1. Premise: The price of oil is rising and the trend will remain for the short to medium term.
- According to analysts, we are reaching (according to some we reached already) a production plateau with no easy ways to increase output.
- The current trend is for an increasing demand specially from resurgent economies like China and India
- The only unexplored place on Earth with potentially large reserves is the Antarctic continent, which is off-limits and would be very expensive for exploration and exploitation.
- Even if a large reservoir is found today it would take at least 5 years to put it into production.
Conclusion: Demand is growing faster than supply. Prices can only stabilize when the supply
and demand are balanced.
2. Premise: The imbalance in oil supply and demand puts pressure on alternative fuels, specifically
Bio-fuels.
- Legislations both in Europe and the US are forcing the use of some biofuels in regular gasoline and Diesel
- There is pressure from the public to get carbon neutral fuels.
- There is competition between production of biofuels and food.
- Even if biofuels are net producers of energy (like sugarcane ethanol) we still have the same arable land.
- This pressures are forcing the prices of food up as more 'valuable' crops are chosen by farmers worldwide
Conclusion: The price of food will rise more or less shadowing the price of oil until a balance is reached.
----
Ok, so here are my questions:
1. Are those two premises above correct? What arguments can mitigate or even invalidate them?
2. Is it moral to profit from a bet on the market when the conditions of such market are likely to cause a huge distress on large portions of Earth's population?
And this is the cynical one:
3. What is the most effective way to profit from such market?
Discuss.
Dear god, this is the exact topic(s) is ended up discussing* with an older customer of mine today.
*"Discussing" isn't the right word, really, since all I could do was slip a word or two in here an there, but still.
1. Are those two premises above correct? What arguments can mitigate or even invalidate them?
I think they're absolutely correct. Look at the price of milk--it's gone up a lot since ethanol started taking up more of the corn produced.
I'll leave it to others to fight 'em.
2. Is it moral to profit from a bet on the market when the conditions of such market are likely to cause a huge distress on large portions of Earth's population?
Moral? I suppose not. You're benefiting indirectly from others' suffering.
But it's going to happen anyway, so you may as well get something out of it.
3. What is the most effective way to profit from such market?
Micheal, my customer, says he makes bank in the stock market by relying on the necessities.
And I agree with him. I'm contemplating getting into this mess myself, actually.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on May 27, 2008, 05:15:15 AM
1. Are those two premises above correct? What arguments can mitigate or even invalidate them?
Reckon so, though this is one for Agujim. For mitigating factors I'd say:
Increased prices making alternative methods in oil extraction and food growing profitable. For example tar sands for oil. In food production, agricultural land has been very lowly valued in the UK for decades, but now it's bounding up in value, making it less attractive to knock down the cherry orchard and put up a housing estate.
Another factor is that India is hugely subsidising fuel. This may have to cease, though whether that's good is another question.
Quote
2. Is it moral to profit from a bet on the market when the conditions of such market are likely to cause a huge distress on large portions of Earth's population?
Guess that depends on whether you believe in capitalism, and how you bet. If you do it by buying shares in John Deere then you could argue you're providing the capital to build more tractors. Even if you dabble in derivatives you could still argue that by allowing the farmers to fix their risk exposure you're encouraging more to jump in and grow more. Day trading might be more problematical...
Quote
And this is the cynical one:
3. What is the most effective way to profit from such market?
I don't know the American mutuals/stocks much. One philosophy is that like in a gold rush you don't invest in gold, you invest in the people who make picks and shovels. I put some money in the CF Eclectica Agriculture GBP fund at launch about a year ago and it's up about 30% (sadly one of my few investments that is, and I didn't put that much in, lest you think I'm crowing). They have that philosophy. I'm told the CF Junior Oils Trust has a good record too. Standard disclaimer - don't believe either is for widows and orphans and probably don't operate in the U.S. anyway.
I noticed this weekend that several other asset managers have just launched agriculture funds. Don't know if that is a sign it's becoming mainstream belief, or the equivalent warning bell to the lift boy giving you share tips. Some bloke at Societie General seems to be issuing doom notices on the whole stock market similar in tone to Aphos's poster on Topix.
I'd like to bet Agujim can give you some more racy commodity trading tips by the way. :)
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on May 27, 2008, 06:57:46 AM
Micheal, my customer, says he makes bank in the stock market by relying on the necessities.
Seems to work for Warren Buffett...
Quote from: beagle on May 27, 2008, 01:14:14 PM
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on May 27, 2008, 05:15:15 AM
1. Are those two premises above correct? What arguments can mitigate or even invalidate them?
Reckon so, though this is one for Agujim. For mitigating factors I'd say:
Increased prices making alternative methods in oil extraction and food growing profitable. For example tar sands for oil. In food production, agricultural land has been very lowly valued in the UK for decades, but now it's bounding up in value, making it less attractive to knock down the cherry orchard and put up a housing estate.
Another factor is that India is hugely subsidising fuel. This may have to cease, though whether that's good is another question.
Beagle's right re: alternative methods in oil extraction. The oilsands boom in Northern Alberta wouldn't have happened without the high prices we've seen (above $40 barrel or so; the even higher prices we've seen have been providing some extra motivation, but are also upping construction costs).
QuoteEven if a large reservoir is found today it would take at least 5 years to put it into production
See the oilsands again. We've had MAJOR development in the last 5 years, and much of it, SAGD in particular, is coming online now (pilot plants), or is switching from pilots to full commercial production. It's messy stuff from a carbon perspective, and Canada needs to get some more refineries which can handle it instead of shipping it south as bitumen, but there's a fair amount of the stuff coming soon.
Also, there should be a LOT of new natural gas becoming available worldwide in the near future, and it's relatively quick to go from discovered to drilled to produced. It probably won't directly affect oil, but might help with the overall energy picture WRT China and India (it's good for manufacturing / power generation).
Re: Food prices: I'm starting to believe that the price of oil is having more of a direct effect on the price of food, rather than it strictly being due to biofuels. Biofuels are plausibly driving fertilizer prices, but so are food prices themselves - farmers may switch crops in some cases, but in others I think there will be strong motivation to do whatever it takes to up yields and put marginal land into production, which is going to take a whole lot of chemical fertility. Check out what POT has done over the last year or two:
http://finance.google.ca/finance?q=pot
Due to increases in production motivated by price, I'm expecting to see a bit of a food-price bust for some commodities after this year's harvest (rice in particular), I hope I'm right for the sake of the hungry.
Quote from: beagle on May 27, 2008, 01:14:14 PMQuote
And this is the cynical one:
3. What is the most effective way to profit from such market?
I'd like to bet Agujim can give you some more racy commodity trading tips by the way. :)
CLL on the TSX, particularly if it drops near $3 again. I did the water sampling for the pre-site environmental baseline assessment at Connacher (a lil' grizzly bear ate my sample cooler). They are producing from their first pilot plant already, and indications look good for future development. I've been in on this one for a while now and was up about 50% as of last week (it's cooled a bit since). It's definitely a good long-term play and they will probably end up getting bought out by one of the big players over the mid-long term.
Mind you, Canadian oil stocks are at a high and if the price of oil slackens there will be a corresponding crash in many (good time to buy, hurts if you're holding them).
The inner anti-capitalist in me is rexpecting / rooting for another crash in the financials, so I quite like
ProShares UltraShort Financials (SKF) for the middle to end of this year. Ultra-inverse indexed ETFs are a fun way to bet against Wall Street (but dangerous for the long term - if the index goes up 1%, they go down about 2% and vice-versa; internal fees are also high compared to most ETFs). If you're sure a sector or the market in general is bottomed out, ultra indexed ETFs (go up/down 2x the underlying index, roughly speaking) are good for turning a quick buck. If the financials DO crash, I'm switching the little bit I have in SKF over to UYG and riding it back to recovery.
Other than that, the best strategy as always is BUY LOW, SELL HIGH - we bought for RRSPs in Feb / March and are doing pretty well overall with what was supposed to be mostly long-term investments. I expect to see it all come tumbling down later this year, but be fine over the time scale I was targeting (3-5 years, longer in some cases). If you're looking to put some money in, it's my feeling (COMPLETE FREAKIN' GUESS) that it's worth waiting for another selloff - we could very well be going into a long-term recession, too, so it may be worth holding out for a while yet.
---------
As for ethics, eh... I don't really like capitalism in the first place, but mostly I just draw the line at certain companies. Won't buy McD's. Won't buy Wal-Mart. Won't buy tobacco. Won't buy weapons generally (I'll pretend that Orbital only makes rockets for peaceful, scientific applications :P). The market IS the tool by which the rich get richer - once you admit that, it's a matter of finding the balance between participating in the system and making a difference on the ground level with some of the profits you (hopefully) turn.
I know nothing of markets. I know nothing of technology.
I know only of the ethics I have defined for myself.
Having once been without sufficient money, shelter or sustenance for several uncomfortable periods of time, almost any legal means of attaining funds to secure your family might be considered ethical. I'd prefer (given the chance) to not profit from some companies, but I'm not a fool. Given the choice of survive or not survive financially, I DO buy some things at Wal-Mart...I'm in a limited market, and it's buy there or pay twice the price.
My Grandfather had a pretty solid way of protecting his money in the market, meaningful gains, no Big Winners. Necessities and small luxuries. (Chocolate, especially. He owned both Hershey's and Nestle's stocks, he bought Borden's not on the strength of 'milk', but on the ice cream market.) Avoid the absolute soul-suckers, but don't feel remorse over too much. Others will exploit the market ruthlessly. You've got to be able to protect your family in the same market they play in, and noble sacrifices do not feed a hungry child. (No, I know it's not at that point now, and it's hard to envision that happening. But, you do not know what WILL happen. And, believe me, you don't want to dwell on it.)
Would I own Wal-Mart stock? No. McD's? No. DeBeers? Probably not. Segrams? Yep. (Anhauser-Busch? No, they make mostly crap beers, and they're serial trademark infringers.) Weapons systems, the actual instruments of war? I'd be hesitant, very hesitant. Handguns, sidearms, rifles and such?? Oh, HELLS yes. (If the food economy continues to be tough, you'll see a return to hunting for the table, and the US aversion to so many game meats will also wane. I've eaten squirrel and rattlesnake both in the past, and we may see the day when that's considered acceptable table meat again.)
I have NO FAITH in the current economy. I believe that Wall Street and The Corporate World are banking on the next US administration being compliant and continuing to be complicit. I also have a deep suspicion that IF that happens, the seeds of an overturned economy/system/whatever are already planted. The question is the level of lethargy...how effective are the tainted breads and how mind-numbing are the circuses?
You've got to set your level of tolerance. And you've got to both live with yourself and in this world...and with your son. Let the world you want for HIM help be your moral compass.
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on May 27, 2008, 07:05:57 PM
You've got to set your level of tolerance. And you've got to both live with yourself and in this world...and with your son. Let the world you want for HIM help be your moral compass.
:irony: :mrgreen: :ROFL:
....sorry.... merely a personal response (don't ask).
Quote from: Griffin NoName on May 27, 2008, 09:31:50 PM
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on May 27, 2008, 07:05:57 PM
You've got to set your level of tolerance. And you've got to both live with yourself and in this world...and with your son. Let the world you want for HIM help be your moral compass.
:irony: :mrgreen: :ROFL:
....sorry.... merely a personal response (don't ask).
Oh, if it were YOUR son (at least before HIS son came)?
:explode: :explode:
:axe: :axe: :axe: :axe: :axe:
I guess the follow up questions I have are related to how long you think the upward trend will last.
My thoughts on the subject were related to buy futures on the commodities market, possibly instead of the obvious (oil), bet on grains like wheat, which I hear today are reaching highs now. The thing is if a 6 month bet on the upward trend is worth doing.
Still, I don't have much to bet anyhow but if the trend is right it may be worthwhile.
------
Ah, my son and I were talking on the weekend about my retirement (;)). I was teasing him on how he would pay for my older years and he (in a well intentioned tone) suggested that I still have 'many years to work'.... :ROFL:
And you could tell him it could be worse. You could have him buy you a private island.
It'll last until either life settles down (my customer said all this was partly because of OPEC and the real estate crisis, which is related to Wall Street, somehow) or until we find a new energy source that doesn't rely on corn or liquefied animals. Sugar beets or something.
Oil I think has been up for seventeen straight years. Oil has dipped recently, but it usually dips after Memorial Day. The upward march will resume.
When to get out? When the people stop driving 85 of the freeways then it may be time to get out.
Sold out of SKF today due to the big drop in financials (much of it was reversing yesterday's gains), which in addition to the bad news in the sector seems to be strongly driven by the spike in oil prices.
I think there's still a big drop in financials coming but expect a bit of a reversal on Monday due to the magnitude of the change today - if the weekend gives traders a chance to cool down on oil. In any case, I couldn't pass up turning 23% since the end of April (too bad I play such small amounts of money - I did better on working overtime last week than I did on this - IOW, don't quit my day job ;)).
I was up three percent on Friday. :D
You evil hedge fund shorter you ;)
I don't make the rulez! :D
I just wish all this wasn't in my 401K and IRA so I could take some out without being skrewd.
Bleah... SKF ran up another 6% today (at peak). Ah, better than leaving it in and having a 6% drop.
For those looking to play oil directly, I found out about these:
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=TSE:HOD
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=TSE:HOU
Not sure how effective/stable they will prove to be, and they're on the TSE, so they are better for Canuckistanis (no exchange), but they are purported to be direct oil plays.
I'm not confident enough in the direction of oil at the moment to stick my neck out, but if it takes a sudden run up I might try the inverse (HOD) to counterbalance my junior oil plays.
The same company has leveraged ETFs for agricultural grains as well, but they seem a bit thinly traded.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on May 27, 2008, 05:15:15 AM
2. Premise: The imbalance in oil supply and demand puts pressure on alternative fuels, specifically Bio-fuels.
- Legislations both in Europe and the US are forcing the use of some biofuels in regular gasoline and Diesel
- There is pressure from the public to get carbon neutral fuels.
- There is competition between production of biofuels and food.
- Even if biofuels are net producers of energy (like sugarcane ethanol) we still have the same arable land.
- This pressures are forcing the prices of food up as more 'valuable' crops are chosen by farmers worldwide
Conclusion: The price of food will rise more or less shadowing the price of oil until a balance is reached.
However, also, as prices for biofuels go up, it may also make non-food-based biofuels more viable as well... e.g. (and pulling numbers out of the air) if $100/bbl oil creates a business case for making biofuel from corn kernels, $150/bbl oil may create a business case for making biofuel from the cob, husk and stalk.
Speaking without really looking into things too much, I'd look at energy cogeneration as a growth area.
When I was doing industrial HVAC (about six years ago now), we couldn't sell any of our clients on any sort of cogenerating systems we had available. While plant managers recognized that waste heat from some process represented an inefficiency and lost energy, they saw a cogen system as just another thing that could break, and not worth the hassle of installing, operating and maintaining it.
Now that energy prices are significantly higher, I think that the tide may be about to turn (if it hasn't already), and small cogen systems for industrial applications are going to hold a lot more appeal.
I don't know which companies are involved in this, but it's just my general impression.
This could be the beginning of the end here. Inflation is coming. Wall Street can smell it. The dollar is weak so our exports could be strong but fuel is so expensive we couldn't afford to send exports anywhere. Trucking is down in the US. I'm waiting for the demand for diesel to fall in the US. When the US drops the ball I expect Asia and Europe to boom driving the price of diesel back up before the US can recover.
Quote from: MentalBlock996 on June 11, 2008, 03:28:07 PM
When the US drops the ball I expect Asia and Europe to boom driving the price of diesel back up before the US can recover.
I woudn't bet on the Europe booming part. Leaving aside the UK (where the Blair/Brown smoke and mirrors spending and debt show is coming to a rapid U.S. style close), there's a huge disparity in the Eurozone between the northerners(particularly Germany) who want to control inflation and the south where Spain/Italy/Portugal are in real economic trouble. It's the famous "asymmetric shock" that economists always reckoned would be the real test of the Euro.
Financials keep sliding... I'm not convinced this is the Big Drop I've been waiting for yet, but it's looking shaky.
I'm still eyeballing HOU and HOD as there is clearly money to be made there with the volatility of oil, but I don't think I am savvy enough to risk it.
Quote from: beagle on June 11, 2008, 08:51:37 PM
I woudn't bet on the Europe booming part. Leaving aside the UK (where the Blair/Brown smoke and mirrors spending and debt show is coming to a rapid U.S. style close), there's a huge disparity in the Eurozone between the northerners(particularly Germany) who want to control inflation and the south where Spain/Italy/Portugal are in real economic trouble. It's the famous "asymmetric shock" that economists always reckoned would be the real test of the Euro.
Well okay, but since the US is nine trillion dollars in debt Europe will rebound before the US at the very least.
Quote from: MentalBlock996 on June 12, 2008, 10:45:44 AM
Well okay, but since the US is nine trillion dollars in debt Europe will rebound before the US at the very least.
MARS will rebound before the US debt is addressed....
.... THANKS BUSH!!! :P
That's one legacy our great-great-great-great grandkids will remember him for.... because THEY will still be paying for it.
LOL! Lets move there!
Quote from: MentalBlock996 on June 12, 2008, 10:45:44 AM
Well okay, but since the US is nine trillion dollars in debt Europe will rebound before the US at the very least.
Just make sure your Euros are Made in Germany (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/13/cneuro113.xml).
Is Handelsblatt an accurate paper generally Swato? Or a Deutsche-Sun?
Quote from: beagle on June 13, 2008, 10:47:04 PM
Just make sure your Euros are Made in Germany (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/13/cneuro113.xml).
That just proves that there are idiots everywhere.
If you fear (wish?) the death of the Euro buy
gold.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on June 14, 2008, 04:23:24 AM
That just proves that there are idiots everywhere.
LOL! A person can be smart, but people are stupid.
Will the DJIA drop below 11,000 this week? :mrgreen:
Oh, my.... is it that low? I've been barely following it this past week.
Trying to pick an in price on UYG more than anything else these days... I can't believe it's below 20, but it looks to keep dropping for a while yet.
Well, things don't look too good, my son has saved about $200 and he wanted to convert his money into something more... solid, in fact the idea of buying gold started to appeal to him, only that the Oz is shy of US$1000 making coins outrageously expensive. Better yet, we were looking into some sellers on eBay and they don't take credit cards or paypal because the margins are supposedly too low. They want personal checks and a 7 day wait! Talk about scary (considering the amounts involved).
Solid? I can offer you Loonies..... :mrgreen:
Agreed on gold; I'd like to have some but the price is too high at the moment, IMHO. I have an ounce that I should be selling, if anything.
:wwg:
Percentage-wise, I don't think it's any cheaper than gold, but if I was looking for something 'solid' for $200, I'd be considering silver. Might have more long-term industrial demand, and you can get more than a tiny coin's worth. Kicking myself for NOT buying silver when it took a brief drop to $14/oz a few months back.
Up here, one can buy gold, silver and platinum coins direct from the banks with no tax and little-to-no markup over market prices - is that an option down there? I've looked into buying palladium coins up here which is not so favorable because they are taxed on the original sale, and there's a significant spread over market price on re-sales. I still like palladium to outperform other PMs at some time in the future because it's industrially interchangeable with platinum and is also a good, underutilized white jewelery metal, so it becomes extra-attractive when gold and platinum get pricey.
Originally he was thinking on euros but silver is indeed an option.
market stability
ethics aside
invest in
Goat Futures--- embrace the power of the hypothetical goat (http://www.couplescompany.com/features/poLitics/goat_poLiticS.htM)
warning:really silly absolute drivel alert-- off topic too
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/glenn/2008/0915.html
Good article here about how we got in this mess.
Quote from: from articleHow did the nation of "Free Market Capitalism" as touted by Kudlow daily on CNBC and The Wall Street Journal op ed page, get to the point where we privatize profits, and socialize losses?.....for corporations that is. Isn't that fascism according to Webster's?
Mussolini & friends would be proud.
:headbang:
As a side note, after a plunge, metals are gaining ground again (big surprise) but oil is at a record low despite the damages from Ike. As much as the explanations 'make sense' it bothers me to no end how magically oil prices dip before US elections. >:(
I suspect that the resurgence in metals means the USD is going to be in trouble again - but it seems to be outpacing the Loonie with oil down. Time to sell some US equities and reposition into Canadian oil - I'm looking to put some more into ERF.UN as distributions are 15%+ at these prices.
OTOH, that portion of my portfolio is getting slaughtered at the moment.
Actually, according to the Times, oil ain't doin' much better.
In fact I correct my previous statement, metals aren't gaining as much ground as I though, just a bit over the weekend but the day trading had a dip. Something is going on and they're not telling.
Personally I'm waiting a bit to see if metals go down a bit further, but my gut tells me that they will go up medium term (and I'm baffled on the day trading).
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on September 16, 2008, 04:55:43 PM
Actually, according to the Times, oil ain't doin' much better.
Nope, it's down... which is why it's a good time to invest in oil (provided it doesn't keep falling). Buy low, sell high. Canadian oil income trusts also kick out a good share of their income on a monthly basis, at a set distribution (similar to a dividend, e.g. Enerplus is paying $0.47 per share per month), so a lower stock price means a relatively larger % per share distributed.
I am looking to put some money in HOU (http://finance.google.com/finance?q=TSE:HOU) somewhere around January or February, with the expectation that we will see another round of seasonal oil-price spikes next summer. Depends on what the price does in the meantime, naturally.
I've been sitting on the sidelines for the financials lately - missed some huge profits (30%+) in SKF over the last two weeks, but it's getting tough to predict day-to-day despite some major bad news. I have very limited amounts of "play money" (held as USD) and with the loonie down, I'm reluctant to exchange more. Might jump into UYG if/when total hell breaks loose for the banks, at $15 or below.
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AMEX:SKF
http://finance.google.com/finance?q=AMEX:UYG
If I had too much spare money, I'd be looking for a good entry point on a 100 oz. block of silver, under $10 US/oz looks attractive. If by chance metals keep retreating, I WILL pick up a lesser amount of silver should it hit $5-6 per oz. Alternatively, I suppose I could just price average with silver coins, but the per ounce premium irks me.
If things are as the analysts claim, oil will go down further, possibly to $60-$70, unless we get a serious recession and then it can dip even more (and metals go to the roof).
I still feel something is off, the dollar went down too a bit but again in day trading is up, either the FED has been moving behind closed doors to quiet the markets or someone knows something we don't.
There've been rumours of a rate cut today. Not sure if it'll pan out or not.
I don't get it, although human nature explains it: how is it possible that the same thing that got us here (irresponsibly lowering interest rates) is what makes everybody happy?
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on September 16, 2008, 06:23:01 PM
I don't get it, although human nature explains it: how is it possible that the same thing that got us here (irresponsibly lowering interest rates) is what makes everybody happy?
People are dirt stupid. Most don't remember any other fiscal policies than the ones in place pretty much since Reagan. and they STILL buy trickle down, because they're too trusting that "the big guys" need us peons. They do not get it that to the top dogs, we don't count unless we can stop their greed.
Related question: anyone checked out McCain's Wall Street policy? He wants more deregulation there, and I was wondering what the rest of you thought.
Quote from: Agujjim on September 16, 2008, 02:45:55 PM
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/glenn/2008/0915.html
Good article here about how we got in this mess.
Someone predicted this mess and explained why, back in the late 90's, according to the Guardian or Observer. I can't remember the guy's name (non-English as I recall) and I can't find the article. It was interesting. I am cross I cannot find it. If only I had written his name down.
Quote from: Sibling Chatty on September 16, 2008, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on September 16, 2008, 06:23:01 PM
I don't get it, although human nature explains it: how is it possible that the same thing that got us here (irresponsibly lowering interest rates) is what makes everybody happy?
People are dirt stupid. Most don't remember any other fiscal policies than the ones in place pretty much since Reagan. and they STILL buy trickle down, because they're too trusting that "the big guys" need us peons. They do not get it that to the top dogs, we don't count unless we can stop their greed.
And all the people who do remember 16% mortgages etc, are on the way out due to being too ancient. <sigh> There are good reasons why tribal societies look to the Elders for wisdom. No one under 75 should ever be in charge of a bank :mrgreen: and giving masses of profits away to kids in their 20's is not merely foolish. <apologies to our youthes>
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 16, 2008, 07:26:24 PM
There are good reasons why tribal societies look to the Elders for wisdom. No one under 75 should ever be in charge of a bank :mrgreen: and giving masses of profits away to kids in their 20's is not merely foolish. <apologies to our youthes>
So, you'd be voting McCain, right? ;)
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on September 16, 2008, 07:22:39 PM
Related question: anyone checked out McCain's Wall Street policy? He wants more deregulation there, and I was wondering what the rest of you thought.
I heard something about it, but do you have a link on that? Today he is changing his tune but yestarday in the morning...
[youtube=425,350]6reQLzgywzk[/youtube]
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 16, 2008, 07:26:24 PM
Someone predicted this mess and explained why, back in the late 90's, according to the Guardian or Observer. I can't remember the guy's name (non-English as I recall) and I can't find the article. It was interesting. I am cross I cannot find it. If only I had written his name down.
Lots of people predicted this mess. It goes even further back than the LTCM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-Term_Capital_Management) crash of the 90s, to the Lloyds LMX spiral re-insurance cock-up of the early 1980s. The idea that you can spread away risk only works if you really are spreading it wider and wider and not recirculating it amongst the same partners.
Also the Black-Scholes equation for pricing derivatives is a bit like those Physics equations for laminar flow of fluids in pipes, sod-all use when things get turbulent and people won't buy at any price, whatever the nice model says they should be doing. And that one goes at least as far as Maynard-Keynes (1946 or earlier) "markets can remain irrational far longer than you or I can remain solvent."
The use of low interest rates to bail out the U.S. economy was known was known as the "Greenspan put" (named after a put option) long before this episode. i.e. if the deals go wrong the financiers can count on a big increase in liquidity to save them, except they can't any more.
In the U.K. the equivalent economic measure is the "public sector expansion". Every hint of recession in the last decade has been held off by boosting the public sector, and hiding the true cost of the future liabilities this creates off the balance sheet. Now GB has to find an extra £90bn in the next couple of years just to stand still, with nothing available to spend in a real recession, and tax receipts crumbling.
Quote from: beagle on September 16, 2008, 09:11:14 PM
The idea that you can spread away risk only works if you really are spreading it wider and wider and not recirculating it amongst the same partners.
A pyramid scheme for bankers! Now it makes
perfect sense.
Quote from: beagle on September 16, 2008, 09:11:14 PM
............ people won't buy at any price, whatever the nice model says they should be doing.
Size Zero does not fit everyone ;)
Actually I predicted it back in the 80's too, but no one took any notice :P
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 17, 2008, 04:34:41 AM
Actually I predicted it back in the 80's too, but no one took any notice :P
So did I, but someone DID take note enough for it to be in my FBI file...
Quoting me to a guy in a bar that wanted to talk politics:
Reagan and trickle-down are f'in nuts. Bush was right, it's voodoo economics, AND HE SOLD OUT TO IT. IT'LL BE THE EVENTUAL DOWNFALL OF OUR ECONOMY, UNLESS SOMEBODY PULLS THEIR DAMN HEAD OUTTA THEIR ASS! (Guy didn't say I had to yell the last part because the damn band started.)
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on September 16, 2008, 08:17:25 PM
I heard something about it, but do you have a link on that? Today he is changing his tune but yestarday in the morning...
Pulled that from the Times (http://=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/us/politics/16record.html?ref=todayspaper) today. The gist:
QuoteSpeaking in Florida, he said that the economy's underlying fundamentals remained strong but were being threatened "because of the greed by some based in Wall Street and we have got to fix it."
But his record on the issue, and the views of those he has always cited as his most influential advisers, suggest that he has never departed in any major way from his party's embrace of deregulation and relying more on market forces than on the government to exert discipline.
While Mr. McCain has cited the need for additional oversight when it comes to specific situations, like the mortgage problems behind the current shocks on Wall Street, he has consistently characterized himself as fundamentally a deregulator and he has no history prior to the presidential campaign of advocating steps to tighten standards on investment firms.
He has often taken his lead on financial issues from two outspoken advocates of free market approaches, former Senator Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman. Individuals associated with Merrill Lynch, which sold itself to Bank of America in the market upheaval of the past weekend, have given his presidential campaign nearly $300,000, making them Mr. McCain's largest contributor, collectively.
...
Mr. McCain was quick on Monday to issue a statement calling for "major reform" to "replace the outdated and ineffective patchwork quilt of regulatory oversight in Washington and bring transparency and accountability to Wall Street." Later his campaign unveiled a television advertisement called "Crisis," that began: "Our economy in crisis. Only proven reformers John McCain and Sarah Palin can fix it. Tougher rules on Wall Street to protect your life savings."
....In early 1995, after Republicans had taken control of Congress, Mr. McCain promoted a moratorium on federal regulations of all kinds. He was quoted as saying that excessive regulations were "destroying the American family, the American dream" and voters "want these regulations stopped." The moratorium measure was unsuccessful.
"I'm always for less regulation," he told The Wall Street Journal last March, "but I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight" in situations like the subprime lending crisis, the problem that has cascaded through Wall Street this year. He concluded, "but I am fundamentally a deregulator."
Later that month, he gave a speech on the housing crisis in which he called for less regulation, saying, "Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital."
...
A prominent McCain supporter, Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, signaled how Mr. McCain would try to make his antiregulation record fit the proregulation times that the next president will inherit. Mr. Pawlenty suggested in an interview on Fox News that, given the danger that "any future administration" would go too far, Mr. McCain would be the safer bet to protect against "excessive government intervention or excessive government regulation."
edited because my linkage was effed up
(http://forums.theonering.com/images/smiles/icon_puke.gif)
A predictable shift in policy.
QuoteNow, as the Bush administration scrambles to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurance company, and stabilize a tumultuous Wall Street, the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street.
"Government has a clear responsibility to act in defense of the public interest, and that's exactly what I intend to do," a fiery McCain said at a rally in Tampa yesterday. "In my administration, we're going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we're going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place."
McCain hopes to tap into anger among voters who are looking for someone to blame for the economic meltdown that threatens their home values, bank accounts and 401(k) plans. But his past support of congressional deregulation efforts and his arguments against "government interference" in the free market by federal, state and local officials have given Sen. Barack Obama an opening to press the advantage Democrats traditionally have in times of economic trouble.
In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.
That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.
McCain now condemns the executives at those companies for pursuing the ambitions that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made possible, saying that "in an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand."
Hopefully, his record will punch a great big, gaping hole in this tactic.
Regardless, the original question still stands: would regulation be good in this case? Or perhaps limited regulation? (sorry Goat, still mostly a free-market proponent)
Pros: sets of rules are usually placed when a particular action (or lack of thereof) is recognized as a root cause in a bad situation. Classical examples are seatbelts, smoke alarms, exit signs, etc.
Cons: the law of unintended consequences, a rule may be intended to prevent one thing in particular, and do it badly or prevent things that you want.
In reality it's a balancing act that requires constant tweaking to verify that the intended objective is reasonably reached without causing more problems than the ones it solves.
The obvious problem with this is that those affected by the rule will try to demonize it in order to remove it and go back to the previous state regardless of the consequences. Personally I am skeptic of so-called 'de-regulators' for that same reason, they are usually paid by the sectors that were profiting from the lack of regulation.
Note that I'm not saying that overregulation is a good thing, on the contrary it makes things unnecessary harder and expensive, but it is very different to adjust and simplify regulations and another altogether to remove them. In the end we get to the problem of how laws are a strict set of rules to be applied to the large gray area of life, and how many times the spirit of the law is lost in the letter of the law. That requires common sense from legislators and as you well know, they rarely have one. :-\
In this case specifically IMO strict rules should be in place even if those slow down economic growth. Greed will always be present and bankers happen to be the epitome of greed, therefore claiming that some greedy persons caused this is not only redundant but idiotic, because you know they will try it sooner or later, hence the regulations. Note also that if some of the rules setup by Roosevelt in the 30s were still in place most of these problems (and the ones of the 87 crash) would likely been avoided. Nope, the so-called "creativity" on banking products is what got us here and safeguards are needed, but 10 or 20 years from now everybody will forget what happened and the same suspects will cry for de-regulation, and the cycle will come around again.
Sorry for the double post but this is completely different: the FED bailed out AIG (http://www.bizjournals.com/losangeles/stories/2008/09/15/daily19.html).
Now yesterday makes sense, today gold and silver are going up in day trading, and even oil has picked up a bit. Logic is back :o
Quote from: Zono's Link
The loan, which has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the government and U.S. taxpayers, according to the Fed statement, will give AIG the ability to sell certain businesses in an orderly manner, "with the least possible disruption to the overall economy."
In an orderly manner..... oh, good. Reassuring. NOT.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 17, 2008, 08:04:26 PM
In an orderly manner..... oh, good. Reassuring. NOT.
I'm not too reassured. As a Lloyds shareholder (conservative bank with little U.S. or bad housing exposure) I was happily sitting out the problems and waiting for the inevitable upwards revaluation. By tomorrow I could be part owner of a joke bank bang in the middle of the problems, and Lloyds will have an excellent excuse to slash the dividend. Stay or bail? What was that about bad debt contagion?
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 17, 2008, 08:04:26 PM
Quote from: Zono's Link
The loan, which has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the government and U.S. taxpayers, according to the Fed statement, will give AIG the ability to sell certain businesses in an orderly manner, "with the least possible disruption to the overall economy."
In an orderly manner..... oh, good. Reassuring. NOT.
Seriously. You
know when people say that that something really bad has just happened.
Quote from: beagle on September 17, 2008, 08:21:30 PM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 17, 2008, 08:04:26 PM
In an orderly manner..... oh, good. Reassuring. NOT.
I'm not too reassured. As a Lloyds shareholder (conservative bank with little U.S. or bad housing exposure) I was happily sitting out the problems and waiting for the inevitable upwards revaluation. By tomorrow I could be part owner of a joke bank bang in the middle of the problems, and Lloyds will have an excellent excuse to slash the dividend. Stay or bail? What was that about bad debt contagion?
Remember that TV programme "No Hiding Place" ?
The Lloyds-Halifax merger, whatever one's own position there, is seriously scary - with the waving of competition stuff. It's the react now and pay later aspect that has a nasty smell. "The FSA will just have to watch out for it" <quote but can't remember who > oh yeh - like they did last time? :(
We should really move this thread to Games and Jokes.
Who/what next?Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on September 17, 2008, 11:03:58 PM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 17, 2008, 08:04:26 PM
Quote from: Zono's Link
The loan, which has terms and conditions designed to protect the interests of the government and U.S. taxpayers, according to the Fed statement, will give AIG the ability to sell certain businesses in an orderly manner, "with the least possible disruption to the overall economy."
In an orderly manner..... oh, good. Reassuring. NOT.
Seriously. You know when people say that that something really bad has just happened.
Yes! "File out in an orderly manner" is what they used to say to us in primary school when the fire bell rang !
FIRE!!!!!!
"Remain calm and we'll get alive of this one. Yes, you too Mr. Smith at the end of the line." :o
---
On the day trading news, gold and silver keep going up. Time to buy apparently.
Gold and Silver ye says matey...aaarrrgh! ;)
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 18, 2008, 01:08:28 PM
The Lloyds-Halifax merger, whatever one's own position there, is seriously scary - with the waving of competition stuff.
Hmm. Lloyds down 17%. Has Lloyds saved HBOS, or HBOS sunk Lloyds? I bailed at 08:15 and 1 second this morning. Maybe they had to do it, but their reputation for conservative management is shot.
Quote from: beagle on September 18, 2008, 06:06:32 PMI bailed at 08:15 and 1 second this morning. Maybe they had to do it, but their reputation for conservative management is shot.
I guess you had to bail if they are no longer conservative ;) ;) :goatflag:
But what to do with the dosh?
under the mattress seems best
I shall donate to the starving politicians charity. If I can find one that starves them.
^ Hear! Hear!
Help is on its way. Vince Cable for Chancellor !!!!
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 19, 2008, 12:32:36 PM
Help is on its way. Vince Cable for Chancellor !!!!
I quite like Vince...he comes round to my house sometimes...
I don't let him in though.
Teh markit be wavin' like Peg leg Sally whilst ya slap her huge arse!
Ayuh. Caught UYG near the bottom with a limit order and am now considering what a good exit price will be. Have stops set for a reasonable profit just in case she drops.
I have the feeling all these emergency measures are just going to hurt worse in the long run, though.
The adrenalin shot to the hearth plus the tracheotomy will leave scars but at least the patient didn't die on the table. Still on the ICU though. Washington Mutual seems to be the next in the list for a takeover according to the news (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/International_Business/Citigroup_mulling_bid_for_Washington_Mutual_Report/articleshow/3504254.cms).
Yesterday Colbert interviewed a lady from msnbc and -after she suggested the mantra of diversification- Colbert asked her about gold; she opened her eyes in a very meaningful way while giving the generic explanation on metals. If I read her correctly her faced said "if things don't turn around soon that will be the only thing left".
Or perhaps I'm crazy. :mrgreen:
Gold crazy. It's your inner pirate speaking. :wwg:
My better half grabbed onto a Canadian palladium mining company near last week's metal (and TSX) lows. It's gone up about 30% since, and I think she's looking to hold it long. 400% would not be impossible if PMs make another run for the top. I am a big palladium bull, but it's a major pain to trade physical Pd.
(note: We play very modest sums, so these large percentages add up to relatively few dollars. Keeps the losses down too - we consider it "training" for later).
Quote from: Black Bart on September 19, 2008, 01:41:32 PM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 19, 2008, 12:32:36 PM
Help is on its way. Vince Cable for Chancellor !!!!
I quite like Vince...he comes round to my house sometimes...
I don't let him in though.
I had to do a three point turn a few weeks ago. Imagine my surprise (
I sooooo like that phrase) when I discovered I was doing it right outside Vince Cable's headquarters. They looked very shut, quite dilapidated despite fresh white paint, and rather sort of squashed. Good to see no money being wasted on vanity or puffed up importance. Must be a plus point. On the other hand, it looked more like the sort of place which would front a charity to improve village greens in Midsomer than somewhere that would assist in government of an Internationally Viable Empire !
I could have sworn Bart had a blue hat two seconds ago
Talking of which did you see Sir Victor Blank of Lloyds turn up in his little G-Wizz electric car to bail out HBOS? Just goes to show where saving £8 a day on the congestion charge can get you.
By the way, is this U.S. toxic bank going yet? I'd like to offload a few billion before they spot the flaw in the plan.
Who's doing their logo?
Dooooown we go again, at least until the bailout bill passes, then a temporary bounce maybe.
Ah well, I made $500 on UYG and unloaded my (Canadian) bank stocks while they were up in the black. It's looking like my oil stuff might get another run here.
Amazing that Wall Street assumed that Congress was just going to let the US citizenry bend over and take it with no condom, KY or even a kiss...
Paulson and Bernanke and their pet monkey in the WH can go commit dire acts of rectal penetration upon one another with a chainsaw before that'll happen.
They didn't have much of a chance, it was that or let the global economy fall like a card castle. What bothers me is that there hasn't been the slightest hint of punishment to those crazy greedy bankers from the FED, congress or the candidates.
Bailing out the banks was a necessity but why not charge the idiots with something and lock them in a cell with no AC for the next 20 years? Ahh! yes, because they are the biggest donors to the campaigns of senators and presidents alike.
:snark: :stick: :explode:
They're apparently looking to profit out of this, too. >:(
Of course they are, they are evil, lying, degenerate, political ass-kissers who will prostitute whatever ideals they had for a few bucks. They will come out of this with the fragrance of roses surrounding them, and a pile more money on their own accounts. Enron would have appeared to have been the exception, but that is because the Government types were pissed that they had been led a merry dance, and Skilling et al were raking it in, but not backhanding sufficiently.
To be a successful businessman, decency has to be surgically removed at the beginning of the career, and to be a successful financier, selling one's soul is not just recommended, but essential.
Indeed. Saw something this afternoon that said that lobbyists are swarming DC and that firms are looking to get the government to take far more than just what was originally suggested--any failing assets at all.
Its Xmas! They get to screw the economy and to screw us for the next umpteenth years in deficits. The sad part is that the only viable punishment for them would be a total meltdown of the world economy and even then I imagine they'll figure a way to live comfortably while the rest of us lose everything.
I've always thought that bankers are at the bottom of the list as the more destructive and evil force there is. Beautiful way to prove me right. :headbang:
Ideally, we could strip them of nearly every penny and dump them somewhere in the boonies (I like the idea of the Ozarks or Amarillo). And I'm fairly sure whoever we're mooching to money from, presumably Chinese bankers (as I've been told), will own the next several generations of US citizens.
I suspect we'll be getting a lot more humble as a nation in the next few years. Hopefully* less belligerent, too.
*Hopefully being the key word.
Quote from: Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) on September 23, 2008, 05:07:44 AM
They didn't have much of a chance, it was that or let the global economy fall like a card castle. What bothers me is that there hasn't been the slightest hint of punishment to those crazy greedy bankers from the FED, congress or the candidates.
Bailing out the banks was a necessity but why not charge the idiots with something and lock them in a cell with no AC for the next 20 years? Ahh! yes, because they are the biggest donors to the campaigns of senators and presidents alike.
:snark: :stick: :explode:
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on September 23, 2008, 05:12:33 AM
They're apparently looking to profit out of this, too. >:(
Personally, I think they need to strip ALL the assets of the pukes responsible-- down to their last vacation home and yacht.
Toss'em out on their behinds, onto the streets. Spread the word WHY they are now unemployed.
It'd be justice if these greedy bastards had to actually WORK for once...like, say at a Quick-Trip/7-Eleven/Quickey-Mart or McDonalds.....
Or the HELL of Wal-mart.
No, don't let them redeem themselves through work. Dump the lot of them on a deserted island, and film the carnage as they struggle to feed themselves. Once they have some sort of infrastructure up, remove it, telling them that "charges" and "admin" have deemed it necessary. Then section off a chunk of the island with big electric fences, and armed guards, and let the beautiful people disport themselves in redolent luxury there. And every so often, pick one of them at random, and have the guards kick him in the balls.
Quote from: Pachyderm on September 23, 2008, 12:48:58 PM
No, don't let them redeem themselves through work. Dump the lot of them on a deserted island, and film the carnage as they struggle to feed themselves. Once they have some sort of infrastructure up, remove it, telling them that "charges" and "admin" have deemed it necessary. Then section off a chunk of the island with big electric fences, and armed guards, and let the beautiful people disport themselves in redolent luxury there. And every so often, pick one of them at random, and have the guards kick him in the balls.
I like the idea of dropping them in a Battle Royale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale#Plot) situation.
The most cruel punishments I can add to the ghoulish delights being dished up here:
1. There is only one way for them to pay for food and water in their "re-education" home, no matter how small the morsel or how unfiltered the drop. They must speak one sentence of absolute truth aloud about their own actions, on the record.
Any recanting, spinning, explaining, blame-storming, rephrasing, putting-into-context, plausible denying, invoking of executive privilege, vague hinting about compromising national security, etc., will be met with Compassionate Indifference™ (indistinguishable, for all practical purposes, from Compassionate Conservatism).
The more truth they cough up, the more food and water they get to wolf down. The more relevant and meaningful the truth, the more nutrition and filtering will be added to their rations. Rations, by the way, whose inspections and quality controls will adhere strictly to the deregulations and loopholes they themselves established for the benefit of the *rest* of us.
2. If they require any medical attention, they must fill out a 12-page application in triplicate not less than thirty (30) days prior to the expected situation, and file it with the appropriate agencies on their lunch breaks from their jobs at Walmart or Hell's Kitchen Restaurant. Failure to acquire prior permission will be punished by sending the offender to the end of the line in the clinic waiting room.If s/he loses pay or even a job because of injury, illness or waiting in line, additional benefits will be denied for failure to conform to clearly posted regulations. Appointments are strongly encouraged for medical assistance, and missing one will be punished by a fine equal to the care which would have been received. However, patients may not complain about appointments which run very late or are missed entirely by an over-taxed or even negligent staff member.
Payment in full must be made at time of requested care. Prices are subject to change without notice, due to fluctuations in the self-regulating market. Those who do not have adequate cash on their persons will be encouraged to request assistance from their friends and relatives also living in the center.
Any pre-existing conditions will be their own problem; the medical staff has limited time and limited resources which cannot be wasted on those whose future is uncertain.
All too complicated.
Step one: remove all assets on their name and other fronts they may have.
Step two: fine them for the losses incurred under their watch and make sure their names show up in all credit agencies.
Step three: drop them in a different state in the middle of nowhere.
Step four: make well known that they are broke, that they owe money and that every asset they use will be appropriated to pay their debt.
Step five: let the system take care of them.
:devil2: :devil2: :devil2:
The problem with Zono's idea is that these are the type of bastards who came up with the system. They are very good at manipulating systems. So, put them in a situation where there is no system, leaving them nothing to manipulate. And, randomly, kick one of them in the balls.
Extending Pachy's methods, the situation where there is no system should include a simulated fake system which is entirely unfathomnable to assist them sending themselves mad trying to crack it. Of course, all this would be syndicated on prime time TV. In fact it would be the The Finance House on it's own TV station 24/24. Voters could phone in their votes for Whose Balls to Kick Next. ?do female bankers have balls?
Oh! Oh! Oh!
: waves hand in air excitedly :
Since they *all* have money squirrelled away in off-shore accounts which would not be found by stripping their acknowledged US assets, let's put a "twist" on the Finance House ball kicking.
All members of Finance House get kicked in the balls,* once a day.
...EXCEPT...
for the Challenge/Immunity winner, who is the first person to release one *MILLION* dollars from one of his 'hidden' accounts. Then they attach a [non-functioning] frikkin laser beam to his head and he has 24 hours of immunity.
*: still working on a female equivalent :
Quote from: pieces o nine on September 24, 2008, 05:14:24 AM
: still working on a female equivalent :
I always heard that breasts are sensitive enough, would a couple of punches there work? :devil2:
To be a successful female in that world you need to have bigger balls than the men. And sharper teeth.
The problem with regular, structured ball-kicking is that is regular. I like the immunity idea, but keep the nad-bashing totally random, for the fear factor. And the first one to divest themselves of all assets, can have their love-spuds surgically removed, so that kicking wouldn't hurt so much.
What we a need is a New Magna Carta.
King John was justly humiliated and brought to book before the Barons of the land way back in 1215. We gather together all the world's errant bankers at Runnymede, show them a big scroll with a big seal on it and then kick the living shit out of them.
Still very much like the idea of battle royale. And they can win a better/bigger weapon by agreeing to release all their funds. Of course, the battle would have to last longer than 24 hours.
Quote from: Black Bart on September 24, 2008, 02:34:49 PM
What we a need is a New Magna Carta.
King John was justly humiliated and brought to book before the Barons of the land way back in 1215. We gather together all the world's errant bankers at Runnymede, show them a big scroll with a big seal on it and then kick the living shit out of them.
It should be called the Magner Carta to indicate it is bigger and better.
Quote from: Griffin NoName on September 24, 2008, 04:45:31 PM
Quote from: Black Bart on September 24, 2008, 02:34:49 PM
What we a need is a New Magna Carta.
King John was justly humiliated and brought to book before the Barons of the land way back in 1215. We gather together all the world's errant bankers at Runnymede, show them a big scroll with a big seal on it and then kick the living shit out of them.
It should be called the Magner Carta to indicate it is bigger and better.
I like where you're going, but remember that talk of scrolls an seals an such triggers a lot of knee-jerk apocalyptic thinking in the very parts of the Land of the Free Markets and the Home of the Brave Deregulations where these bankers and brokers have been permitted to hold dominion for so long.
Oh yes...they'll be getting some Knee Jerking alright!
What about:' The Magnum Carta' and everyone has to wear a huge moustache for the ceremony:
Magnum:
(http://www.tvacres.com/images/magnum_thomas7a.jpg)
Ew.
Oi prefers this type ov Magnum (http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/11/1117_giftguide_food/image/louis-xiii-cognac.jpg) Carta.