On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Vivec<[email protected]> wrote: > > Sam..can you explain this line to me: > "If valuing CDOs were so impossible, whey did the collapse of that market in > late 2007 precede the broader collapse of more normal securities?" > > What's the answer...why did the collapse of that market in late 2007 precede > the broader collapse of more normal securities, and what does that have to > do with valuing CDOs?
I'm seeing double. > And moving along..how about this line: > > "But securities fraud this isn't. As > McArdle<http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/07/matt_taibbi_gets_his_sarah_pal.php> > reminds > Taibbi, there was this whole Eliot Spitzer-led inquisition on Wall Street to > ensure that the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing -- so a > company can sell a product and its traders can be short it, and that's > okay." > > What's he really saying in that long sentence? Are you making fun of his Editor? > And again: > > "Taibbi brings this up in the beginning, ticking off names of famous Goldman > alums, but other than talking about their role in fighting derivatives > regulation, they don't seem to do a whole lot for the company. You'd think > he'd explore that more." > > In Taibbi's article he notes specifically how they have helped Goldman > Sachs, by funnelling money to them when necessary, since by some happy > circumstance they were all in the right place at the right time. > > The author launches into his closing statements with: > > "That being said, there are two good points that come out of this. First is > his prediction that cap-and-trade will prove to be the next bubble or at > least market for financial chicanery. Of this we have little doubt, and it's > why Goldman and GE are so eager to create this new market where none > currently exists." > > Wait...What?? Here he is saying that Goldman Sachs is actually orchestrating > a new previously undeveloped market to create the next rounds of Bubbles and > financial chicanery. > What? > > Is this guy agreeing with the fact that Goldman Sachs is corrupt and > responsible for the past bubbles, but not agreeing with Taibbi's reasoning > for saying that? > Or is he saying that Goldman Sachs is NOT corrupt and is NOT responsible. > And if it is the latter, then Sam can you explain his closing statements? He's not defending GS, he's just saying Taibbi's an asshole. > 2009/7/14 Sam <[email protected]> > >> >> Don't have to, someone else did. >> >> >> http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbis-goldman-sachs-story-is-a-joke-2009-7 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:300165 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
