Greenspan: there goes decades of Ayn Rand

[Socialite]

Coadie's economic hero:

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Is coadie pro-waxman? Who would've thought...

Let's hear Greenspan's 2008 words:

http://wn.com/Alan_Greenspan's_Ideology

Finding a flaw doesn't mean the ideology is broken or that it doesn't work.

Then his words later:

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video...nspan-10281612

If your crazy liberal Waxman buddy sees Greenspan off the mark, I am sure you will join him in a few years.

So you can pretend to know the flaws. Exactly how did the lack of risk managers play a role is the demise of CDswaps and CDO's?
You know nothing about economics. You cling to Ayn Rand which is science fiction.

[Socialite]

Originally Posted by coadie

If your crazy liberal Waxman buddy sees Greenspan off the mark, I am sure you will join him in a few years.

So you can pretend to know the flaws. Exactly how did the lack of risk managers play a role is the demise of CDswaps and CDO's?
You know nothing about economics. You cling to Ayn Rand which is science fiction.

Are you bipolar? Schizo? Maybe just a HORRIBLE flip-flopper??

I'll let you go down that rabbit trail of how these flaws affected the markets... I'm not following you this time. Bon Voyage.

I don't cling to Ayn Rand. I think she articulates an economic and government philosophy in an extremely ideal way, and one that matches with much of how I see things.

Instead of attacking me, and wasting your time in the process, why don't you answer my question for the... 7th time now... what is your economic platform? If it's not Free Market Capitalism, what is it? What "school of economics" does the Great One Coadie tout as best? Still waiting....


(My crazy liberal buddy? Sounds to me like you are in agreement with Waxman -- not me! Are you retracting that now? lol)

[Socialite]

This thread is giving me quite the chuckle. Coadie is confused and he's too proud to admit it.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

So under oath Greenspan tells us the philosophy of Ayn Rand is to be avoided. ...

Your "analysis" is bizarre as usual, coadie.

Greenspan's appeal to banks and other institutions "following their own self interests" was simply an attempt at an analogy on his part. What you have failed to see (and what Greenspan at least appears to have missed) is that the trading that goes on within "the banks" is done by individuals who may or may not have the bank's best interest in mind.

Rolling the dice to get large yields when the market is good will provide huge bonuses for the bank's traders. Presumably, this is in the trader's "best interests." However, overexposure to the shaky derivatives is dangerous for the bank itself in the long run. The banks need to set up bonus systems that reward trading that is in the bank's interests and not just in the trader's short term interests. Greenspan appears to have failed to foresee the failure of "the banks" in creating bonus systems that suited the bank's long term interests.

You can't really apply Objectivism to institutions and societies. Ayn Rand's philosophy was directed toward the individual.

Greenspan was reaching a bit with his analogy while coadie is in the deep end of the pool and without his water wings.

[Socialite]

Pel, but where Ayn Rand's influence on government came in to play was when Objectivism was fleshed out. Since it celebrated the individual's right, it naturally shunned Big Government and embraced Free Market Capitalism. As you said, the situation of the Banks being unregulated isn't necessarily "free market," nor is regulating banking industries necessarily a crime against "free market." How far that regulation intrudes, and to the extent and purpose it fills certainly would though.

Point being, Ayn Rand's Objectivism is indeed an individual philosophy -- one that has inspired many opinions about the role of government as a result. While I don't embrace Objectivism (doesn't exactly fly with the teachings of Jesus), the principles of her philosophy, as it pertains to the role of government, to me, are wonderful.

I'm still scratching my head about Coadie's insistence that Rand is a liberal leftist though. Guess that's what happens when you've never heard of an author until last week, never read her books yet try to get in the ring of strong opinions about her.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Your "analysis" is bizarre as usual, coadie.

Greenspan's appeal to banks and other institutions "following their own self interests" was simply an attempt at an analogy on his part. What you have failed to see (and what Greenspan at least appears to have missed) is that the trading that goes on within "the banks" is done by individuals who may or may not have the bank's best interest in mind.

Rolling the dice to get large yields when the market is good will provide huge bonuses for the bank's traders. Presumably, this is in the trader's "best interests." However, overexposure to the shaky derivatives is dangerous for the bank itself in the long run. The banks need to set up bonus systems that reward trading that is in the bank's interests and not just in the trader's short term interests.

You can't really apply Objectivism to institutions and societies. Ayn Rand's philosophy was directed toward the individual.

Greenspan was reaching a bit with his analogy while coadie is in the deep end of the pool and without his water wings.

They weren't rolling the dice. They were selling actual mortgage or asset backed securities. Tells us you are clueless. The 2 problems attached were that they were highly leveraged and the quality was lower than the actual ratings. The second reason behind that was the mark to market laws that caused mandatory writedowns.

Stick with your worm theories.


Pelthais you don't know what you are talking about,
You seem to have no clue how Investment or merchant banks reward pay
You also don't know that issuing and underwriting is a different source of revenue than retail trading. Goldman Sachs was not a bank member of the fed Reserve till "Hank" Paulson, Jr in september 2008 had them convert to bank holding companies. The other converted underwriter was Morgan Stanley.



The trading you talk about isn't in banks. It was between investment banks. For example BNP Paribas was highly uncovered and the failure of AIG would have hurt them a lot.

Stick with Darwinian fairy tales for adults and let socialite stick with Ayn Rand fiction novels.




http://www.amazon.com/Art-Fiction-Gu...der_0452281547

Read Ayn rands book, the art of Fiction.

[Socialite]

Coadie, just stop while you are ahead. You have too many contradictions crowding your plate right now.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

They weren't rolling the dice. They were selling actual mortgage or asset backed securities. Tells us you are clueless. The 2 problems attached were that they were highly leveraged and the quality was lower than the actual ratings. The second reason behind that was the mark to market laws that caused mandatory writedowns.

You've just described the risks involved in the derivatives. When one assumes a risk one can be said to be "rolling the dice."

When enough people make the same risky "bet" using ... say, Lehman Brothers' money, then Lehman Brothers will be at risk. Buying debt and assuming that there won't be some "write downs" is really a "roll of the dice."

Originally Posted by coadie

Stick with your worm theories.

Pelthais you don't know what you are talking about,
You seem to have no clue how Investment or merchant banks reward pay
You also don't know that issuing and underwriting is a different source of revenue than retail trading. Goldman Sachs was not a bank member of the fed Reserve till "Hank" Paulson, Jr in september 2008 had them convert to bank holding companies. The other converted underwriter was Morgan Stanley.



The trading you talk about isn't in banks. It was between investment banks. For example BNP Paribas was highly uncovered and the failure of AIG would have hurt them a lot.

Stick with Darwinian fairy tales for adults and let socialite stick with Ayn Rand fiction novels.




http://www.amazon.com/Art-Fiction-Gu...der_0452281547

Read Ayn rands book, the art of Fiction.

Another bizarre rant based upon the coagulated mists within one of the cloudiest of minds.

Having worked in a "bank" (the largest in the nation at the time), I do understand a little about how bonuses are earned and distributed. I have described just one scenario where the "self interests" of a bank employee might be at variance to the "self interests" of the bank itself. This is the component that I felt Greenspan seems to be saying he overlooked.

What are the "six languages" that you speak at home, coadie?

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Socialite

Are you bipolar? Schizo? Maybe just a HORRIBLE flip-flopper??

I'll let you go down that rabbit trail of how these flaws affected the markets... I'm not following you this time. Bon Voyage.

I don't cling to Ayn Rand. I think she articulates an economic and government philosophy in an extremely ideal way, and one that matches with much of how I see things.

Instead of attacking me, and wasting your time in the process, why don't you answer my question for the... 7th time now... what is your economic platform? If it's not Free Market Capitalism, what is it? What "school of economics" does the Great One Coadie tout as best? Still waiting....


(My crazy liberal buddy? Sounds to me like you are in agreement with Waxman -- not me! Are you retracting that now? lol)

When people have no intelligent arguments, they start name calling. Your arguments are emotional. Who is attacking?