it?

'Cuz that wasn't illegal (but should have been - but that would have
been "socialistic" to have regulated these "securities", so.....;-).

> It seems to me that such things would be easy to regulate, and not something that has to be handled by rocket scientists. Has it
> become politicized?

You bet! The Democrats are for regulation of these markets that have
caused so much grief, and the Republicans are grudgingly now coming
along since they see what damage not doing so would do to their
election bottom line (not so much why these regulations are needed
for the economic health of the country, alas). But they again are not
above lying about what is in the proposed bill, and its consequences.

> does every "regulation" bill carry some sort of expensive "rider" that gives lots of money to some undeserving person or
> organization? Why can't our government handle even the simplest task without F****** it up?

Huh???
Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).
--DR


From: Albert Ross on
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:10:18 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>Huh???
>Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
>it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
>"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).

If people were that bad at playing poker elsewhere (essentially what
they were doing) the Goodfellas would have broken their kneecaps when
they couldn't pay their debts.

I can't help feeling this was a deliberate ploy to break the entire
world's financial system before Bush Halliburton Inc. were voted out,
and make it impossible for anyone else to fix
From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T6idnUo7yoT1bE7WnZ2dnUVZ_rOdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4bd18a78$1$27723$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...

>> The customers that were buying these mortgage backed insured securities
>> were pension fund managers who were duped into believing they were buying
>> AA rated investments. The seller's knew the rating was pure bullshit.


> Who rated them, "AA", and why isn't there a comfortable jail cell for
> those who have this power and misuse it? It seems to me that such things
> would be easy to regulate, and not something that has to be handled by
> rocket scientists. Has it become politicized? does every "regulation" bill
> carry some sort of expensive "rider" that gives lots of money to some
> undeserving person or organization?


Moody's & Standard & Poor. Do your own research.

>Why can't our government handle even the simplest task without F****** it
>up?

Too many people don't want to pay for proper oversight. They claim it's an
intrusion into our rights.

--
Peter

From: David Ruether on

"Albert Ross" <spam(a)devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:t529t5dhe91l223hn1k7qcoka3mj2ltsoh(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:10:18 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>>Huh???
>>Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
>>it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
>>"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).

> If people were that bad at playing poker elsewhere (essentially what
> they were doing) the Goodfellas would have broken their kneecaps when
> they couldn't pay their debts.
>
> I can't help feeling this was a deliberate ploy to break the entire
> world's financial system before Bush Halliburton Inc. were voted out,
> and make it impossible for anyone else to fix

I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but one of them does
appear to stand out recently. The Republicans voted for the
VERY expensive *unfunded* Medicare "Advantage" plan,
and to me it appears likely to have been intended to bankrupt
Medicare much sooner (the Republicans are not normally
considered the party of public welfare...;-), and thus finally
eliminate that "socialistic" program. Much as I personally like
my Medicare Advantage plan (what's not to like about it,
except what it would do to the future of Medicare funding),
I would be quite willing to pay more for a "straight" form of
Medicare, without the deceptions and nonsense. With the
recent health care reform legislation, this change is likely to
happen. I tend to see the financial area nonsense as a "Gee,
how can we make it easy for our (rich) friends and us to
make even more money, the industry (and country) stability
be hanged!". Gosh, libertarian rapaciousness really CAN
still operate even in a "socialist" economy...! 8^)
--DR


From: Peter on
"Albert Ross" <spam(a)devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:t529t5dhe91l223hn1k7qcoka3mj2ltsoh(a)4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 08:10:18 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Huh???
>>Good regulation isn't expensive, certainly compared with not doing
>>it, which basically funnels the money to the rich, and not to the
>>"undeserving" (presumably you mean, "the citizenry"? ;-).
>
> If people were that bad at playing poker elsewhere (essentially what
> they were doing) the Goodfellas would have broken their kneecaps when
> they couldn't pay their debts.
>
> I can't help feeling this was a deliberate ploy to break the entire
> world's financial system before Bush Halliburton Inc. were voted out,
> and make it impossible for anyone else to fix


Nothing more than a deliberate ploy to line their pockets. It got out of
control.


--
Peter