NationStates Jolt Archive

If an Australian government MP is too believed.


I believe what is happening today is as much to do with God in economics bringing judgment."

Mr Bidgood also warned the world was in the end times.

"I believe that there is God's justice in action in what's going on here and we haven't seen the end of it," he said.

"The ultimate conclusion is like I say we look at Bible prophesy we're going towards a one-world bank and a one-world monetary system and if you believe the word of God and you read Revelations ... you will see clearly what's being spelt out and we are in the end times."

How come these idiots have more power than ME?

And people elected that guy.

And people elected that guy.

Well a lot of people voted for the ALP (which is a left wing party fyi) because they had these strange notions.

Though as much as I would love to rip into the ALP I dare say considering this man's previous actions it was more the fault of those that voted him to be preselected rather than with the ALP as a whole. Though they do have their troublemakers.

Hmmm...
HMMMMMM...
"I can't come up with a good explanation for the financial crisis...
God did it, IT IS THE END TIMES NOW."
I don't believe in the word of God and I haven't read Revelations; I say that bad economics doesn't equal "the end times".

How come these idiots have more power than ME?

I keep wondering that about most politicians, then I realize that I am too smart and (here's the kicker) too damn honest to ever be elected to office.

Remember: If you call an idiot, an idiot, Chances are they won't vote for you.

I keep wondering that about most politicians

You also wonder how come most politicians have more power than me? I know, right?

It's as good an explanation as any. It doesn't appear that most of the world's CEOs, major investors, or economists knew anything was going to happen beforehand (and those few who did can probably be counted on one hand).

Economics is as "voodoo" as religion.

Economics is as "voodoo" as religion.

http://www.uni-bonn.de/~sgeorgan/voodoo_economists.jpg

According to someone somewhere, anything is God's judgement. I'm willing to bet someone would say my toast burning this morning was God's judgement.

According to someone somewhere, anything is God's judgement. I'm willing to bet someone would say my toast burning this morning was God's judgement.

Your toast burned?

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

If an Australian government MP is too believed.

And I thought my president had problems...:eek2:

According to someone somewhere, anything is God's judgement. I'm willing to bet someone would say my toast burning this morning was God's judgement.
oh fuck

havent you read the book of revelations...


WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

It's as good an explanation as any. It doesn't appear that most of the world's CEOs, major investors, or economists knew anything was going to happen beforehand (and those few who did can probably be counted on one hand).


Bullshit. Loads of economists, fuck whole schools of economists were predicting it. Even some politicians were trying to push for a ban on sub prime loaning as early as 1994. It's hardly rocket science, if you've got banks giving out totally non-viable loans, it's going to eventually cause the banks misfortune,
which, especially considering how interlocked and concentrated the banks are, is not going to be good for the international economy.

Your toast burned?

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

If course we will. Eventually. :P

I believe what is happening today is as much to do with God in economics bringing judgment."

For electing GWB twice?

Bullshit. Loads of economists, fuck whole schools of economists were predicting it. Even some politicians were trying to push for a ban on sub prime loaning as early as 1994. It's hardly rocket science, if you've got banks giving out totally non-viable loans, it's going to eventually cause the banks misfortune,
which, especially considering how interlocked and concentrated the banks are, is not going to be good for the international economy.

And who told them to give out non-viable loans? Who threatened the banks with lawsuits and protests if they didn't give out the non-viable loans?

It's as good an explanation as any. It doesn't appear that most of the world's CEOs, major investors, or economists knew anything was going to happen beforehand (and those few who did can probably be counted on one hand).

Economics is as "voodoo" as religion.

I guess if you consider statistics and the like voodoo, as well, then that's a fair comparison. Also, as has been said, this was predicted by many people, many times, with varying degrees of power and credibility.

I guess if you consider statistics and the like voodoo, as well, then that's a fair comparison. Also, as has been said, this was predicted by many people, many times, with varying degrees of power and credibility.

If economics had any cred, then people would have listened, and all of this would have been averted.

And who told them to give out non-viable loans? Who threatened the banks with lawsuits and protests if they didn't give out the non-viable loans?

Politicians. Politicians are not economists, politicians rarely listen to economists.

I will admit that the administration of the fed was retarded, especially Greenspan (although it's very easy to say with hindsight).

If economics had any cred, then people would have listened, and all of this would have been averted.

Oh, please, like credibility has been the main obstacle to people listening to experts and well-backed science. It's a matter of how you sell it, at least in our society (and, really, in any society). The irony is that usually the best economists are some of the worst salesmen.

I will admit that the administration of the fed was retarded, especially Greenspan.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, not only told, but forced banks to give out bad loans.

Banks were threatened with 700 million dollar lawsuits by ACORN if they didn't give out the bad loans.

What does Greenspan have to do with that?

The banks tried to ameliorate the risk by repackaging and selling off the bad loans, doing credit-swaps, etc. The SEC should have had a say in that, but that would be admitting (by the government) that the policy of handing out bad loans under government pressure was a fuck-all idea.

oh fuck

havent you read the book of revelations...


WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

I don't need to read any book to know that we are all going to die.

oh fuck

havent you read the book of revelations...


WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

I plan to live forever. So far so good

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, under the authority of the Community Reinvestment Act, not only told, but forced banks to give out bad loans.


Proof? They were forced to not engage in discriminatory credit practices, whether they were too unrealistic and helped push for too much sub prime loaning is the subject of much debate.


Banks were threatened with 700 million dollar lawsuits by ACORN if they didn't give out the bad loans.


Same as above. Regardless, they are NOT economists, they are a political group with a political agenda.


What does Greenspan have to do with that?


That's another thread tbh.


The banks tried to ameliorate the risk by repackaging and selling off the bad loans, doing credit-swaps, etc. The SEC should have had a say in that, but that would be admitting (by the government) that the policy of handing out bad loans under government pressure was a fuck-all idea.

What's your point? The government is stupid, not shit Sherlock. Part of the reason why the SEC had less leverage could be blamed on Greenspan, but again that's another thread.

I plan to live forever. So far so good
do you have an odd birthmark on the back of your head that looks like 666 in a certain light?

Proof? They were forced to not engage in discriminatory credit practices, whether they were too unrealistic and helped push for too much sub prime loaning is the subject of much debate.



Same as above. Regardless, they are NOT economists, they are a political group with a political agenda.



That's another thread tbh.



What's your point? The government is stupid, not shit Sherlock. Part of the reason why the SEC had less leverage could be blamed on Greenspan, but again that's another thread.

There's plenty of proof out there for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/ACORN thing.

If you don't write bad loans, if you actually verify employment and income, if you look at credit scores - you're by default engaged in discriminatory practices.

There's plenty of proof out there for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/ACORN thing.

If you don't write bad loans, if you actually verify employment and income, if you look at credit scores - you're by default engaged in discriminatory practices.

What does that have to do, at all, with economics being "voodoo?"

There's plenty of proof out there for the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/ACORN thing.


Let's see it then, from a reliable source.

Let's see it then, from a reliable source.

We can start here, at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_National_Mortgage_Association#Early_warnings

In 1999, The New York Times reported that with the corporation's move towards the subprime market "Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."[11] Alex Berenson of The New York Times reported in 2003 that Fannie Mae's risk is much larger than is commonly held.[12] Nassim Taleb wrote in The Black Swan: "The government-sponsored institution Fannie Mae, when I look at its risks, seems to be sitting on a barrel of dynamite, vulnerable to the slightest hiccup. But not to worry: their large staff of scientists deem these events "unlikely".[13]

In 2003, the Bush administration recommended significant regulatory overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. However, the Democrats opposed that proposal, fearing that tighter regulation could sharply reduce financing for low-income housing, both low and high risk. Under immense lobbying pressure from Fannie Mae in association with Congressional Democrats led by Rep. Barney Franks, Congress did not introduce any legislation aimed at bringing this proposal into law until 2005. [14]

In 2006, Senator McCain joined as a co-sponsor to the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 (first put forward by Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE])[15] where he pointed out that Fannie Mae's regulator reported that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management".[16] However, this legislation too met with opposition from both Democrats and Republicans. This bill was passed by the House, but was never presented to the Senate for a vote. [17]

That gives you some idea of what the Democrats thought about sensible loan procedures - they thought it would keep low income people from getting loans. Loans to low income people were a political necessity for them.

Liberals?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109770752803244715.html?mod=Review-Outlook-US

Pulling an Enron?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109684359646434797.html?mod=Review-Outlook-US

When Republicans tried in 2003 to pull the plug on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Democrats responded with cries of "racism".

Republicans saw it coming:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/bg1861.cfm


Democrats refused to see it:

'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

There's a screaming match with Barney Frank on YouTube.

Is using a credit score discriminatory?

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/KnowYourRights/IsYourInsurerDiscriminatingAgainstYou.aspx

That's why blacks and other poor people were steered to subprime loans - their credit scores were worse on average, and so in a subprime loan, they were not asked to verify employment, income, or credit score - thus avoiding "discrimination".

Unsound practice? Not by Fannie Mae standards.

An example of an ACORN lawsuit:

Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2086850/posts

More from the NYT on lending to people who shouldn't get a loan

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

It's as good an explanation as any. It doesn't appear that most of the world's CEOs, major investors, or economists knew anything was going to happen beforehand (and those few who did can probably be counted on one hand).

Economics is as "voodoo" as religion.

There's a big difference between not seeing something coming and the suggestion from this MP that we don't know what caused it. We can assign the various reasons for the economic crisis to various factors that we now recognise - we have no need to claim that some omnipotent being was behind it all.

Gods were always used to explain things we do not understand. The early caveman was confused by the rain, the stars, the sun, the trees and the bees, this MP is confused by the economics.

While the current economy isn't understandable by anyone (even the banks don't understand their own too sophisticated financial products anymore), it is certainly not an act of some god.

If it was, I could recommend suing him.

-snip-

Whatever, you've turned this into a democrats vs republicans debate. I couldn't care less about stuff like that, but thanks for proving my point that the crisis WAS predicted by many.

Im so glad my country isnt the only country with these idioits.

Sorry to get a good feeling ut of your pain Aussies.

Why do people like him call the Book of Revelation, "Revelations?" That always pisses me off.

And really, I've read Revelation, and I didn't see anything in it about world banks or world currencies. It's one thing when nutjobs go on thumping holy texts for their insane purposes, it's another when they make citations and references that don't actually fucking exist. The first is just loony, the second is kind of like reverse plagiarism.

Why do people like him call the Book of Revelation, "Revelations?" That always pisses me off.

And really, I've read Revelation, and I didn't see anything in it about world banks or world currencies. It's one thing when nutjobs go on thumping holy texts for their insane purposes, it's another when they make citations and references that don't actually fucking exist. The first is just loony, the second is kind of like reverse plagiarism.

Because the bible is allegorical when it serves one's personal whims, and literal at other times for the same reason. Obviously you are not a biblical scholar, nub.

I must say, if the end of time is a stock market crash I'm a bit disappointed... Kind of anticlimactic.

Maybe it is a judgment from God! Maybe its judgment for all the Christofacist hypocrites in power who are greedy. They steal from the poor and keep for themselves. Maybe God is destroying the market because of the exploitation of so many people? Maybe Its being destroyed for the pride and materialism it brings? After all, the gospel message has a great deal to do with helping the poor, disenfranchised, and needy. So, if something is going against that message, does not God have the right to judge it and destroy it?

And I thought my president had problems...:eek2:

The electorate of Ryan is normally responsible for this crap. Poor, "mortgage belt", evangelicals, and Australia's largest mega-Churches, complete with Christian politicians on the pulpit so you can "put the religion back in politics"

How come these idiots have more power than ME?

I ask myself that on a daily basis....

If an Australian government MP is too believed.

well that's one way of looking at it. i prefer to believe we live in a more mechanical and statistical universe, a very big and diverse universe, and god has better things to do with its time.

but the inheirent lack of social responsibility of unregulated market only capitolism, can't possibly please the god of any religeon i've ever studied, and i have, on their own terms, studied several. (not just sects of christianity either)

Gods were always used to explain things we do not understand. The early caveman was confused by the rain, the stars, the sun, the trees and the bees, this MP is confused by the economics.

While the current economy isn't understandable by anyone (even the banks don't understand their own too sophisticated financial products anymore), it is certainly not an act of some god.

If it was, I could recommend suing him.

And if he did show up for court? :rolleyes:

And if he did show up for court? :rolleyes:
that would at least be interesting. believe it when i see though. not his/her/its 'style'.

but yes the other part, about flim flams getting so complex the flim flamers themselves loose track of their own loose ends, well that's allways the built in perrill of doing so. which is what all that 'leverage' on 'leverage' amounts to, so ofcourse it could have been seen, and was by many, a looong way ahead.

the many who WEREN'T listened to because a greater many were too emotionally attatched to believing what they were familiar with, wanting to believe, about things that 'could never happen' (as i seem to recall quite a bit of on here not all that many years ago!)

so yes, its about the excess marketting of irresponsible use of credit, not the judgement of some big daddy in the sky.

but again, all those spin doctors of belief and idiology, what tried to portray belief as supporting the kind of makiavellian lesse faire social irresponsibility in support of 'market' economics, really were unfamiliar with, or misrepresenting, the very teachings of the very beliefs they were claiming to be supported by, so that's where i see as being a point about all that.

not that any sort of god passed such a judgement from on high, but rather simply that none (or the one) could not possibly have been pleased by such shinannigans in the 'financial serivices industry', in the unlikely event it had cared, other then in the context of the future we've been screwing up for ourselves, screwing up the gifts, if you want to look at it that way, it had given us, especially in the form of the web of life and environment that makes our own existence possible.

How come these idiots have more power than ME?


Oh, for several reasons.

Because they are born in a 'better' family is the most important reason.

If your dad was a CEO of some giant company, odds are low that you'll end as a homeless one.
If your dad was a homeless guy, odds are again low that you'll end as the CEO of some giant company.

Education helps as well. But not all educated people become rich, and not all uneducated people stay poor. But there's certainly a correlation between education and welfare.

Relations do help as well. But this is again correlated with 'better family' and education.

Luck. But don't put your stakes on this one. Sure, some people managed to rise from zero to hero. In movies it happens all the time, in reality it is very rare.

What about hard working? Wahahahaha. No this one is not helping a lot.

I know a guy, same age as me. His father started up a company 40 years ago with almost nothing, in 2001 he sold it for 1 billion euro. His son isn't smart or goodlooking at all, but due his father money, relations, know-how etc. the son owns about 30 companies.

The son attended Eton (considered as one of the best schools in UK), met his wife (she is the daughter of a very rich Norwegian entrepreneur) at school and build up relationships with all kind of rich and famous people.

Honestly, he is a clear asshole.

Most CEO's of the big companies followed a similar path.

No, I'm not rich, didn't follow Eton and my dad isn't the CEO of something big.

If I know anything about gods (and I certainly do) the best way to appease him is with a 100 virgin sacrifices. We line up some virgins, chuck 'em into which ever volcano is the most scenic, and dance around completely naked until dawn. It'll work; I just know it will!

And if he did show up for court? :rolleyes:

Put a warrant out for his arrest?



Of course, if God is omnipresent then he's already in court.

Oh, for several reasons.

Because they are born in a 'better' family is the most important reason.

If your dad was a CEO of some giant company, odds are low that you'll end as a homeless one.
If your dad was a homeless guy, odds are again low that you'll end as the CEO of some giant company.

Education helps as well. But not all educated people become rich, and not all uneducated people stay poor. But there's certainly a correlation between education and welfare.

Relations do help as well. But this is again correlated with 'better family' and education.

Luck. But don't put your stakes on this one. Sure, some people managed to rise from zero to hero. In movies it happens all the time, in reality it is very rare.

What about hard working? Wahahahaha. No this one is not helping a lot.

I know a guy, same age as me. His father started up a company 40 years ago with almost nothing, in 2001 he sold it for 1 billion euro. His son isn't smart or goodlooking at all, but due his father money, relations, know-how etc. the son owns about 30 companies.

The son attended Eton (considered as one of the best schools in UK), met his wife (she is the daughter of a very rich Norwegian entrepreneur) at school and build up relationships with all kind of rich and famous people.

Honestly, he is a clear asshole.

Most CEO's of the big companies followed a similar path.

No, I'm not rich, didn't follow Eton and my dad isn't the CEO of something big.

and that's the news from lake woebegone! telling it exactly how it is. (except i don't know that guy you mentioned so i can't judge that one (i'll take your word for it though), but otherwise it all correlates with my own observations.)

and that's the news from lake woebegone! telling it exactly how it is. (except i don't know that guy you mentioned so i can't judge that one (i'll take your word for it though), but otherwise it all correlates with my own observations.)

I'll tell you more. Those people don't like it that 'low' (which is everyone, except them) class people play on their field.

Ten years ago, I went to a really expensive management school, the best of the country. Most of the people in that school were children of the CEO, CFO and other high level executives.
I was clearly not and many (but not all) of them never talked with me, they didn't hide that they didn't like me just because they were raised in a privileged environment.

All those guys came to school in a Porsche, Mercedes, BMW or another expensive vehicle. I had a 10 year old BMW at that time. So I was finished before I entered the school. :)

One guy said to me: “I like it when people are uprising themselves on the social ladder”. But when I turned my back he said to the others: “Nice person, but not like us”

The financial crisis is God's judgement?

Whoa... He's just not trying any more...

i've alwasy found money, and people who are all about money, as boring to me, as i must certainly be to them.

i'll bet more of them turn to drink, or other forms of stupidity when it finally sinks in to them, in their individual lives, that all their showing off isn't buying them the gratification they grew up taking for granted expecting it to. that would be my guess.

then all the long haired artist types, (and brainiac scientist types and engineers and tecnicians too) who may never get anywhere by money peoples measure of such things, or at least in their own life times, but wring a hell of a lot more gratification and enjoyment out of their lives.

so i have to laugh and turn up my own nose at the money types. its the engineers and artists who are the real backbone of any society, and the money types, who for the most part, are the real leaches.

i've alwasy found money, and people who are all about money, as boring to me, as i must certainly be to them.

i'll bet more of them turn to drink, or other forms of stupidity when it finally sinks in to them, in their individual lives, that all their showing off isn't buying them the gratification they grew up taking for granted expecting it to. that would be my guess.

then all the long haired artist types, (and brainiac scientist types and engineers and tecnicians too) who may never get anywhere by money peoples measure of such things, or at least in their own life times, but wring a hell of a lot more gratification and enjoyment out of their lives.

so i have to laugh and turn up my own nose at the money types. its the engineers and artists who are the real backbone of any society, and the money types, who for the most part, are the real leaches.


They are living in another world. The guy with his 30 companies I mentioned above went some day to one of his companies. He parked his Porsche 996 in front of the office and entered the building to say that everyone will have to accept a salary cut. None of them accept it and they were really mad.

Later he told me what he did and asked me why they reacted so badly at something which was really necessary. He really didn't understand that (partly) parking his Porsche in front wasn't doing any good.

Another story of the same guy. When his sister reached the age of 16 she received an BMW X5 (costing around 50,000€) from her dad. She was mad, she wanted some BMW 3 series convertible. One week later that car was delivered.

Most people don't understand this behavior. Most of us can't give a car at our children when they are 16 and when we do, we'll give in most cases a second hand car or a cheap new one. Our children would be happy to get some wheels, any wheels.

That guy lived in a 7 bedroom villa. A very nice and big house. Still he ordered a new house next to it, containing 11 bedrooms, twice the size of his previous castle. That guy is having one wife and one kid. There's no need for, it's waste of money but hey...

Im so glad my country isnt the only country with these idioits.

Sorry to get a good feeling ut of your pain Aussies.

I've been saying this party is full of idoits for years. And fyi this party is the left wing party of Australia.

They are living in another world. The guy with his 30 companies I mentioned above went some day to one of his companies. He parked his Porsche 996 in front of the office and entered the building to say that everyone will have to accept a salary cut. None of them accept it and they were really mad.

Later he told me what he did and asked me why they reacted so badly at something which was really necessary. He really didn't understand that (partly) parking his Porsche in front wasn't doing any good.

Another story of the same guy. When his sister reached the age of 16 she received an BMW X5 (costing around 50,000€) from her dad. She was mad, she wanted some BMW 3 series convertible. One week later that car was delivered.

Most people don't understand this behavior. Most of us can't give a car at our children when they are 16 and when we do, we'll give in most cases a second hand car or a cheap new one. Our children would be happy to get some wheels, any wheels.

That guy lived in a 7 bedroom villa. A very nice and big house. Still he ordered a new house next to it, containing 11 bedrooms, twice the size of his previous castle. That guy is having one wife and one kid. There's no need for, it's waste of money but hey...

obviously he never heard of "the dynamic force of example" or even "the structure and dynamise of organizations and groups".

i'm guessing he must have middle managers of some kind who actually have some idea how reality actually works. i'm just amazed with that kind of ignorance he can even keep any of those companies afloat.

i wonder if he even understands that the market economics he seems to love, or think he does, requires that bussiness be alowed also to fail?

sounds like the kind who'll be first to jump out of tenth floor windows when they do.

my father's father was one of those. on a much smaller scale. was running a bowling alley in the 1930s when the depression hit. had a big heart attack and that was the end of him.

my father never let me, or any of his side of the family meet each other. one of them is still teaching that kind of economics in the university system somewhere in new york.

not all of them of my generation turned out that way though. one became an oceanographer at woods hole and another turned to writing.

obviously he never heard of "the dynamic force of example" or even "the structure and dynamise of organizations and groups".

i'm guessing he must have middle managers of some kind who actually have some idea how reality actually works. i'm just amazed with that kind of ignorance he can even keep any of those companies afloat.

i wonder if he even understands that the market economics he seems to love, or think he does, requires that bussiness be alowed also to fail?

sounds like the kind who'll be first to jump out of tenth floor windows when they do.

my father's father was one of those. on a much smaller scale. was running a bowling alley in the 1930s when the depression hit. had a big heart attack and that was the end of him.

my father never let me, or any of his side of the family meet each other. one of them is still teaching that kind of economics in the university system somewhere in new york.

not all of them of my generation turned out that way though. one became an oceanographer at woods hole and another turned to writing.


No, he's doing well. He has several 'tricks'. He started most of his companies with a 'low' budget. When they fail, not that much money is wasted.

Some of his companies are doing really well, they are funding the rest.

Money can buy money. He can hire excellent people, running the business for him. He has to divide his attention over 30 companies and can't be the real supervisor of one single company.

He's an asshole, not due his personality, but due his background. He's living in another lane and is not capable of jumping to other lanes.

I don’t know how his companies are doing recently, we lost each other for some years now. Maybe with this worldwide financial catastrophe that he’ll not make it. But don’t expect he’ll be poor, he’ll never be. He has houses and money in Barbados, so when everything would collapse here, he’ll go on an early retirement. This is something all those guys are doing.