What WSJ does not report (or does it?)
Old Pif
Stray Dog
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Old Pif wrote:
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 08:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
> Subject: What WSJ does not report (or does it?)
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26756674/
>
Its always funny how few people care if someone else loses their job, but
if a person loses his own job, then he gets mad at someone above him.
The last few days the WSJ has changed its reporting quite a bit...all
crisis control, or attempted crisis control. Nobody knows what will
happen. At treasurey and the Fed, they are trying to pull rabbits out of
assholes. Also, all over the world the central banks are doing pretty much
the same thing.
Antonio Huerta
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26756674/
I recall something similar. I heard stories 30 years ago that the
Japanese companies put the manekins of their managers at the gates, so
that the outraged workers could kick 'em. Thus, the productivity of
the worker was preserved.
The managers of our lab are chickens. They'd never put their manekins
outside the lab's entrance gates.
Stray Dog
On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Antonio Huerta wrote:
> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Antonio Huerta <ahu...@inbox.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: What WSJ does not report (or does it?)
I would suggest that the image you think about managers should be
something like cockroaches or other parasites (eg. toilet ticks, suckfish,
blood-sucking worms, etc.).
phil scott
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2008, Antonio Huerta wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:38:44 -0700 (PDT)
> > Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
> > Subject: Re: What WSJ does not report (or does it?)
>
> > On Sep 21, 12:56 am, Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26756674/
>
> > I recall something similar. I heard stories 30 years ago that the
> > Japanese companies put the manekins of their managers at the gates, so
> > that the outraged workers could kick 'em. Thus, the productivity of
> > the worker was preserved.
>
> > The managers of our lab are chickens. They'd never put their manekins
> > outside the lab's entrance gates.
>
> I would suggest that the image you think about managers should be
> something like cockroaches or other parasites (eg. toilet ticks, suckfish,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ok...ok....Dog. You were losing me with all those nasty remarks about
management until
you finally got it right at the very end ... with your blood sucking
worms description.
and now we are going to bail them out without even forcing them to
give back what they had stolen?
If you want a marker for the very end, a gutless..brain dead public
just standing by while they take this
hose job...this is it.
Phil scott
Stray Dog
On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, phil scott wrote:
> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2008 20:05:32 -0700 (PDT)
> From: phil scott <ph...@philscott.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: What WSJ does not report (or does it?)
>
>>> the worker was preserved.
>>
>>> The managers of our lab are chickens. They'd never put their manekins
>>> outside the lab's entrance gates.
>>
>> I would suggest that the image you think about managers should be
>> something like cockroaches or other parasites (eg. toilet ticks, suckfish,
>> blood-sucking worms, etc.).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>
> Ok...ok....Dog. You were losing me with all those nasty remarks about
> management until
> you finally got it right at the very end ... with your blood sucking
> worms description.
Well, the keyword was managers.....
> and now we are going to bail them out without even forcing them to
> give back what they had stolen?
This requires a shift in emphasis to a different sub-population: the
_rich_.
> If you want a marker for the very end, a gutless..brain dead public
> just standing by while they take this
> hose job...this is it.
Pretty much just like ancient times and medieval times: the nobles lived
off the backs of the serfs, peasants, and slaves.
So, basically--as usual-- the govt is going to bail out "the rich" and
save _their_ asses at the expense of all of _our_ asses.
What I'm seeing in the wSJ these days is a lot of "bait and switch"
pulling of rabbits out of hats to keep the economy (i.e. the rich) happy.
Some figures published a few days ago: like $100 bil coming out of money
market funds, 150 hedge funds closed in the last quarter, and shit lining
up to hit the fan, and herd instinct lining up to head for the hills.
This morning: Morgan and Goldman converted to holding companies, expanding
on deposit banking (looks like investment banking, etc., on the back
burner now, or on the floor). So, they can get a govt bailout, too?
Old Pif
>
> This morning: Morgan and Goldman converted to holding companies, expanding
> on deposit banking (looks like investment banking, etc., on the back
> burner now, or on the floor). So, they can get a govt bailout, too?
>
I have heard this news on NPR and what has come to mind: those two
have (had?) allegedly the best groups of financial analysts. They are
so good that the other companies buy their models and use them to make
money. Two questions/alternatives:
1. All their models are a piece of shit;
2. The relation between their analysts and executives is like between
CIA and the White House on the brink of Iraq war.
Which one?
Stray Dog
On Mon, 22 Sep 2008, Old Pif wrote:
> Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:28:56 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Old Pif <Old...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.computer.consultants, sci.research.careers
> Subject: Re: What WSJ does not report (or does it?)
>
I think the best model is the oldest model: rob from the many poor and
give to the few rich. Now, the issue is that there are several categories
of "the few rich" and the question is: how will they split up the booty.
There is also the "sub few rich", like underbosses (also called lobbyists,
lawyers, PRs, etc.) who have the multi-faceted job of creating various
kinds of "dustups" (otherwise known as rumor, innuendo, speculation,
guesses, and all around "the sky is falling, so run for the hills." etc.,
including lots of confusing views and counterviews [I read a lot of these
in the last few days]).
English translation: bailouts for the rich and ultimately coming from the
taxpayer. Same old story going back thousands of years. History is also
depressing. The other side of the story is that the underlings suffer,
bleed, and die in wars, too. No win situation. SOS.
For all other secrets to life read Dilbert, otherwise use Mastercard.
Russell
Their models underestimated the variance because they didn't
adequately adjust for the covariability of the assets. Basically
the same thing happened to LTCM. The rescue plan sounds like
something right out of the book _Shock Doctrine_: take advantage
of a disaster to expand government power while the people are too
much in shock to realize what is happening or at least react
effectively against it. The first proposed rescue plan had the
decisions of the Secretary of the Treasury unchallengeable in
court or Congress. Sounds like a excellent opportunity for abuse.
Of course you've heard that some of the companies that are in
trouble are the same ones that are offering their services to "help"
the government determine how much the bad assets they will
sell the government are worth. Begs the question of how they
will do that when if they could do that they should have known
what the assets were worth and avoided getting in trouble to
begin with. Masters of the Universe, my behind. :-)
Cheers,
Russell
Borked Pseudo Mailed
> 2. The relation between their analysts and executives is
> like between CIA and the White House on the brink of Iraq war.
>
> Which one?
Give me 5 minutes to completely figure out the situation.
Got it:
These institutions and their "financial instruments" have
become so complicated (with the permission of the SEC and
other regulatory agencies) that NO ONE can understand them.
That makes for a convenient defense during civil and criminal
trials as CEOs and CFOs will hide behind their ignorance of
what their companies were actually doing.
The auditing firms can't even figure out these complicated
transactions that are deliberately designed to be obfuscatory.
Everybody wants to hide stuff from everybody else, including
hiding things from the government and, ultimately the tax payer.
We need some kind of "20-year rule". If an intelligent
20 year old who can read English and knows how to do basic
math can't figure out where the money is coming from and
going to in 8 hours or less then it isn't an allowable
"instrument".
I am ADAMANTLY against the dumbing down of science but
I think we MUST "dumb down" this economic and financial
crap to understandable forms.
Unfortunately, thanks to lobbyists, lawyers and sheer
stupidity, the forthcoming bailout legislations are probably
going to be as or more complicated and unfathomable as the
"instruments" that produced the situations in the first place.
Old Pif
wrote:
>
> These institutions and their "financial instruments" have
> become so complicated (with the permission of the SEC and
> other regulatory agencies) that NO ONE can understand them.
> That makes for a convenient defense during civil and criminal
> trials as CEOs and CFOs will hide behind their ignorance of
> what their companies were actually doing.
>
But everybody points finger to the unreliable mortgage borrowers. What
can be simpler than that?
The whole real estate bubble looks like a typical pyramid schema.
Nothing complex about it either.
marika
"Borked Pseudo Mailed" <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote in message
news:180f27edd1f79ccd...@pseudo.borked.net...
>> 1. All their models are a piece of shit;
>> 2. The relation between their analysts and executives is
>> like between CIA and the White House on the brink of Iraq war.
>>
>> Which one?
>
> Give me 5 minutes to completely figure out the situation.
> Got it:
>
> These institutions and their "financial instruments" have
> become so complicated (with the permission of the SEC and
> other regulatory agencies) that NO ONE can understand them.
> That makes for a convenient defense during civil and criminal
> trials as CEOs and CFOs will hide behind their ignorance of
> what their companies were actually doing.
crimes usually require mens rea,
but there's a few other crimes like RICO where they can probably get them
because SOMEONE knew and all you have to do is patch it together well enough
to claim some conspiracy
tho, that is it's not a good defense in civil trials because the accused
here has multiple fiduciary duties, malpractice, in addition to fraud. The
first 2 require that you sufficiently inform yourself or else. Fraud is
closer to criminal intent
>
> The auditing firms can't even figure out these complicated
> transactions that are deliberately designed to be obfuscatory.
let me at em. I've really had enough of the obfuscation. I guarantee you I
would get to the bottom and the top as it were
> Everybody wants to hide stuff from everybody else, including
> hiding things from the government and, ultimately the tax payer.
if you tell a young mba grad that they will make millions - just do this.
and the lure prevents the kid from checking further. Then there's no
hiding.
>
> We need some kind of "20-year rule". If an intelligent
> 20 year old who can read English and knows how to do basic
> math can't figure out where the money is coming from and
> going to in 8 hours or less then it isn't an allowable
> "instrument".
they don't want to know, they want to make money and not check behind the
facts. Since the industry had no self regulating ethical conventions that
would force expulsion from the field (compare lawyers and doctors), there
was no reason to ask or for anyone to provide unasked answers
>
> I am ADAMANTLY against the dumbing down of science but
> I think we MUST "dumb down" this economic and financial
> crap to understandable forms.
>
> Unfortunately, thanks to lobbyists, lawyers and sheer
> stupidity, the forthcoming bailout legislations are probably
> going to be as or more complicated and unfathomable as the
> "instruments" that produced the situations in the first place.
>
>
they're fathomable. no one wanted to listen to me when I talked about it
years before. let me at it. I'd love to be a judge in the courts that
will take this on.
I am skeptical. Look how long it took to get at the Enron scoundrels. Look
how few paid for those abuses.
mk5000
"brain is so wired
And the clouds are weeping =
Did I,
hear someone tell a lie"--bob dylan, love sick
marika
"Old Pif" <Old...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:233f6d8e-1c07-4346...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Which one?
===========
1 more predominantly than 2,
1 because they were intentionally built for short term gain, not long term
add 3 - the models for long term (if there were ever any) were not
integrated in the least with short term
mk5000
"He scratched our names out of all his letters
Our mother should've just named you Laika...
Come on, Alex. You can do it!
Come on, Alex. There's nothing to it!"--Arcade Fire, Neighborhood #1