Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'.
Ryan McCoskrie
the writers are correct about some points I'm amazed by how
clueless they are.
The dumbest part so far is the chapter that blames all Usenet's
faults on Unix.
Half a minute of listening to a High School rugby team disproves
all of that.
What are some other peoples' opinions on it?
Patrick Scheible
I remember it being funny and having some valid points. Unix is good,
but not so good that it should be above criticism.
Afraid I don't remember what it said about Usenet, though, and I've
never listened to a rugby team.
-- Patrick
Ryan McCoskrie
> Ryan McCoskrie <ryan.mc...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> I've started skimming through the UHH and despite the fact that
>> the writers are correct about some points I'm amazed by how
>> clueless they are.
>>
>> The dumbest part so far is the chapter that blames all Usenet's
>> faults on Unix.
>> Half a minute of listening to a High School rugby team disproves
>> all of that.
>>
>> What are some other peoples' opinions on it?
>
> I remember it being funny and having some valid points. Unix is good,
> but not so good that it should be above criticism.
Agreed.
> Afraid I don't remember what it said about Usenet, though, and I've
> never listened to a rugby team.
Essentially it described Usenet at its worst blaming it all on Unix
while still admitting that the problem is with the people and not the
technology.
As to ruby teams, I went to High School in rural New Zealand.
The stereotype that a big chunk of my class tried to live up
to is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogan
And yes, they did actually say that they were trying to be like that.
Michael Black
> Patrick Scheible wrote:
>
>> Ryan McCoskrie <ryan.mc...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> I've started skimming through the UHH and despite the fact that
>>> the writers are correct about some points I'm amazed by how
>>> clueless they are.
>>>
>>> The dumbest part so far is the chapter that blames all Usenet's
>>> faults on Unix.
>>> Half a minute of listening to a High School rugby team disproves
>>> all of that.
>>>
>>> What are some other peoples' opinions on it?
>>
>> I remember it being funny and having some valid points. Unix is good,
>> but not so good that it should be above criticism.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Afraid I don't remember what it said about Usenet, though, and I've
>> never listened to a rugby team.
>
> Essentially it described Usenet at its worst blaming it all on Unix
> while still admitting that the problem is with the people and not the
> technology.
>
But isn't that the joke? I thought Usenet came about on a Unix system,
and of course in the early days the messages were transported between
computers with UUCP, Unix to Unix Copy. So if there hadn't been Unix,
there wouldn't have been Usenet, and all that has happened on Usenet
wouldn't have.
The bad of Usenet is a subset of Usenet, but since Unix is the cause
of Usenet, then so Unix is the cause of the bad on Usenet.
Michael
Ryan McCoskrie
I've seen newspaper columnist write the same way as Usenet trolls.
The people are the problem. If they hadn't got onto Usenet then they
would have gone some place else.
Patrick Scheible
Having reread the chapter, it seems to me they're telling a joke on
themselves, as the Unix Hater's Handbook started on Usenet. A lot of
it is really history, not anti-Usenet. Except for the bit about rn's
one-key commands.
-- Patrick
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> The bad of Usenet is a subset of Usenet, but since Unix is the cause
> of Usenet, then so Unix is the cause of the bad on Usenet.
>
ISTM that his analysis is *not* quite correct. I would call Unix a
*facilitator* of Usenet, *not* the cause. The people who wanted to
create Usenet, utilized Unix to accomplish their goal. Unix might
be considered the progenitor of many things, but saying Unix is
the *cause* of these things is over doing it a bit IMHO.
--
+----------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond |
| |
| plano dot net at aquaporin4 dot com |
+----------------------------------------+
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> I've seen newspaper columnist write the same way as Usenet trolls.
> The people are the problem. If they hadn't got onto Usenet then they
> would have gone some place else.
It has always been my fondest hope that the Usenet trolls and
their ilk *would* go someplace else!!! ;-)
[If they need places suggested, I can *tell* them where to go!]
Charles Richmond
I always thought that _The Unix Hater's Handbook" was an effort to
"pull in" those folks who disliked Unix. After these folks know
more about Unix, they may soften up and actually appreciate Unix
more. I assumed all the negatives in the book were done sort of
"tongue in cheek" and were just bones thrown to keep the interest
of the "Unix haters" until they could be converted. :-)
Michael Black
But then newspapers would be blamed for the behaviour.
Michael
Tim Shoppa
wrote:
Well over a decade ago when I read it, it made very clearly the point
that some people liked other older OS's rather than Unix.
Today when young people's experiences are confined to a single, or at
most two, OS's I think it would be broadening - if they didn't decide
that it was irrelevant.
But thinking about right now, I see some good distinctions that are
repeated: For example many of the decades-old disagreements about Unix
GUI's (e.g. Display Postscript vs X-windows) have been repeated just
in the past few years. Look at the way that Adobe has moved away from
SVG and towards Flash, for example. I think that's a crying shame
because for me and my data, display postscript or SVG really is the
right way to think about it. And Flash sucks for data-centric (as
opposed to graphical ad) applications.
Tim.
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Michael Black wrote:
> >
> > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
> >
> > The bad of Usenet is a subset of Usenet, but since Unix is the cause
> > of Usenet, then so Unix is the cause of the bad on Usenet.
> >
>
> ISTM that his analysis is *not* quite correct. I would call Unix a
> *facilitator* of Usenet, *not* the cause. The people who wanted to
> create Usenet, utilized Unix to accomplish their goal. Unix might
> be considered the progenitor of many things, but saying Unix is
> the *cause* of these things is over doing it a bit IMHO.
Except it was a good enough OS to make USENET feasible. Good enough in
that it spread to a wide range of computers and had a good feature set.
As well blame USENET on c. The c language had more to do with it, as it
made it feasible to support USENET even on non Unix systems.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Walter Bushell
<c0e3f040-e6e7-4350...@v2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Tim Shoppa <sho...@trailing-edge.com> wrote:
> Look at the way that Adobe has moved away from
> SVG and towards Flash, for example. I think that's a crying shame
> because for me and my data, display postscript or SVG really is the
> right way to think about it. And Flash sucks for data-centric (as
> opposed to graphical ad) applications.
But graphical ad applications bring in the money, so that's the way the
rookie fumbles.
Peter Flass
> Look at the way that Adobe has moved away from
> SVG and towards Flash, for example. I think that's a crying shame
> because for me and my data, display postscript or SVG really is the
> right way to think about it. And Flash sucks for data-centric (as
> opposed to graphical ad) applications.
>
Yes, but you have to remember, THEY DON'T CARE. You and I and the rest
of A.F.C don't matter a rat's @ss in Adobe's and M$oft's world, because
we aren't throwing them tons of money. At least some parts of the
industry used to be about providing service to the users, now it's all
about selling them something, usually something they don't want.
Sorry for the rant.
Peter Flass
It spread because it was easily portable. Multics and the Burroughs MCP
were written in HLLs and could have been ported, except that they both
relied on specialized hardware. Unix, as I have observed, probably
unoriginally, made fewer demands on the hardware and could run on just
about anything. Were there any other OS's of the period that were
written in HLLs?
Walter Bushell
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
No, you're not.
What you don't like capitalism?
Charles Richmond
Yes, listening to the sages of <a.f.c.> would be "too much like
doing right"!!! :-) ISTM that Linux is much more about trying to
provide a service to users. It is *less* caught up in the
moneymaking frenzy.
Chris Barts
Eric Raymond, who was the first techincal reviewer for the little
poison-pen screed, has reviewed it with Linux and company in mind. It's
arguably anachronistic but has the distinct advantage of being at least
minimally relevant to modern OS design debates.
<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=538>
In short, Dennis Ritchie's remarks in the Anti-Forward are even more
apposite now than they were when this mound was still steaming:
> I have succumbed to the temptation you offered in your preface: I do
> write you off as envious malcontents and romantic keepers of
> memories. The systems you remember so fondly [...] are not just out to
> pasture, they are fertilizing it from below. [... Y]our book is a
> pudding stuffed with apposite observations, many well-conceived. Like
> excrement, it contains enough undigested nuggets of nutrition to
> sustain life for some. But it is not a tasty pie: it reeks too much of
> contempt and of envy.
The snark was dated in 1994 and it's just sad now. Their little jibe
about how a Unix GUI is an oxymoron, their endless ranting about how
Unix handles VDTs, and their utter contempt for X's slowness and
inefficiency are... well, you laugh but you feel bad about laughing, as
if you had inadvertently observed a senile man digging for clams in the
deep winter snow.
That said, their rant about classic shell scripting is still
apposite. That's why Perl exists, as it existed in 1994, and it's why
Python and Ruby have been invented since then. C is still a bad language
in ways that have nothing to do with its efficiency. The filesystem
design (in general) could be improved, but nobody can quite agree *how*,
and the command line is more of an acquired taste than TOPS-20's was.
So, as Ritchie said, it has some good points but too much invective to
be very interesting as anything other than a screed. The fact it's now
15 years old and hasn't aged well blunts its impact even further but, in
truth, it was somewhat dated when it was first published.
(Humorous note: You used to be able to get a PDF of the book for free
from Microsoft. I can hardly imagine what the authors would have come up
with had they saw their favored systems being replaced by Windows 95.)
Bernd Felsche
> Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Tim Shoppa wrote:
>> > Look at the way that Adobe has moved away from
>> > SVG and towards Flash, for example. I think that's a crying shame
>> > because for me and my data, display postscript or SVG really is the
>> > right way to think about it. And Flash sucks for data-centric (as
>> > opposed to graphical ad) applications.
>> Yes, but you have to remember, THEY DON'T CARE. You and I and the rest
>> of A.F.C don't matter a rat's @ss in Adobe's and M$oft's world, because
>> we aren't throwing them tons of money. At least some parts of the
>> industry used to be about providing service to the users, now it's all
>> about selling them something, usually something they don't want.
>>
>> Sorry for the rant.
>No, you're not.
>What you don't like capitalism?
Common misconception about capitalism.
It's not just about making money.
It's about making money while increasing wealth.
One doesn't increase the wealth of customers by selling them stuff
that they neither need nor want. The wealthier the customer (which
they won't get if they're spending on crap), the greater the
potential for return business.
Only that way is "capitalism" sustainable.
"Crapitalists" believe in making money fast and getting out as
quickly as possible when the fit hits the shan. They cut corners on
product (and service) to maximise margin, and they don't personally
care about return business, quality or, for what it matters,
personal integrity. Their profit-making (no capitalism) is based on
sucking in as many people as possible to the greatest extent, with
no motivation at all to allow their product(s) to increase the
wealth of the end-users of the product.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | The growth of knowledge depends
X against HTML mail | entirely on disagreement.
/ \ and postings | -- Karl Popper
Flammarion
wrote:
You can sermonize about your ideal of capitalism, but why should
anyone care if there is no $$$$ in it for them?
Peter Flass
This isn't Capitalism. Capitalism may reduce people's labor to a
commodity, but whatever we have now (Consumerism?) reduces people's
spending to a commodity.
jmfbahciv
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>> In article <h99m0k$kf9$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Black wrote:
>>>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>>>
>>>> The bad of Usenet is a subset of Usenet, but since Unix is the cause
>>>> of Usenet, then so Unix is the cause of the bad on Usenet.
>>>>
>>> ISTM that his analysis is *not* quite correct. I would call Unix a
>>> *facilitator* of Usenet, *not* the cause. The people who wanted to
>>> create Usenet, utilized Unix to accomplish their goal. Unix might be
>>> considered the progenitor of many things, but saying Unix is the
>>> *cause* of these things is over doing it a bit IMHO.
>>
>> Except it was a good enough OS to make USENET feasible. Good enough in
>> that it spread to a wide range of computers and had a good feature
>> set. As well blame USENET on c. The c language had more to do with it,
>> as it made it feasible to support USENET even on non Unix systems.
>>
>
> It spread because it was easily portable.
It spread because people could get the sources and create their
own monitor code, do builds and be able to test with a debugger
at their fingertips.
> Multics and the Burroughs MCP
> were written in HLLs and could have been ported, except that they both
> relied on specialized hardware. Unix, as I have observed, probably
> unoriginally, made fewer demands on the hardware and could run on just
> about anything. Were there any other OS's of the period that were
> written in HLLs?
Somebody had to write those HLLs to work on the hardware. That's
(written in HLLs) is not the reason.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
There is a difference between making some money and making wealth.
Reread the post. One is short-term gain and the other is long-term
gain. Which is which is left as an exercise for the user.
/BAH
Bernd Felsche
What is this? A trolling edge comment?
If you'd bothered to READ what I wrote, capitalism is about ensuring
that you can KEEP MAKING MONEY by providing the means for your
customers to create wealth and then using that positive feedback to
ensure greater income.
Charles Richmond
> Flammarion <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep, 10:59, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au>
>> wrote:
>
>> You can sermonize about your ideal of capitalism, but why should
>> anyone care if there is no $$$$ in it for them?
>
> What is this? A trolling edge comment?
>
> If you'd bothered to READ what I wrote, capitalism is about ensuring
> that you can KEEP MAKING MONEY by providing the means for your
> customers to create wealth and then using that positive feedback to
> ensure greater income.
And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they
seem to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
Charlton Wilbur
PF> At least some parts of the industry used to be about providing
PF> service to the users, now it's all about selling them something,
PF> usually something they don't want.
Your mistake here is that you think you're the user. You're not.
The advertiser is the user. You're just a commodity -- the website
owner gets to charge someone else (who actually *is* one of Adobe's
users) to display a Flash ad, with the fee depending on how many eyes he
or she delivers.
The industry *is* about providing service to the users. It's just
become significantly more creative in its definition of "user."
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Charlie Gibbs
Peter...@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) writes:
> Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>> What you don't like capitalism?
>
> This isn't Capitalism. Capitalism may reduce people's labor to a
> commodity, but whatever we have now (Consumerism?) reduces people's
> spending to a commodity.
And the government's urging us to breed more consumers reduces
people to a commodity.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
Charles Richmond
> In article <h9d0g8$jl1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter...@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) writes:
>
>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>
>>> What you don't like capitalism?
>> This isn't Capitalism. Capitalism may reduce people's labor to a
>> commodity, but whatever we have now (Consumerism?) reduces people's
>> spending to a commodity.
>
> And the government's urging us to breed more consumers reduces
> people to a commodity.
>
I thought it was the Pope that urged more reproduction!!! ;-)
Bernd Felsche
>Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> Flammarion <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 23 Sep, 10:59, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au>
>>> wrote:
>>> You can sermonize about your ideal of capitalism, but why should
>>> anyone care if there is no $$$$ in it for them?
>>
>> What is this? A trolling edge comment?
>>
>> If you'd bothered to READ what I wrote, capitalism is about ensuring
>> that you can KEEP MAKING MONEY by providing the means for your
>> customers to create wealth and then using that positive feedback to
>> ensure greater income.
>And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they
>seem to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
You mean legitimised burlary?
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Bernd Felsche wrote:
> > Flammarion <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 23 Sep, 10:59, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> You can sermonize about your ideal of capitalism, but why should
> >> anyone care if there is no $$$$ in it for them?
> >
> > What is this? A trolling edge comment?
> >
> > If you'd bothered to READ what I wrote, capitalism is about ensuring
> > that you can KEEP MAKING MONEY by providing the means for your
> > customers to create wealth and then using that positive feedback to
> > ensure greater income.
>
> And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they
> seem to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
Apparently he is saying the American way is not capitalism.
Bernd Felsche
> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> > Flammarion <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> On 23 Sep, 10:59, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> You can sermonize about your ideal of capitalism, but why should
>> >> anyone care if there is no $$$$ in it for them?
>> > What is this? A trolling edge comment?
>> > If you'd bothered to READ what I wrote, capitalism is about ensuring
>> > that you can KEEP MAKING MONEY by providing the means for your
>> > customers to create wealth and then using that positive feedback to
>> > ensure greater income.
>> And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they
>> seem to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
>Apparently he is saying the American way is not capitalism.
It's not just "America" that has a surplus of crapitalists.
jmfbahciv
> Flammarion <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23 Sep, 10:59, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au>
>> wrote:
>
>> You can sermonize about your ideal of capitalism, but why should
>> anyone care if there is no $$$$ in it for them?
>
> What is this? A trolling edge comment?
>
> If you'd bothered to READ what I wrote, capitalism is about ensuring
> that you can KEEP MAKING MONEY by providing the means for your
> customers to create wealth and then using that positive feedback to
> ensure greater income.
Nit...it's also about keeping the money you make so you can
create more wealth with it.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> Bernd Felsche wrote:
>> Flammarion <peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 Sep, 10:59, Bernd Felsche <ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> You can sermonize about your ideal of capitalism, but why should
>>> anyone care if there is no $$$$ in it for them?
>>
>> What is this? A trolling edge comment?
>>
>> If you'd bothered to READ what I wrote, capitalism is about ensuring
>> that you can KEEP MAKING MONEY by providing the means for your
>> customers to create wealth and then using that positive feedback to
>> ensure greater income.
>
> And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they seem
> to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
>
/BAH
Charlie Gibbs
ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they
>> seem to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
>
> You mean legitimised burlary?
Yes. And look what happened - they stole your "g". :-)
Charlie Gibbs
(Charles Richmond) writes:
> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> In article <h9d0g8$jl1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Peter...@Yahoo.com (Peter Flass) writes:
>>
>>> Walter Bushell wrote:
>>>
>>>> What you don't like capitalism?
>>> This isn't Capitalism. Capitalism may reduce people's labor to a
>>> commodity, but whatever we have now (Consumerism?) reduces people's
>>> spending to a commodity.
>>
>> And the government's urging us to breed more consumers reduces
>> people to a commodity.
>
> I thought it was the Pope that urged more reproduction!!! ;-)
He's but one of many, unfortunately.
Bernd Felsche
>ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they
>>> seem to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
>>
>> You mean legitimised burlary?
>Yes. And look what happened - they stole your "g". :-)
That's what happens when you don't keep it on a string.
jmfbahciv
> "Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>> ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>
>>> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they
>>>> seem to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
>>> You mean legitimised burlary?
>
>> Yes. And look what happened - they stole your "g". :-)
>
> That's what happens when you don't keep it on a string.
ROTFLMAO. You guys are funny.
g is constant so thar be only one of them...
/BAH
Olafur Gunnlaugsson
I despair sometimes but all the companies I have partaken in or worked
for for the last 15 years or so may have had long term objectives on
paper but only short term goals in reality.
Making your daily business life more of a journey from minor disaster
recovery to major disaster recovery and back rather than a long term
build up of business........
Walter Bushell
Olafur Gunnlaugsson <o...@audiotools.com> wrote:
The bonuses come based on quarterly profits. It should come of no
student of Management by Objectives what the MO of executives is going
to be.
Charles Richmond
And making decisions that bring profit in the *short* term, but
are a *disaster* in the long term. The current "mortgage crisis"
is a case in point.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> writes:
> And making decisions that bring profit in the *short* term, but are a
> *disaster* in the long term. The current "mortgage crisis" is a case
> in point.
or ... making decisions motivated by individuals personal
compensation/bonuses based on the size & number of transactions w/o
regard to profit, loss, risk and/or whether it might take down the
institution, or destroy the country's (or even the world's) economy
... it is almost like some of the stereotype stories about teenagers
getting so involved in violent roll-playing games ... they no longer can
differentiate fantasy from reality; it is purely the thrill of the game.
the mortgage originators didn't care, they wrote the mortgages as fast
as possible w/o regard to risk ... only issue was how much and how fast
... and they took their percentage ... and unloaded them to be somebody
else's problem.
... I recently got notified that this was ranked as "best" answer to
(linkedin) question from nearly year ago (there is close parallel to the
unregulated mortgage originators being able to unload everything they
could write w/o regarding to quality ... taking down the economy ... and
the '20s brokers' loans fueling the stock market speculation and crash
of '29):
My Question: How is Subprime crisis impacting other Industries?
Your Answer:
Unregulated mortgage originators found a large untapped source of funds
by packaging mortgages as triple-A rated toxic CDOs. Since they could
unload ever mortgage they could write w/o regard to quality (as triple-A
rated toxic CDOs) ... the question is what kind of mortgages had little
activity. In the past, there was limited source of funds for writing
low-quality mortgages. With triple-A rated toxic CDOs, funds for this
market became almost unlimited. This nearly unlimited source of funds
became very attractive for speculators; no-documentation,
no-downpayment, 1percent, interest only ARMs could be leveraged for
2000% or better ROI (planning on flipping the property before the rate
reset).
Subprime had originally been targeted at 1st time, low-income home
buyers. However, speculators could leverage "sub-prime" all across the
home-owner market. The speculation, in addition to greatly inflating
home prices, made it appear like demand was much larger that it actually
was. As a result, construction companies took out loans to build large
number of additional houses & stripmalls for the apparent big upswing in
demand (anticipating they would sell the houses & stripmalls and pay off
the loans). Companies that supplied material for building, took out
loans to stock the additional supplies. Cities & towns sold bonds to
build all the infrastructure services for all the new housing projects
(anticipating all the additional real estate taxes when the properties
sold ... would fund the bonds).
When the speculation bubble burst, the properties went unsold
... hitting all the construction companies (and their loans), the
building material supply companies (& their loans), and the
municipalities (and their bonds). Bursting of the speculation bubble
then starts to spread throughout much of the economy.
CDOs were used two decades ago during S&L crisis to obfuscate underlying
value and sell for more than they were worth.
Congressional hearings a couple weeks ago looked at toxic CDOs getting
triple-A ratings. Testimony was that both mortgage originators and
rating agencies knew that the toxic CDOs weren't worth triple-A rating
... but the mortgage originators were paying for the triple-A
ratings. This enormously increase the market for these instruments (and
the source of funds)
On the institution side buying all these triple-A rated toxic CDOs
... there was questionable behavior ... they were playing both 1)
long/short mismatch ... which has been known for centuries to take down
institutions and 2) capital leveraged 40-80 times buying triple-A rated
toxic CDOs.
All of the individual characteristics had been around before the
triple-A ratings ... but the availability of funds was severely
limited. Getting the triple-A ratings on toxic CDOs contributed to all
the isolated hotbeds of greed and corruption to turn into a firestorm.
... snip ...
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008q.html#20 How is Subprime crisis impacting other Industries?
--
40+yrs virtualization experience (since Jan68), online at home since Mar1970
Walter Bushell
Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
> Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote:
> > Very good post
> >
> > I despair sometimes but all the companies I have partaken in or worked
> > for for the last 15 years or so may have had long term objectives on
> > paper but only short term goals in reality.
> >
> > Making your daily business life more of a journey from minor disaster
> > recovery to major disaster recovery and back rather than a long term
> > build up of business........
>
> And making decisions that bring profit in the *short* term, but
> are a *disaster* in the long term. The current "mortgage crisis"
> is a case in point.
There was a sentence in my numerical analysis textbook about the
problems of approximating curves with straight lines.
But yes, there was a lot of pressure on the quants to "prove" that
investments were safe. To sell the things they needed a number and if
you wanted to keep your job, you gave them their number.
Just like business consulting. You come in to do a study, find out what
management wants to do and recommend managements desire. But, of course,
you have to make it look like an independent study of the situation.
Walter Bushell
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
> or ... making decisions motivated by individuals personal
> compensation/bonuses based on the size & number of transactions w/o
> regard to profit, loss, risk and/or whether it might take down the
> institution, or destroy the country's (or even the world's) economy
But not to play that way got you terminated and personally ruined.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
> But yes, there was a lot of pressure on the quants to "prove" that
> investments were safe. To sell the things they needed a number and if
> you wanted to keep your job, you gave them their number.
>
> Just like business consulting. You come in to do a study, find out what
> management wants to do and recommend managements desire. But, of course,
> you have to make it look like an independent study of the situation.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#47" Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
the other scenario was that everything was fiddled to do what the
traders & deal people wanted to do ... risk managers were overruled
and/or told to adjust the parameters until they supported what the
traders & deal people wanted.
example was article from 18Sept2008
How Wall Street Lied to Its Computers
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/how-wall-streets-quants-lied-to-their-computers/
article from summer 2007:
Subprime = Triple-A ratings? or 'How to Lie with Statistics'
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/25/subprime-triple-a-ratings-or-how-to-lie-with-statistics/
misc. past posts mentioning above articles:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#49 VMware Chief Says the OS Is History
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#52 Technology and the current crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#53 Your thoughts on the following comprehensive bailout plan please
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#56 VMware Chief Says the OS Is History
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#65 Whether, in our financial crisis, the prize for being the biggest liar is
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#69 Another quiet week in finance
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#72 Why was Sarbanes-Oxley not good enough to sent alarms to the regulators about the situation arising today?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#78 Isn't it the Federal Reserve role to oversee the banking system??
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#80 Why did Sox not prevent this financal crises?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008n.html#82 Fraud in financial institution
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#15 Financial Crisis - the result of uncontrolled Innovation?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#18 Once the dust settles, do you think Milton Friedman's economic theories will be laid to rest
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#19 What's your view of current global financial / economical situation?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#26 SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Act), is this really followed and worthful considering current Financial Crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#28 Does anyone get the idea that those responsible for containing this finanical crisis are doing too much?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#34 The human plague
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#75 In light of the recent financial crisis, did Sarbanes-Oxley fail to work?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#82 Greenspan testimony and securization
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#83 Chip-and-pin card reader supply-chain subversion 'has netted millions from British shoppers'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008p.html#8 Global Melt Down
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008p.html#70 Is there any technology that we are severely lacking in the Financial industry?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008q.html#49 Have not the following principles been practically disproven, once and for all, by the current global financial meltdown?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008q.html#50 Obama, ACORN, subprimes (Re: Spiders)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#58 Blinkenlights
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008r.html#64 Is This a Different Kind of Financial Crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#8 Top financial firms of US are eyeing on bailout. It implies to me that their "Risk Management Department's" assessment was way below expectations
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#9 Blind-sided, again. Why?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#23 Garbage in, garbage out trampled by Moore's law
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#29 Let IT run the company!
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#35 Is American capitalism and greed to blame for our financial troubles in the US?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#55 Is this the story behind the crunchy credit stuff?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#62 Garbage in, garbage out trampled by Moore's law
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#14 What are the challenges in risk analytics post financial crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#63 CROOKS and NANNIES: what would Boyd do?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#80 Are reckless risks a natural fallout of "excessive" executive compensation ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#36 A great article was posted in another BI group: "To H*** with Business Intelligence: 40 Percent of Execs Trust Gut"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#53 Credit & Risk Management ... go Simple ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#54 In your opinion, which facts caused the global crise situation?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#65 What can agencies such as the SEC do to insure us that something like Madoff's Ponzi scheme will never happen again?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#4 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#28 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#16 The Formula That Killed Wall Street
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#18 HSBC is expected to announce a profit, which is good, what did they do differently?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#30 I need insight on the Stock Market
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#36 Bernanke Says Regulators Must Protect Against Systemic Risks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#40 Bernanke Says Regulators Must Protect Against Systemic Risks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#59 Quiz: Evaluate your level of Spreadsheet risk
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#8 The background reasons of Credit Crunch
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#1 Future of Financial Mathematics?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#31 OODA-loop obfuscation
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009h.html#29 Analysing risk, especially credit risk in Banks, which was a major reason for the current crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#38 what is mortgage-backed securities?
jmfbahciv
> Very good post
>
> I despair sometimes but all the companies I have partaken in or worked
> for for the last 15 years or so may have had long term objectives on
> paper but only short term goals in reality.
That's what the CEO and minions are for. They're supposed to give
us workers enough information about the direction they want the
business to go so we can make the technical decisions that will
help nudge it along. Once upon a time, this was called the
business statement or something.
>
> Making your daily business life more of a journey from minor disaster
> recovery to major disaster recovery and back rather than a long term
> build up of business........
Sometimes our software plans involved 3 major monitor releases'
time span. You start putting the tweaks in the first and, if
it will impact the computing flows of the customers, start
documenting it. You implement it in the next release; depending
on the nature of the change, either make it the default or give
a warning when the "old" way is executed or a combination.
The third release makes the new way the default, giving the
user the option of doing it the old way but has to outright
specify it.
Changing the executables' formats were done this way. I
don't remember any major problems nor complaints going
from .SAV, .HGH, .SHR extensions to .EXE.
Changing the daytime format had similar problems but
were, mostly, invisible to the average user (but not
code).
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> Olafur Gunnlaugsson wrote:
>> Very good post
>>
>> I despair sometimes but all the companies I have partaken in or worked
>> for for the last 15 years or so may have had long term objectives on
>> paper but only short term goals in reality.
>>
>> Making your daily business life more of a journey from minor disaster
>> recovery to major disaster recovery and back rather than a long term
>> build up of business........
>
> And making decisions that bring profit in the *short* term, but are a
> *disaster* in the long term. The current "mortgage crisis" is a case in
> point.
>
/BAH
Gene Wirchenko
<ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
>>ber...@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes:
>
>>> Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And how can U.S. businesses make money "long term", when all they
>>>> seem to care about is how things look "this quarter"???
>>>
>>> You mean legitimised burlary?
>
>>Yes. And look what happened - they stole your "g". :-)
>
>That's what happens when you don't keep it on a string.
Serifs are so the letter does not slip the string.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Gene Wirchenko
Why, thank you.
Sincerely,
g
Dave Garland
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>> And making decisions that bring profit in the *short* term, but are a
>> *disaster* in the long term. The current "mortgage crisis" is a case
>> in point.
>>
> That all happened because politicians got involved.
If by "got involved" you mean "failed to regulate", yes.
Dave
Charlie Gibbs
dave.g...@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) writes:
More involved than that: deregulated.
Gene Wirchenko
<chbarts...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>Eric Raymond, who was the first techincal reviewer for the little
>poison-pen screed, has reviewed it with Linux and company in mind. It's
>arguably anachronistic but has the distinct advantage of being at least
>minimally relevant to modern OS design debates.
>
><http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=538>
[snip]
>(Humorous note: You used to be able to get a PDF of the book for free
>from Microsoft. I can hardly imagine what the authors would have come up
>with had they saw their favored systems being replaced by Windows 95.)
Take a look at Mr. Raymond's review. Near the beginning, he
includes a link to a PDF of UHH:
<http://simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf>
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Walter Bushell
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
> Subprime = Triple-A ratings? or 'How to Lie with Statistics'
> http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/25/subprime-triple-a-ratings-or-how-to-l
> ie-with-statistics/
_How to Lie with Statistics_ Darrell Huff (Author), Irving Geis
(Illustrator) is the name of a classic that everyone should read. It's
apparently been in print since before I was in High School.
Charles Richmond
"I shot the Serif, but I did not shoot the deputy..."
And remember: "g" slipped the string because the "g-spot" is a
myth!!! ;-)
jmfbahciv
/BAH
Peter Flass
The current crisis began during the Clinton years when someone looked at
the statistics on government-insured mortgages and decided that
low-income people were underrepresented. The politically-correct
response to this led directly to subprime mortgages. Just because you
couldn't afford it didn't mean you're not entitled to it anyway.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
> The current crisis began during the Clinton years when someone looked
> at the statistics on government-insured mortgages and decided that
> low-income people were underrepresented. The politically-correct
> response to this led directly to subprime mortgages. Just because you
> couldn't afford it didn't mean you're not entitled to it anyway.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#47 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
all the stuff went on for some time ... including the adjustable rate
mortgages ... the issue was that there wasn't much money available in
the market for the practices to do much harm.
major items fueling the current situation were
GLBA (Gramm-Leach-Bliley, "bank modernization act", repeal of
Glass-Steagall) allowing regulated financial institutions to have
unregulated investment banking arms (which then put the regulated
financial institution at enormous risk as a result of their unregulated
activity and various things being carried off balanace)
and
Commodity futures modernization act (again with Gramm) exempted
over-the-counter direvatives (like credit default swaps) from regulation
(which took down AIG).
25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - Phil Gramm
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html
Enron and Gramm's wife was also involved in some of this ... recent
post with several article references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#60 In the USA "financial regulator seeks power to curb excess speculation."
unregulated mortgage originators could get enormous funding (trillions)
for all the sub-prime loans by packaging them up as toxic CDOs, buying
triple-A ratings for the toxic CDOs and selling them to the world.
They managed to do large trillions (low-income market is only small
percentage) in this way. Being able to sell off the loans as fast as
possible, eliminated any motivation to care about loan quality and
borrowers qualifications
In earlier times, mortgages were done by regulated financial institution
using deposits as source of funds. With GLBA & repeal of Glass-Steagall,
regulated financial institutions could use their unregulated investment
banking arms to move the banks assets (buying triple-A rated toxic CDOs,
which was in turn providing the enormous funds for unregulated,
non-depository mortgage originators to write mortgages with the only
qualification being how much and how fast).
however speculators found no-documentation, no-downpayment,
interest-only, 1% ARMs extremely attactive ... since the carrying cost
was significantly less than real-estate inflation in many parts of the
country (possibly as high as 2000% ROI ... and they tended to buy huge
amount of stuff way out of the low-income category ... like jumbo loans
for large McMansions).
Again with large trillions in funding (in large part indirectly from
regulated financial institutions) being poured into the unregulated
mortgage origiantors (in circuitous manner, skirting regulations)
... enabling vast numbers/amounts of mortgages being written as
sub-prime (for speculators); far beyond any kind of "low-income"
designation ... that resulted in the huge damage to the economy.
25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis - Angelo Mozilo
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877339,00.html
from above:
Countrywide wasn't the first to offer exotic mortgages to borrowers with
a questionable ability to repay them. In its all-out embrace of such
sales, however, it did legitimize the notion that practically any adult
could handle a big fat mortgage.
... snip ..
unregulated, non-depository loan originators no longer needed to care
anything at all about borrower qualifications ... their bottom line was
purely how many loans they could write and how fast ... since being able
to unload them all as triple-A rated, toxic CDOs ... they no longer
carried any risk and had no reason to care. If an "adult" wasn't handy
... they could always write a half-dozen mortgages to a speculator (they
no longer had any reason to care).
I've commented before that the hot beds of greed and corruption have
always been there ... but it was being able to buy triple-A ratings for
the toxic CDOs and the repeal of Glass-Steagall ... that enabled the
individual hot beds of greed and corruption to turn into an economic
firestorm and the current economic nightmare (i.e. allowing what would
have been possibly a tens of billions problem to turn into a tens of
trillions problem ... a thousand-fold increase in the magnitude of the
problem).
Charles Richmond
And in his *eight* years in office, Mr. G. W. Bush could *not*
figure that out and change it??? (Especially since for six of
those years, he had a Republican majority in *both* houses of
Congress...)
jmfbahciv
and that law is still there. Banks are still being forced to be
EEO shite.
/BAH
jmfbahciv
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>> And making decisions that bring profit in the *short* term, but are a
>>>>> *disaster* in the long term. The current "mortgage crisis" is a case
>>>>> in point.
>>>>>
>>>> That all happened because politicians got involved.
>>>
>>> If by "got involved" you mean "failed to regulate", yes.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> The current crisis began during the Clinton years when someone looked
>> at the statistics on government-insured mortgages and decided that
>> low-income people were underrepresented. The politically-correct
>> response to this led directly to subprime mortgages. Just because you
>> couldn't afford it didn't mean you're not entitled to it anyway.
>
> And in his *eight* years in office, Mr. G. W. Bush could *not* figure
> that out and change it??? (Especially since for six of those years, he
> had a Republican majority in *both* houses of Congress...)
>
of this habit of blaming Bush with the inference that the problem
can be solved by doing only that.
/BAH
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> I've commented before that the hot beds of greed and corruption have
> always been there ... but it was being able to buy triple-A ratings for
> the toxic CDOs and the repeal of Glass-Steagall ... that enabled the
> individual hot beds of greed and corruption to turn into an economic
> firestorm and the current economic nightmare (i.e. allowing what would
> have been possibly a tens of billions problem to turn into a tens of
> trillions problem ... a thousand-fold increase in the magnitude of the
> problem).
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#47 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#49 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#56 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
aka ... if it had been sub-prime to low-income by regulated, depository
financial institutions... it wouldn't even have been a blip on the
screen ... it was trillions in uncontrolled, unregulated (by unregulated
mortgage originators not subject to such requirements) sub-prime to
everybody else ... including huge amounts to speculators ... that
resulted in the economic firestorm
Charles Richmond
Oh no, I realize that Bush had a plethora of problems... the
biggest problem existing between his ears!!! Perhaps he could have
restrained himself and *not* invaded Iraq. Then he could have used
that money to fix the economy.
Peter Flass
> Peter Flass wrote:
>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>>>> And making decisions that bring profit in the *short* term, but are a
>>>>> *disaster* in the long term. The current "mortgage crisis" is a case
>>>>> in point.
>>>>>
>>>> That all happened because politicians got involved.
>>>
>>> If by "got involved" you mean "failed to regulate", yes.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>> The current crisis began during the Clinton years when someone looked
>> at the statistics on government-insured mortgages and decided that
>> low-income people were underrepresented. The politically-correct
>> response to this led directly to subprime mortgages. Just because you
>> couldn't afford it didn't mean you're not entitled to it anyway.
>
> And in his *eight* years in office, Mr. G. W. Bush could *not* figure
> that out and change it??? (Especially since for six of those years, he
> had a Republican majority in *both* houses of Congress...)
>
IIRC he tried, but congress raised such a stink he thought the better of it.
Walter Bushell
Yes. The banks were making lots of money on the loans and if they were
not making money, they would have found a way not to make the loans. You
might have had the banks make a few questionable loans, by arm twisting
but what happened was a feeding frenzy. I'm sure the banks would not
have gone so hog wild if they had to carry the loans on their books and
apparently knew enough to sell them while they were salable.
Walter Bushell
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
There were a lot of people making big bucks and a lot of people who
wanted those houses in the worst way who could not afford them.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> writes:
> Yes. The banks were making lots of money on the loans and if they were
> not making money, they would have found a way not to make the loans. You
> might have had the banks make a few questionable loans, by arm twisting
> but what happened was a feeding frenzy. I'm sure the banks would not
> have gone so hog wild if they had to carry the loans on their books and
> apparently knew enough to sell them while they were salable.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#47 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#49 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#56 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#58 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
regulated, depository financial institutions weren't making the loans.
unregulated, non-depository mortgage originators were making the loans.
in the past, unregulated, non-depository mortgage originators were quite
limited (in the amount of loans) because of limited available of funds
to the institutions (not like regulated depository financial
institutions that had deposits to use).
the big change came when unregulated, non-depository mortgage
originators found that they could package the loans as toxic CDOs and
pay the rating agencies to give the toxic CDOs "triple-A ratings" ...
creating nearly unlimited source of funds for the unregulated,
non-depository mortgage originators.
it turns out that some of the large regulated, depository financial
institutions were actually providing lots of the funds ... but in a
circuitous, round-about unregulated way, where their unregulated
investment banking arms (courtesy of GLBA repealing Glass-Steagall) buy
the triple-A rated toxic CDOs. The investment banking side of the house
would purchase these instruments ... because they could get compensation
based on percent of the transaction value ... unrelated to whether the
instruments made any money or not. There is some analogy to the old
problem with financial advisors "churning accounts" (doing lots of
unnecessary stock trades because they earned a percent from each trade,
regardless of whether there was profit or loss).
In effect, the same thing was happening at the unregulated,
non-depsoitory mortgage originators ... getting a percent of the
transaction (size) ... unrelated to whether the transaction was
profitable or not (since they immediately unloaded the mortgages as
triple-A rated toxic CDOs and no longer had to care about whether the
mortgage performed).
Individuals were making huge amounts from the way the transactions were
structured ... w/o regard to profitability of the transactions.
Trillions of dollars of these toxic CDOs are now setting (off-the-books)
at many of these large (too big to fail) regualted financial
institutions. In theory, the original TARP funds justification (to
congress ... and for which congress approved the funds for) ... was to
buy up these toxic CDOs. However, apparently somebody quickly realized
that the amount of TARP funds represented barely a drop in the bottom of
the bucket compared to the aggregate magnitude of the toxic CDOs held by
various (too big to fail) financial institutions. So instead ... TARP
funds were divereted to temporarily prop up these (too big to fail)
financial institutions, while they tried to figure out what to do about
the real problem (the large trillions in mortgage backed toxic CDOs).
In theory, if these financial instruments (mortgage backed toxic CDOs)
were to be brought back onto the books (or if they had been there all
along), these (too big to fail) financial institutions would have to be
declared insolvent and liquidated.
there was some effort trying to figure out from the annual reports of
the four largest (too big to fail) regulated financial institutions
... guessing that those four held possibly $5.2 trillion in
(off-the-books) toxic CDOs. misc. past posts mentiong "Bank's Hidden
Junk Menaces $1 Trillion Purge"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#23 Should FDIC or the Federal Reserve Bank have the authority to shut down and take over non-bank financial institutions like AIG?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#36 Architectural Diversity
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#53 Are the "brightest minds in finance" finally onto something?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#70 When did "client server" become part of the language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#79 Are the "brightest minds in finance" finally onto something?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#27 US banking Changes- TARP Proposl
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#31 What is the real basis for business mess we are facing today?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#35 US banking Changes- TARP Proposl
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#38 On whom or what would you place the blame for the sub-prime crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#47 TARP Disbursements Through April 10th
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#49 Is the current downturn cyclic or systemic?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#53 What every taxpayer should know about what caused the current Financial Crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#3 Do the current Banking Results in the US hide a grim truth?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009h.html#79 The $4 trillion housing headache
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#60 In the USA "financial regulator seeks power to curb excess speculation."
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009i.html#77 Financial Regulatory Reform - elimination of loophole allowing special purpose institutions outside Bank Holding Company (BHC) oversigh
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#35 what is mortgage-backed securities?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#69 64 Cores -- IBM is showing a prototype already
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> the big change came when unregulated, non-depository mortgage
> originators found that they could package the loans as toxic CDOs and
> pay the rating agencies to give the toxic CDOs "triple-A ratings" ...
> creating nearly unlimited source of funds for the unregulated,
> non-depository mortgage originators.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#62 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook.
recent reference to the ratings agencies
U.S. Ratings fraud continues
http://www.stockhouse.com/Community-News/2009/Sept/29/U-S--Ratings-fraud-continues
from above:
Most of the 'too-big-to-fail' banks have actually been allowed to get
bigger. And ratings-fraud continues unabated with respect to the
so-called 'credit rating' agencies.
... snip ...
the congressional hearing from last fall into the rating agencies
... said that the seeds for this were sown in the early 70s when the
rating agencies switched from the buyers paying for the ratings to the
sellers paying for the agencies (creating the opening for conflict of
interests ... i.e. producing the rating that the seller pays for).
somewhat related, IDC has item on their website that they bought the
"pricing services division" from one of the rating agencies in the early
70s (about the time, they switched from buyer paid ratings to seller
paid ratings). IDC was one of the early (virtual machine) online cp67
time-sharing service bureaus in the 60s ... and started fairly quickly
to move up the online value chain with lots of financial information.
disclaimer ... i interviewed with them in the 60s ... but didn't join.
misc. past references:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#21 Banks to embrace virtualisation in 2009: survey
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#31 Banks to embrace virtualisation in 2009: survey
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#32 What are the challenges in risk analytics post financial crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#42 Lets play Blame Game...?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#52 The Credit Crunch: Why it happened?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#77 CROOKS and NANNIES: what would Boyd do?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009.html#79 The Credit Crunch: Why it happened?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#38 A great article was posted in another BI group: "To H*** with Business Intelligence: 40 Percent of Execs Trust Gut"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#49 US disaster, debts and bad financial management
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#53 Credit & Risk Management ... go Simple ?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#78 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#1 Audit II: Two more scary words: Sarbanes-Oxley
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#15 The background reasons of Credit Crunch
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#30 Timeline: 40 years of OS milestones
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#53 Are the "brightest minds in finance" finally onto something?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#70 When did "client server" become part of the language?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#41 On whom or what would you place the blame for the sub-prime crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#49 Is the current downturn cyclic or systemic?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#27 Flawed Credit Ratings Reap Profits as Regulators Fail Investors
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009h.html#40 Analysing risk, especially credit risk in Banks, which was a major reason for the current crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#20 UK issues Turning apology (and about time, too)
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/how-wall-streets-quants-lied-to-their-computers/
>
> article from summer 2007:
>
> Subprime = Triple-A ratings? or 'How to Lie with Statistics'
> http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/25/subprime-triple-a-ratings-or-how-to-lie-with-statistics/
from above:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#47 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#49 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#56 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
Winters Shows JPMorgan Path to Safety, Dimon Shows Him the Door
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=afMhQfykyL6Y
from above:
... shunned the structured products and off-balance sheet vehicles that
crippled global markets because they didn't make financial sense.
"I remember him explaining that they'd looked at these for years and
couldn't understand how the economics worked," said John Fullerton, a
JPMorgan executive who was one of six people assigned to untangle
derivative trades that led to the demise of Long-Term Capital Management
LP in 1998. "Despite the tremendous pressure all around them to do it,
they didn't do it because the math didn't work."
... snip ...
there has been some written about the differences between people working
on behalf of their company ... and looking at things like risk ... and
people working on behalf of themselves ... doing these large, extremely
risky transactions ... because they could get a percent of the size of
the transaction (they weren't being paid based on how much they earned
the company, they were being paid on the size of the transactions they
executed ... with little regard to the effect on the corporation).
Morten Reistad
Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
>> How Wall Street Lied to Its Computers
>> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/how-wall-streets-quants-lied-to-their-computers/
>>
>> article from summer 2007:
>>
>> Subprime = Triple-A ratings? or 'How to Lie with Statistics'
>> http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/07/25/subprime-triple-a-ratings-or-how-to-lie-with-statistics/
>
>from above:
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#47 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#49 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
>http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#56 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
>
>
>Winters Shows JPMorgan Path to Safety, Dimon Shows Him the Door
>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=afMhQfykyL6Y
>
>from above:
>
>... shunned the structured products and off-balance sheet vehicles that
>crippled global markets because they didn't make financial sense.
>
>"I remember him explaining that they'd looked at these for years and
>couldn't understand how the economics worked," said John Fullerton, a
>JPMorgan executive who was one of six people assigned to untangle
>derivative trades that led to the demise of Long-Term Capital Management
>LP in 1998. "Despite the tremendous pressure all around them to do it,
>they didn't do it because the math didn't work."
The math, and the models, worked all right. Applying Black and Scholes
(pricing model for derivatives, got the Nobel) in reverse on the CDOs
would tell you that they were insanely risky. "the Economist" wrote
about this from about 1992 onwards. My broker (an independent, from
a then smaller house, later baught) warned against these instruments from
early 2002. He was also bearish on the whole housing market from about
half a year later. That was 5+ years before the bubble burst.
We knew. We knew these were really ugly instruments. We knew someone
made a bubble out of them. We just didn't fathom how huge the bubble
was; we figured it would be like the junk bond market when Milken's
outfit folded; a disaster for the people involved, but just a little
speedbump in the global economy.
The bubble alst lasted very long. The 1929 crash was a bubble from
early 1927, about 20 months old. The 1987 crash punctured a bubble
less than a year old. The two crashes in the nineties stopped bubbles
that were merely months old. The dotcom bubble was less than two years
old when slowly let out the air in q2 2002. However, the CDO one
lasted for nearly seven years. Someone must have rigged these markets.
>... snip ...
>
>there has been some written about the differences between people working
>on behalf of their company ... and looking at things like risk ... and
>people working on behalf of themselves ... doing these large, extremely
>risky transactions ... because they could get a percent of the size of
>the transaction (they weren't being paid based on how much they earned
>the company, they were being paid on the size of the transactions they
>executed ... with little regard to the effect on the corporation).
Not even working on behalf of the company. Working on behalf of
faceness investors in your customer's customer. The banks were very
good at offloading this debt. The problem came when the offloaders
couldn't handle it any more.
-- mrr
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Morten Reistad <fi...@last.name> writes:
> Not even working on behalf of the company. Working on behalf of
> faceness investors in your customer's customer. The banks were very
> good at offloading this debt. The problem came when the offloaders
> couldn't handle it any more.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#21</a> Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
lots of the (mortgages, loans) "debt" were by unregulated loan
originators and unloaded as asset-backed (toxic) CDOs (after paying for
triple-A ratings). individuals on this side of the rating agencies were
racking huge amount ... typically as percentage of the transaction
(size). Since they could unload everything as fast as they could write
it ... they didn't care about the borrowers qualifications and/or the
loan quality.
No-documentation, no-down, 1% percent interest-only payment were ideal
for speculators ... with real-estate inflation running 10-15 percent in
some markets (and inflation even increasing with all the speculation)
... speculators could make 1000% to 2000% per year. This was the
equivalent to the "Broker's Loans" and unregulated stock-market
speculation leading to crash of '29.
large amount of the toxic CDOs were bought up by unregulated investment
banking arms of regulated depository institutions (curtesy of GLBA &
repeal of glass-steagall) and carried off-balance. Last jan, there was
estimate that the top four regulated depository institutions (in this
country) had over $5 trillion of these toxic CDOs being carried
off-balance (potentially enough to have all four institutions declared
insolvent).
people at the unregulated load originators were raking in the dough,
speculators were raking in the dough, rating agencies were raking in the
dough (for the triple-A ratings on the toxic CDOs), and the investment
bankers were raking in the dough (buying the toxic CDOs). Also CDS
insurance writers were raking in the dough (for the CDS policies written
on the toxic CDOs, ... and effectively declaring the whole premium as
100% profit and then taking much of the declared profit as bonuses)
In effect, regulated depository institutions were providing a lot of the
funding keeping the whole bubble inflating ... but in a circuitous,
round-about way, skirting regulations.
Walter Bushell
Morten Reistad <fi...@last.name> wrote:
> He was also bearish on the whole housing market from about
> half a year later. That was 5+ years before the bubble burst.
You can go broke by being right too early too. Many people are able to
retire rich because they hung in there and kept going despite knowing
that what they were doing was foolhardy. Of course, if it's somebody
else's money . . ..
Peter Flass
> In article <s8jvp6-...@laptop.reistad.name>,
> Morten Reistad <fi...@last.name> wrote:
>
>> He was also bearish on the whole housing market from about
>> half a year later. That was 5+ years before the bubble burst.
>
> You can go broke by being right too early too. Many people are able to
> retire rich because they hung in there and kept going despite knowing
> that what they were doing was foolhardy. Of course, if it's somebody
> else's money . . ..
>
Another guy and I kept saying the dotcom thing was a bubble and we
should get out of the market, but it kept going up for several months
after we said that.
When in doubt, I have a tendency to do nothing.
Walter Bushell
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
Quite understandable.
And right now we face a future of deflation or inflation with the Fed
making the decision.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
> Winters Shows JPMorgan Path to Safety, Dimon Shows Him the Door
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=afMhQfykyL6Y
>
> from above:
>
> ... shunned the structured products and off-balance sheet vehicles that
> crippled global markets because they didn't make financial sense.
>
> "I remember him explaining that they'd looked at these for years and
> couldn't understand how the economics worked," said John Fullerton, a
> JPMorgan executive who was one of six people assigned to untangle
> derivative trades that led to the demise of Long-Term Capital Management
> LP in 1998. "Despite the tremendous pressure all around them to do it,
> they didn't do it because the math didn't work."
>
> ... snip ...
John Thain: Merrill's structured products were so complex that nobody
understood them
http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=20584
from above:
Former Merrill Lynch chief John Thain says that the structured products
created by his firm were so complex that it could take up to three hours
to model one traunch of a single CDO correctly when using "one of the
fastest computers in the United States".
... snip ...
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
Peter Flass <Peter...@Yahoo.com> writes:
> Another guy and I kept saying the dotcom thing was a bubble and we
> should get out of the market, but it kept going up for several months
> after we said that.
>
> When in doubt, I have a tendency to do nothing.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#21 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#23 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#24 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
there was a study that some of the same investment bankers involved in
the internet bubble were then involved in the current economic meltdown
(as well as lobbying for the bank modernization act with repeal of
Glass-Steagall and commodities futures modernization act with keeping
over-the-counter activity unregulated ... Enron & AIG)
there was joke about investment bankers putting money into internet
startup and then 2yr roundmap to take it to IPO. this was repeated a
large number of times. it was even better if the startup then failed
(after IPO) ... since it kept the market open for the next new thing
(possibly $20m investment with $2B at IPO).
there was analogous story about the new american culture with *nothing
succeeds like failure* ... but the case was large system integrators &
"beltway bandits" on large gov. (frequently technical & IT) projects. A
failed project would mean another round of appropriations for the next
attempt (much more profit than if projects were successful, the downside
is that it is analogous to bubble ... eventually the faulty/unfixed
infrastructure actually fails, but in the mean time, lots of preditory
entities have diverted large amount of funds).
The Success of Failure:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0407/040407mm.htm
some past posts referencing the topic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm26.htm#59 On cleaning up the security mess: escaping the self-perpetuating trap of Fraud?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm27.htm#8 Leadership, the very definition of fraud, and the court of security ideas
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007h.html#29 sizeof() was: The Perfect Computer - 36 bits?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007l.html#46 My Dream PC -- Chip-Based
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007m.html#36 Future of System/360 architecture?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007q.html#62 Fixing our fraying Internet infrastructure
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#63 folklore indeed
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007u.html#69 folklore indeed
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008m.html#41 IBM--disposition of clock business
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008m.html#55 With all the highly publicised data breeches and losses, are we all wasting our time?
grey...@mail.com
>
>
> there was analogous story about the new american culture with *nothing
> succeeds like failure* ... but the case was large system integrators &
> "beltway bandits" on large gov. (frequently technical & IT) projects. A
> failed project would mean another round of appropriations for the next
> attempt (much more profit than if projects were successful, the downside
> is that it is analogous to bubble ... eventually the faulty/unfixed
> infrastructure actually fails, but in the mean time, lots of preditory
> entities have diverted large amount of funds).
>
Reminds me of the movie, was it "The Directors"?.. anyway, the one
that the guys discovered that nobody really traces where the money
went if a show closes, start one called "Springtime for Hitler", and
it turns out to be a success.
--
Greymaus....
Irritating messsage suggestions?
D.J.
Yeah, the told each investors something like each one would get a
percentage of return that was simply impossible.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://poetry.drivein-jim.net/ Aug 26, 2009
William Hamblen
>Reminds me of the movie, was it "The Directors"?.. anyway, the one
>that the guys discovered that nobody really traces where the money
>went if a show closes, start one called "Springtime for Hitler", and
>it turns out to be a success.
The Producers. Hi-larious.
Bud
Charles Richmond
A movie and a Broadway show by that zany Mel Brooks:
"The Producers"
Charlie Gibbs
jollyc...@cableone.net (D.J.) writes:
> On 8 Oct 2009 19:51:32 GMT, grey...@mail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2009-10-08, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>>
>>> there was analogous story about the new american culture with
>>> *nothing succeeds like failure* ... but the case was large system
>>> integrators & "beltway bandits" on large gov. (frequently technical
>>> & IT) projects. A failed project would mean another round of
>>> appropriations for the next attempt (much more profit than if
>>> projects were successful, the downside is that it is analogous
>>> to bubble ... eventually the faulty/unfixed infrastructure actually
>>> fails, but in the mean time, lots of preditory entities have
>>> diverted large amount of funds).
>>
>> Reminds me of the movie, was it "The Directors"?.. anyway, the one
>> that the guys discovered that nobody really traces where the money
>> went if a show closes, start one called "Springtime for Hitler", and
>> it turns out to be a success.
>
> Yeah, the told each investors something like each one would get a
> percentage of return that was simply impossible.
"The Producers" - originally with Gene Wilder and Zero Mostel, but
the remake wasn't bad either, especially with Uma Thurman spicing
it up. Great premise - sell 1000% interest in the show, then walk
away with the money when it tanks. Ah, nothing fails like success...
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
grey...@mail.com
> grey...@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2009-10-08, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> there was analogous story about the new american culture with *nothing
>>> succeeds like failure* ... but the case was large system integrators &
>>> "beltway bandits" on large gov. (frequently technical & IT) projects. A
>>> failed project would mean another round of appropriations for the next
>>> attempt (much more profit than if projects were successful, the downside
>>> is that it is analogous to bubble ... eventually the faulty/unfixed
>>> infrastructure actually fails, but in the mean time, lots of preditory
>>> entities have diverted large amount of funds).
>>>
>>
>> Reminds me of the movie, was it "The Directors"?.. anyway, the one
>> that the guys discovered that nobody really traces where the money
>> went if a show closes, start one called "Springtime for Hitler", and
>> it turns out to be a success.
>>
>
> A movie and a Broadway show by that zany Mel Brooks:
>
> "The Producers"
>
really happens, it was.
Charles Richmond
Over-selling shares in an enterprise is *not* an unusual scam. It
is also *not* nearly the only scam out there.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
MSNBC just had interview with head of chamber of commerce and the
interviewer repeated most of the issues and asked the head of chamber of
commerce something about lobbying for stealing money ... the lobbying
paid for by gov. bail-out money ... chamber of commerce had recently
$20m from AIG ... and lobbying against regulating over-the-counter
derivatives (selling insurance w/o maintaining reserves to cover
payouts, and relying on gov. for bailouts). head of chamber of commerce
eventually replied that all of these companies would eventually repay
the money. interviewer then made statement that anybody could large
amount of moeny if they use gov. funds to continue doing ever increasing
risky deals ... w/o regard to consequences ... making huge amounts of
money on the risky deals (and if things did go wrong again ... they
could depend on the gov. to bailout again).
part of this was 1999 bank modernization act (repeal glass-steagall) and
2000 commodity trading modernization act (precluding over the counter
derivatives from being regulated)
now commentary is about Paulsen's (free) give-away to bail-out the
insitutions for their bad behavior ("largest theft of money ever").
misc. past posts in this thread:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#47 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#49 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#56 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#58 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#62 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#68 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#21 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#23 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#24 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#25 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#48 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'.
then somebody claimed that financial industry lobbying is one of the
best investments ever ... for ever dollar spent lobbying (which has run
to billions) they have shown return (courtesy of the gov) quarter of million
(something like 259,000,000:1) return on investment.
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
... oops ... not 259,000,000:1 ... claim was quarter of million
... something like *259,000:1*
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
msnbc is on roll.
yesterday afternoon they had NY attorney general who made the comment
that the US chamber of commerce has been wrong on every major issue for
(at least?) the past decade.
this morning they were going on about draft bill passed yesterday that
was to fix the commoditity futures modernization act (that precluded
regulating over the counter derivatives, resulting in Enron and AIG and
other bad things)
They made big deal that amendements to the (new) bill actually makes
things worse ... supposedly the bill creates an open (regulated)
exchange for such trades ... but supposedly gives the big financial
institutions exemption to decide whether they want to use the exchange
or not (making it another emporer's new clothes scenario?) ... various
statements that the dept. of treasury should be called to task for
(also) backing the amendments (for violating obama's campaign promises).
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#21 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#23 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#24 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#25 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#48 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#49 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
Tues morning I heard talk about program on the radio ... but then missed
the broadcast.
The Warning
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
from above:
Amidst the 1990s' bullmarket, there was one lone regulator who warned
about derivatives' dangers -- and suddenly became the enemy of some of
the most powerful people in Washington...
... snip ...
and ...
Interview: Brooksley Born
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/interviews/born.html
... and older articles
Greenspan Slept as Off-Books Debt Escaped Scrutiny
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&refer=home&sid=aYJZOB_gZi0I
from above:
That same year Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and SEC
Chairman Arthur Levitt opposed an attempt by Brooksley Born, head of
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to study regulating
over-the-counter derivatives. In 2000, Congress passed a law keeping
them unregulated.
... snip ...
Apparently Born was fairly quickly replaced by Gramm's wife ... while
Gramm got legislation through congress that precluded regulation ... and
then Gramm's wife resigned and joined Enron's board:
Gramm and the 'Enron Loophole'
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/business/17grammside.html
from above:
Enron was a major contributor to Mr. Gramm's political campaigns, and
Mr. Gramm's wife, Wendy, served on the Enron board, which she joined
after stepping down as chairwoman of the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission.
... snip ...
where she served on the audit committee
Phil Gramm's Enron Favor
http://www.villagevoice.com/2002-01-15/news/phil-gramm-s-enron-favor/
from above:
A few days after she got the ball rolling on the exemption, Wendy
Gramm resigned from the commission. Enron soon appointed her to its
board of directors, where she served on the audit committee, which
oversees the inner financial workings of the corporation. For this,
the company paid her between $915,000 and $1.85 million in stocks and
dividends, as much as $50,000 in annual salary, and $176,000 in
attendance fees,
... snip ...
25 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis; Phil Gramm
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html
from above:
He played a leading role in writing and pushing through Congress the
1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which separated
commercial banks from Wall Street. He also inserted a key provision
into the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act that exempted
over-the-counter derivatives like credit-default swaps from regulation
by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Credit-default swaps took
down AIG, which has cost the U.S. $150 billion thus far.
... snip ...
article from last spring ...
If You Think the Worst Is Behind Banks, Read This
"http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/05/12/if-you-think-the-worst-is-behind-banks-read-this.aspx
from above:
Don't confuse what that's saying: In terms of losses and writedowns,
the next 18 months are expected to be worse than the preceding 18
months.
... snip ...
past frontline program on Gramm, Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and
repeal of Glass-Steagall:
wall street fix
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/
misc. past posts mentioning above:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#60 OCR scans of old documents
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#73 What can we learn from the meltdown?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009b.html#80 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#0 Audit II: Two more scary words: Sarbanes-Oxley
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#10 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#20 Decision Making or Instinctive Steering?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#29 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#36 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#38 People to Blame for the Financial Crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#42 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#44 How to defeat new telemarketing tactic
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#55 Who will give Citigroup the KNOCKOUT blow?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009c.html#65 is it possible that ALL banks will be nationalized?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#10 Who will Survive AIG or Derivative Counterparty Risk?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#59 Quiz: Evaluate your level of Spreadsheet risk
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#62 Is Wall Street World's Largest Ponzi Scheme where Madoff is Just a Poster Child?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#63 Do bonuses foster unethical conduct?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#73 Should Glass-Steagall be reinstated?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009d.html#77 Who first mentioned Credit Crunch?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#8 The background reasons of Credit Crunch
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009e.html#23 Should FDIC or the Federal Reserve Bank have the authority to shut down and take over non-bank financial institutions like AIG?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#27 US banking Changes- TARP Proposl
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#31 What is the real basis for business mess we are facing today?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#38 On whom or what would you place the blame for the sub-prime crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#43 On whom or what would you place the blame for the sub-prime crisis?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#49 Is the current downturn cyclic or systemic?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#53 What every taxpayer should know about what caused the current Financial Crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009f.html#65 Just posted third article about toxic assets in a series on the current financial crisis
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009g.html#5 Do the current Banking Results in the US hide a grim truth?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009j.html#21 The Big Takeover
grey...@mail.com
> from above:
>
> That same year Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and SEC
> Chairman Arthur Levitt opposed an attempt by Brooksley Born, head of
> the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to study regulating
> over-the-counter derivatives. In 2000, Congress passed a law keeping
> them unregulated.
>
> ... snip ...
>
> Apparently Born was fairly quickly replaced by Gramm's wife ... while
> Gramm got legislation through congress that precluded regulation ... and
> then Gramm's wife resigned and joined Enron's board:
Generally, AFAIK in the UK anyway, if one is working in regulation,
there is a forced period between resigning and taking a position in
one of the entities that you regulated. Sorry, no citation.
(T'would not be hard to bypass that regulation, anyway)
jmfbahciv
> re:
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#21 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#23 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#24 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#25 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#48 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#49 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
> http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#56 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'
>
> Tues morning I heard talk about program on the radio ... but then missed
> the broadcast.
>
> The Warning
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/
<snip> shoot, I missed it, too. The excerpt on the radio had a hint
of the guy's bias. But I can't remember what he said that raised a
red flag.
/BAH
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
jmfbahciv <jmfbahciv@aol> writes:
> <snip> shoot, I missed it, too. The excerpt on the radio had a hint
> of the guy's bias. But I can't remember what he said that raised a
> red flag.
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#84 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook'.
there was impression that with both change in administration and shift
in congress political power... that there would start to be change in
status quo ... including new generation of "Pecora" hearings (from the
30s looking at the crash of '29; outcome included Glass-Steagall
... which was then repealed by GLBA) ... and there would even be
appitite for all the stuff I was doing to HTML/index the scans of the
thousands of pages of Pecora hearings.
there was not a change in status quo ... and recent reports attribute it
to financial industry heavy lobbying being political party agnostic
... some reports that recent round of billions in financial industry
lobbying represents a quarter of million ROI ($250,000 in various
beneftis/advantages to the financial industry for every dollar spent
lobbying congress).
this morning there was tv business news about the enormous amounts of
lobbying by bailed out institutions. there was a comment that finally
fannie mae and freddie mac were eventually prohibited from lobbying
(there was cbs news item from early part of this decade, that freddie
mac had more lobbiests on its roles than it had employees) .. and that
AIG wasn't suppose to also be spending money lobbying ... although it
apparently missed the $20m that supposedly went from AIG to chamber of
commerce ... and the chamber of commerce doing the lobbying
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#48 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook
--
Anne & Lynn Wheeler
grey...@mail.com writes:
> Generally, AFAIK in the UK anyway, if one is working in regulation,
> there is a forced period between resigning and taking a position in
> one of the entities that you regulated. Sorry, no citation.
>
> (T'would not be hard to bypass that regulation, anyway)
re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009o.html#84 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook
it this case ... since they were in the process of precluding any
regulation (of those to be regulated) ... they plausably could use that
to get around any regulation about cozy relations between the regulators
and those regulated.
or course congress seems to pretty much exempt themselves from all such
limitations. in the comments about size (more lobbiests than employees)
of freddie mac lobbying rolls
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009p.html#2 Opinions on the 'Unix Haters' Handbook
there was some reference that very large percentage of those (freddie
mac) lobbiests were former members of congress.
I also remember not getting political spam phone calls until after I had
registered for no-call list ... apparently congress has it set up that
they can use the no-call list to make calls.
Charles Richmond
>> from above:
>>
>> That same year Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and SEC
>> Chairman Arthur Levitt opposed an attempt by Brooksley Born, head of
>> the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to study regulating
>> over-the-counter derivatives. In 2000, Congress passed a law keeping
>> them unregulated.
>>
>> ... snip ...
>>
>> Apparently Born was fairly quickly replaced by Gramm's wife ... while
>> Gramm got legislation through congress that precluded regulation ... and
>> then Gramm's wife resigned and joined Enron's board:
>
Do you mean Senator Phil Gramm and his wife, the Republicans??? :-)
jmfbahciv
>> On 2009-10-23, Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> wrote:
>>> from above:
>>>
>>> That same year Greenspan, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and SEC
>>> Chairman Arthur Levitt opposed an attempt by Brooksley Born, head of
>>> the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to study regulating
>>> over-the-counter derivatives. In 2000, Congress passed a law keeping
>>> them unregulated.
>>>
>>> ... snip ...
>>>
>>> Apparently Born was fairly quickly replaced by Gramm's wife ... while
>>> Gramm got legislation through congress that precluded regulation ... and
>>> then Gramm's wife resigned and joined Enron's board:
>>
>
> Do you mean Senator Phil Gramm and his wife, the Republicans??? :-)
>
>
drain that is still happening. Congress talks about the medical
insurance mandate so you won't notice that there won't be anything
done to put the banks back into doing banking.
You are getting what you asked for.
/BAH
Charles Richmond
And I am happy for it!!! I will continue to support the Democrats
and Obama. Go Rocky!!!
Charles Richmond
> On 2009-10-25, Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>> And I am happy for it!!! I will continue to support the Democrats
>> and Obama. Go Rocky!!!
>
> blatantly unconstitutional "mandates." 0bama is just another power-hungry,
> lying, dirtbag politician vomiting all over the constitution. Ditto for
> his DemocRAT henchmen.
>
Have you looked at the Patriot Act and Mr. Bush's imprisoning of
people *without* charging them with a crime... for years??? *That*
is what being "unconstitutional" is all about...
jmfbahciv
> Roger Blake wrote:
>> On 2009-10-25, Charles Richmond <fri...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>> And I am happy for it!!! I will continue to support the Democrats and
>>> Obama. Go Rocky!!!
>>
>> And I will continue to fight them and will refuse to submit to their
>> blatantly unconstitutional "mandates." 0bama is just another
>> power-hungry,
>> lying, dirtbag politician vomiting all over the constitution. Ditto for
>> his DemocRAT henchmen.
>>
>
> Have you looked at the Patriot Act and Mr. Bush's imprisoning of people
> *without* charging them with a crime... for years??? *That* is what
> being "unconstitutional" is all about...
>
intend to kill as many Westerners as they can. so you are
advocating that those soldiers of Islam be allowed to go free?
Will you give them weapons too? and funding?
/BAH
Charles Richmond
How about *charges* and a *trial*!!! What a concept!!!
Not *all* the folks in custody are from the East. Some are from
the West. I would *not* be surprised to find U.S. citizens among them.
If it is up to you, all the folks who do *not* agree with *you*
would be in prison...
Scott Lurndal
if they committed a crime, try them and convict them. If they didn't
commit any crime, then they shouldn't be held. Period. They're still
human beings. If they are prisoners of war, then treat them according to
the geneva conventions (but considering them POW's is a legal stretch,
since they don't represent a recognized goverenment).
Your last sentence is just plain stupid.
scott
grey...@mail.com
> Charles Richmond wrote:
>>
> Last I heard, those people were 1. not US citizens and 2. still
> intend to kill as many Westerners as they can. so you are
> advocating that those soldiers of Islam be allowed to go free?
> Will you give them weapons too? and funding?
Why not?. The US did before!.
Instance, the Uigirs are (generally) peacefully showing that they do
not recognize the occupation of what is sometimes called Turkestan by
Chinese troops. Thousands have been executed for this.
Large numbers of people have been `sold' to the US and NATO
occupation troops in Afganistan for opposing the `Northern Allience',
such people having no connection to the Taliban.
People generally are protected by international law, even if they are
not US citizens. There has been a load of such laws introduced over
the last 150-200 years. That such laws have been ignored by powerful
countries does not mean that such laws do not exist, just as the
ignoring of offences by rich people here and the UK does not prove
that such laws do not exist.
--
Greymaus....
\
\/\
\?