Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:You shouldn't assume that the US systems of jurisprudence are typical of those practiced in other western democracies.

You're right, other western democracies are worse.

bob: Why don't you tell me specifically what you think financial institutions did wrong in the absence of fraud.

They created a mortgage and insurance bubble precipitating a crisis that nearly destroyed the US and other economies, and which still hasn't been fixed, but which has cost the ordinary citizens billions of dollars to prop up the system. Market failure on a gargantuan global scale.

mickthinks wrote:bob: Why don't you tell me specifically what you think financial institutions did wrong in the absence of fraud.

They created a mortgage and insurance bubble precipitating a crisis that nearly destroyed the US and other economies, and which still hasn't been fixed, but which has cost the ordinary citizens billions of dollars to prop up the system. Market failure on a gargantuan global scale.

What do you mean "an insurance bubble." What the fuck are you talking about? Spell it out in detail, pal!

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: So what do you classify as cold? What is the highest daytime and lowest night time temps????

Where I live typical mid- winter nighttime temps would range between -2 and +3 and daytime between +5 and +10. However there are many colder places. This is quite typical of inland southern Australia but the coastal climate is far more benign and that's where most people live.

IS that as bad as it gets? It's colder than I expected, but not that cold really.

mickthinks wrote:bob: Why don't you tell me specifically what you think financial institutions did wrong in the absence of fraud.

They created a mortgage and insurance bubble precipitating a crisis that nearly destroyed the US and other economies, and which still hasn't been fixed, but which has cost the ordinary citizens billions of dollars to prop up the system. Market failure on a gargantuan global scale.

Why are you asking Bob that, he's clueless.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

mickthinks wrote:bob: Why don't you tell me specifically what you think financial institutions did wrong in the absence of fraud.

They created a mortgage and insurance bubble precipitating a crisis that nearly destroyed the US and other economies, and which still hasn't been fixed, but which has cost the ordinary citizens billions of dollars to prop up the system. Market failure on a gargantuan global scale.

Why are you asking Bob that, he's clueless.

The only bubbles you're familiar with are the ones that come out of your ass in the bathtub.

bob: Why don't you tell me specifically what you think financial institutions did wrong in the absence of fraud.
mick: They created a mortgage and insurance bubble precipitating a crisis that nearly destroyed the US and other economies, and which still hasn't been fixed, but which has cost the ordinary citizens billions of dollars to prop up the system. Market failure on a gargantuan global scale.
bob: What do you mean "an insurance bubble."

Your questions are increasingly revealing your ignorance of basic economics, Bob.

I mean a surge in the credit default swaps market caused by speculation, resulting in paper fortunes that evaporate when reality catches up.

As in http://www.businessinsider.com/bubble-d ... 010-5?IR=T

mickthinks wrote:I mean a surge in the credit default swaps market caused by speculation, resulting in paper fortunes that evaporate when reality catches up.

In other words the entire global financial system is nothing more than a gigantic Ponzi scheme. ( If you don't know what that is Bob, then you must look it up.) The GFC was the first collapse of the scheme but the next one will be far worse.

Obvious Leo wrote:

mickthinks wrote:I mean a surge in the credit default swaps market caused by speculation, resulting in paper fortunes that evaporate when reality catches up.

In other words the entire global financial system is nothing more than a gigantic Ponzi scheme. ( If you don't know what that is Bob, then you must look it up.) The GFC was the first collapse of the scheme but the next one will be far worse.

Stick your so-called Ponzi scheme up your ass. Please tell me specifically what the hell you think banks did wrong in the absence of fraud.

It wasn't me who claimed that the banks did not behave fraudulently, Bob, so you're directing your question at the wrong person. What they did and continue to do is fraudulent on any measure because making money out of making money is what defines a Ponzi scheme. Such schemes ALWAYS end in tears and the poor buggers at the bottom of the financial heap ALWAYS finish up picking up the tab.

Obvious Leo wrote:It wasn't me who claimed that the banks did not behave fraudulently, Bob, so you're directing your question at the wrong person. What they did and continue to do is fraudulent on any measure because making money out of making money is what defines a Ponzi scheme. Such schemes ALWAYS end in tears and the poor buggers at the bottom of the financial heap ALWAYS finish up picking up the tab.

You obviously don't know what a Ponzi scheme is. For instance, it offers people very high interest rates on an investment, but pays the interest from the money of new investors who hear about the program. No investments are ever actually made, and eventually most of the people lose all their so-called investment. This is fraud. What banks are doing is not fraud.

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:It wasn't me who claimed that the banks did not behave fraudulently, Bob, so you're directing your question at the wrong person. What they did and continue to do is fraudulent on any measure because making money out of making money is what defines a Ponzi scheme. Such schemes ALWAYS end in tears and the poor buggers at the bottom of the financial heap ALWAYS finish up picking up the tab.

You obviously don't know what a Ponzi scheme is. For instance, it offers people very high interest rates on an investment, but pays the interest from the money of new investors who hear about the program. No investments are ever actually made, and eventually most of the people lose all their so-called investment. This is fraud. What banks are doing is not fraud.

I think I won't bother discussing the finer points of the financial world with you, Bob.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:It wasn't me who claimed that the banks did not behave fraudulently, Bob, so you're directing your question at the wrong person. What they did and continue to do is fraudulent on any measure because making money out of making money is what defines a Ponzi scheme. Such schemes ALWAYS end in tears and the poor buggers at the bottom of the financial heap ALWAYS finish up picking up the tab.

You obviously don't know what a Ponzi scheme is. For instance, it offers people very high interest rates on an investment, but pays the interest from the money of new investors who hear about the program. No investments are ever actually made, and eventually most of the people lose all their so-called investment. This is fraud. What banks are doing is not fraud.

I think I won't bother discussing the finer points of the financial world with you, Bob.

How could you possibly discuss something you know nothing about?

bob: Now, in the absence of fraud, what is it exactly that you've got against financial institutions, huh?

Bob, you are trying to change the subject, which was whether you believe that nothing went wrong with the free investment banking market in the lead up to the global financial crisis, and indeed, whether you deny that there was a global financial crisis.

And the problem you gloss over with that "caveat emptor" doctrine (apart from it being inconsistent with your professed attitude to fraud) is that it ignores the creditors of the failed banks, which includes everyone who has money saved in a bank, life insurance or pension fund.