Globalisation - markets proving it doesn't work

ven0m

Deleted User wrote: »

boredom + After Hours =

NOT when you bang your head off a locker cos you fell off your chair laughing at a video of little asian traders all getting flustered & losing the plot

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

I don't normally do this, but jesus you're a berk! How about you leave out the insults - cos that's all you seem intent on doing - flaming while trying to bully your point across.

You have written a half dozen sentences that make no sense, Ive highlighted them for you in the hope you will reword them into a coherent sentence.

Ive called you on talking complete BS which you obviously dont understand

And Ive pointed out that the government and global actions you see as the cause of the current crisis are the reactions to it. you logic is completely flawed, because you dont understand what is going on at the moment

again I repeat - YOU ARE A BERK!

Congrats, your superior debating skills and informed opinion have won me over :rolleyes:

Government debts linked to crisis - how about tax payers at risk for a start? How about IF the government here HAS to enact on it's deposit guarantees, the costs totally outweigh our current national debt?

A guarantee on banks is not the reason why the banks need a guarantee. You cant seem to recognise the difference between cause and effect. Nor have you pointed out a single example of globalisation being the root cause of the current problems.

Stabshauptmann

taconnol wrote: »

Ven0m, it's clear that markets don't work because they are based on two false assumptions:
1) people will always act in a perfectly rational way
2) perfect information

Neither of these exist and so the information bias on one side allows that person to profit more. Smith's invisible hand doesn't exist.

So do you think Ireland should move more towards the continental European models?

Edit: Kaptain Redeye - yes, our definitions are quite similar. I'm not suggesting you don't understand the concept of globalisation!

Theres someone who did an into to economics...

Markets are not based on those two assumptions, economic models are. Markets are based on the law of supply and demand.

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

I dunno - does it?? :D

Cos in that case, I'd have to say I've had more hand-jobs than socio-economic dinner conversations :D:D:D:D

(and in the process nullify my own statement!)

I thought you were talking about the old self love, I think you are under utilising your girl friend

Macha

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Theres someone who did an into to economics...

Markets are not based on those two assumptions, economic models are. Markets are based on the law of supply and demand.

Kaptain Redeye, you come across as a very angry person. I don't really know what reaction you expect when you jump in guns blazing & are a bit too trigger-happy with the insults. I suggest you take up yoga or something.

I was writing quickly & forgot to add in "laissez faire" before markets. So sue me.

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

You have written a half dozen sentences that make no sense, Ive highlighted them for you in the hope you will reword them into a coherent sentence.

Ive called you on talking complete BS which you obviously dont understand

And Ive pointed out that the government and global actions you see as the cause of the current crisis are the reactions to it. you logic is completely flawed, because you dont understand what is going on at the moment




Congrats, your superior debating skills and informed opinion have won me over :rolleyes:



A guarantee on banks is not the reason why the banks need a guarantee. You cant seem to recognise the difference between cause and effect. Nor have you pointed out a single example of globalisation being the root cause of the current problems.

yawn & your continued bullying down of 'you haven't proved blah blah blah' has just made me not bothering getting into a pissing contest with someone, especially someone who likes to use phrases like 'you're talking out of your ass', which is deliberately intended to inflame, as well as use various other forms of insult to inflame. And, if you don't mind - leave my missus out of it. Insults towards me are one thing, involve my missus - whole other ball game sunshine!

Facts are there, people can go read for themselves. You proved the argument about globalisation for me (your own definition & how all the other markets spiraled in a domino style effect from the U.S. fallout), so why would I need to prove something YOU thankfully proved for me, so uh cheers

But then again, why lower myself further to your level of bullying, which I already did in my calling you a berk - something I already regret.

Earthhorse

Deleted User wrote: »

A lot of amateur economists turnin up in After Hours today!

Is there any other kind?

Stabshauptmann

ven0m wrote: »

Facts are there, people can go read for themselves.

I wish to Christ you would

You proved the argument about globalisation for me (your own definition & how all the other markets spiraled in a domino style effect from the U.S. fallout)

You still dont understand globalisation, nor half the big words you stuck into sentences beside each other that made no sense

so why would I need to prove something YOU thankfully proved for me, so uh cheers

I'm not looking for you to prove anything, I just like pointed out stupid things people say. Some of the **** you've said - priceless.

But then again, why lower myself to your level of bullying, which I already did in my calling you a berk - something I already regret.

See, this is just market forces - the invisible hand if you will. The behaviour of others (like me for example) towards you when you say stupid things should stop you from saying stupid things. :pac:

Stabshauptmann

taconnol wrote: »

Kaptain Redeye, you come across as a very angry person. I don't really know what reaction you expect when you jump in guns blazing & are a bit too trigger-happy with the insults. I suggest you take up yoga or something.

I was writing quickly & forgot to add in "laissez faire" before markets. So sue me.

In all fairness theres a big difference between the concept of a market and a particular strain of economic thought.

Posting on internet bulletin boards is my yoga, it does wonders

Didnt mean to jump down your throat

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

I wish to Christ you would


You still dont understand globalisation, nor half the big words you stuck into sentences beside each other that made no sense



I'm not looking for you to prove anything, I just like pointed out stupid things people say. Some of the **** you've said - priceless.



See, this is just market forces - the invisible hand if you will. The behaviour of others (like me for example) towards you when you say stupid things should stop you from saying stupid things. :pac:

yawn, keep going - get it all out. You're one of those know-it-all's who is never wrong, & everyone else is & likes to make sure everyone knows they're wrong, & who goes out of their way to BULLY their arguments down people's throats at any cost. I'm bored with you already, & frankly dropping a note to moderators for some of your comments in the messages, as I'm not the only one in this thread who's found your manner & postings questionable in their tone & content.

Macha

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

In all fairness theres a big difference between the concept of a market and a particular strain of economic thought.

Posting on internet bulletin boards is my yoga, it does wonders

Didnt mean to jump down your throat

Ah no worries. Actually I am a bit rusty on my economics as I'm doing a thesis on a different topic at the moment and all brain power has been channeled into that.

My solution is to line up all the Finance ministers in Europe and the US and shoot them all. We could also line up some bankers, starting with the head of Lehman Brothers:

http://capital.trendaz.com/?show=news&newsid=1312909&catid=583&subcatid=540&lang=EN

(first time I've every referenced an Azerbaijani newspaper..)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ven0m wrote: »

Yup - that's right folks. All those who said globalisation works, are now having proof spoon fed to them why it doesn't work. Globalisation works on a premise that everyone wants to get rich equally, but the idiots pushing it further & further & further are greedy & enough is never enough for them, & hence the ****storm the global markets now find themselves.

I am really & truly enjoyng watching the markets crash & burn further - bye bye globalisation!!!

Maybe once it does crash & burn, the world will have learned a valuable lesson, & then proper politics, proper economics & proper human god damned decency can prevail instead of the American-led-ideological madness we've endured for 30 years.

It should also hopefully right the wrongs of people who have profited off people's misery or exploitation by putting them in a poorhouse or jail.

Hey, I'm all for making money - but there's such a thing as not taking the piss, & they all pushed it too far & will now reap the whirlwind!

There is a sense of karma about all this, and I know it puts my job at risk probably as much as anyone else's (dunno how much 'safer' I am in Germany, if any) but yes. Watching a bucnh of greedy idiots running around like demented chickens is fun.

I wonder what Gordon Gecko thinks of it all...?

ven0m

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I wonder what Gordon Gecko thinks of it all...?

was actually thinking about that movie as I watched the videos actually, & was thinking about boiler room then after.

Stabshauptmann

taconnol wrote: »

Ah no worries. Actually I am a bit rusty on my economics as I'm doing a thesis on a different topic at the moment and all brain power has been channeled into that.

My solution is to line up all the Finance ministers in Europe and the US and shoot them all. We could also line up some bankers, starting with the head of Lehman Brothers:

http://capital.trendaz.com/?show=news&newsid=1312909&catid=583&subcatid=540&lang=EN

(first time I've every referenced an Azerbaijani newspaper..)

See I honestly dont think the governments or regulators messed up. I think the rating agencies are primarily to blame, how nobody spotted that "property prices will always go up" was a fatal logical fallacy is mind boggling.

Strange as all this might seem to the guy on the street, but there has been no fraud, no rules were broken, just some very short sighted bad business decisions

ven0m

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

See I honestly dont think the governments or regulators messed up. I think the rating agencies are primarily to blame, how nobody spotted that "property prices will always go up" was a fatal logical fallacy is mind boggling.

Strange as all this might seem to the guy on the street, but there has been no fraud, no rules were broken, just some very short sighted bad business decisions

And the FBI are investigating what - littering offenses? smoking inside a building?

Indymac collapsed & the FBI investigated for fraud & are still investigating under those circumstances. They are also investigating others relating to the meltdown:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26859850/

"looking at potential fraud by mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and insurer American International Group Inc. Additionally, a senior law enforcement official said Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. also is under investigation. Officials said the new inquiries bring to 26 the number of corporate lenders under investigation over the past year."


Regulators did fail if 26 are under FBI investigation - one or two I'd accept regulatory blame shouldn't be apportioned, but 26?

you don't break out FBI investigations on those scales for 'bad business decisions'.

Stabshauptmann

Well to be quite honest, nothing has been said in any news paper or on any news programme what exactly they've found or are looking for.

This might turn out to be an even bigger scandal than Enron, but what I would suspect they are investigating is insider trading or unrelated embezzlement - the type of **** that happens when rats start to flee a sinking ship.

I don't think, nor have I seen or heard anything yet that would lead me to think, that the cause of the current market problems is fraud.

Macha

OK, so you say that no fraud has happened, just bad business decisions.

I suppose my response would be that loose lending criteria is an example of bad business and a lack of regulation. If we look at the Irish situation, right lots of people got mortgages they shouldn't have but that's not where the real bad debts are. The really bad debts were to the developers, who were given millions and millions on projects when the banks knew that the bubble was about to burst.

Regulation is there to stop these types of bad business decisions because unfortunately, if a bank goes under, it doesn't go by itself: it takes a lot of people with it.

Would you consider the ridiculous bonuses given to bank chiefs as fraud or just bad business decisions? I would lean towards the former..

Ven0m, what type of fraud are they suggesting, or do they have any idea yet?

ven0m

They're not saying what kind of fraud - only the names of SOME of the orgnisations so far & their involvement in the banking crisis - the fact it's now a federal investigation doesn't bode well. This news was covered on ALL major outlets, as my first viewing on the FBI's investigation came from watching a BBC World news report on the TV, & again on Sky News & also from an article in the Wall Street Journal last week.

As for my earlier statements about how globalisation & the markets are linked & how it can have negative effects:

http://econ.worldbank.org/external/default/main?pagePK=64165259&piPK=64165421&theSitePK=469372&menuPK=64166093&entityID=000016406_20070329111516

For your reading pleasure one & all (took me some time to dig through my friggin browser history for this!!!). This along with the fact ALOT of the bailouts backed by governments to include in some countries caveats being put in place by the governments regarding internal policy reviews & remuneration reviews, & also the investigations starting in the U.S.A. in federal terms, I think SHOULD help people understand what I'm getting at with my initial statement.

When you've read the above, look at what's happening & read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7662846.stm

Do the maths on it all, & it makes for more than worrying times ahead, & it's not going to have a 'happy ending'.

I'm not talking out my ass, I'm someone who's done my reading, understands economics (ought to, forms a part of my business qualification!) & family in finance/investments for a long time, as well as a general interest in economics & social anthropology (I just couldn't spend my days working in Finance - it'd do my head in, plus I like to relax not have **** attacks every 10 minutes as many friends & family who do at various levels in the industry!)

Maybe the above link will better explain my argument Kaptain, seeing as maybe I wasn't as eloquent as you'd have liked.

Mikel

ven0m wrote: »

I'm not talking out my ass, I'm someone who's done my reading, understands economics (ought to, forms a part of my business qualification!) & family in finance/investments for a long time...

Oh really, then why are you posting incoherent nonsense?
You obviously don't have the first clue what is happening, and when someone called bs on your ramblings you threw your toys out of the pram.
Appealing to the fact that your family are 'in investments for a long time' just about sums it up.
You're obviously just repeating what you think you heard someone else say, and are making a pigs ear of it.

Black Swan

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Theres a lot of truth to that, but to be more accurate this whole thing started due to a government policy decision by the Clinton administration to rectify what was perceived as discrimination in the housing market.

I'm not sure how Clinton's policies intended "to rectify what was perceived as discrimination in the housing market" affected the housing markets in Ireland (or other developed countries), where the housing bubble grew and burst too? See:

The global housing boom, 16 June 2005, From The Economist print edition:

"NEVER before have real house prices risen so fast, for so long, in so many countries. Property markets have been frothing from America, Britain and Australia to France, Spain and China. Rising property prices helped to prop up the world economy after the stockmarket bubble burst in 2000. What if the housing boom now turns to bust?"

"According to estimates by The Economist, the total value of residential property in developed economies rose by more than $30 trillion over the past five years, to over $70 trillion, an increase equivalent to 100% of those countries' combined GDPs. Not only does this dwarf any previous house-price boom, it is larger than the global stockmarket bubble in the late 1990s (an increase over five years of 80% of GDP) or America's stockmarket bubble in the late 1920s (55% of GDP). In other words, it looks like the biggest bubble in history."

Peteee

mcirl2 wrote: »

It is important to know that a lot of this mess (subprime lending) started thanks to a bill introduced by the Clinton Administration in the Mid 1990s.

The Bill was called the Community Reinvestment Act and its main goal was to allow lower income families (poorer people) to buy homes. The administration felt it was unfair that poorer people couldn't own their homes.

The Administration felt it was a good idea due to the fact that historically, house prices always kept up with inflation, thus the loan was safe.

The CRA penalised (fined) lenders who wouldnt lend to people who traditionally would not qualify for a mortgage.

So, most well respected high-street banks started lending to these subprime candidates. As this went on the pool of people to lend to became worse and worse (in terms of their abilities to pay off) i.e. Low income, less educated etc.

The community reinvestment act was not introduced by Clinton, but by Jimmy Carter in the 70's, has been amended several times by different presidents (Including Clinton and Bush)

Wiki wrote:

, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time (Clinton), affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live."

....

a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He stated that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps" one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight"

Any links to show that banks were "fined" for not lending to these people? As far as I can see the Act says that it should be easier for people in marginal communities to get a mortgage, and they shouldn't be stopped from doing that due to race or where they live. It says nothing about ability to pay. or that banks should start accepting loans from people who couldn't pay.

The real failure in this is that mortage lenders and banks were no longer responsible for the mortgages that they put out, becasue they sold them off as securitisations and arcane CDS's that no-one understood.

If the banks are going to get the entire amount of the loan back immediatly by selling it off as a securitisation, then wheres the onus on them to check the ability of the person getting the loan to pay it back? Theres none because the buck is passed off to the (Often times other bank) that has bought the big packet of mortgages.

A nice easy to understand example that I saw on the web is below.

Some guy on the web wrote:

The 10% required holding amount is what I was getting at, actually. I know that it facilitates business and all but I've always found it odd that banks are allowed to leverage their capital at 10 to 1, and the FDIC stuff just seems to be an acknowledgment that 10% is a really low number to have on hand if things go south.

---

To expand upon this, the banks perform another little economic miracle that has helped this whole problem along.


Once the bank lends that $100, it now can sell the rights to that $100 debt.


So if they lent that $100 at 7% interest, they find 10 people each of whom would like to invest $10 at 6% interest. They sell each of those 10 people bonds for $10 at 6% interest, and suddenly thay've created yet another $100 out of nowhere. They're happy because they have their money back instantly to lend again while still making a profit on the original loan, and the bondholders are happy because they each have their bonds earning a nice high rate. Your $100 is now $300+.


However, what if the people who usually buy the bonds don't trust that the original person the bank lent the money to will pay it back? Well, that opens a job for yet another party to step in and perform yet another economic miracle. a totally new entity steps in and says "you might not trust that the bank's original loan is safe, but I do. I will vouch for them, and guarantee your bonds. Buy your bonds, and if the bank fails to pay them back, I will instead." This new entity then charges a small fee, say 1%, as a premium for their insurance. The bond buyers are reassured, and buy their bonds.

The original lender is happy, because he has his loan.

The bank is happy because they immediately get their money back from selling bonds so they can lend it out again.

The bondholders are happy because they are getting a good rate and have the insurer's guarantee that they'll make money.

The insurer is happy because they're getting paid for doing nothing, assuming they correctly judged the bank's initial loans to be safe.

Your $100 gets multiplied into thousands and thousands of virtual dollars worth of bonds and loans.


Unfortunately, the bank's original loan wasn't safe, the bank couldn't pay the bondholders, and the insurer had been re-investing its profits in the same worthless bonds it was supposed to be insuring for other people. No one gets paid as they all simultaneously realize that their money has been used to build a metric s**t-ton of useless goddamn houses no one wants or can even afford. Somewhere around this point the street sweepers get sent out to clean the bodies of jumpers out of the gutters on wall street.

After the dot com bubble ended in 2001 everyone jumped on houses as the next big thing (Indeed, I'd wager they were already somewhat overvalued back then) but the last 8 years have seen house prices through the roof.

Mikel

Peteee wrote: »

The real failure in this is that mortage lenders and banks were no longer responsible for the mortgages that they put out, becasue they sold them off as securitisations and arcane CDS's that no-one understood.

If the banks are going to get the entire amount of the loan back immediatly by selling it off as a securitisation, then wheres the onus on them to check the ability of the person getting the loan to pay it back? Theres none because the buck is passed off to the (Often times other bank) that has bought the big packet of mortgages.

That's it in a nutshell, securitisation and leverage are the causes

ven0m

Mikel wrote: »

Oh really, then why are you posting incoherent nonsense?
You obviously don't have the first clue what is happening, and when someone called bs on your ramblings you threw your toys out of the pram.
Appealing to the fact that your family are 'in investments for a long time' just about sums it up.
You're obviously just repeating what you think you heard someone else say, and are making a pigs ear of it.

The fact I am having difficulty explaining doesn't detract from the core of it, which is what I posted a link to eventually, which explains it far better than I did or could.

You're obviously a troll, but that'd be highlighting something far more glaring now wouldn't it - instead of adding anything constructive, but instead I've called you on YOUR BS ..... wow, ain't that something .....

Collie D

ven0m wrote: »

Yup - that's right folks. All those who said globalisation works, are now having proof spoon fed to them why it doesn't work. Globalisation works on a premise that everyone wants to get rich equally, but the idiots pushing it further & further & further are greedy & enough is never enough for them, & hence the ****storm the global markets now find themselves.

I am really & truly enjoyng watching the markets crash & burn further - bye bye globalisation!!!

Maybe once it does crash & burn, the world will have learned a valuable lesson, & then proper politics, proper economics & proper human god damned decency can prevail instead of the American-led-ideological madness we've endured for 30 years.

It should also hopefully right the wrongs of people who have profited off people's misery or exploitation by putting them in a poorhouse or jail.

Hey, I'm all for making money - but there's such a thing as not taking the piss, & they all pushed it too far & will now reap the whirlwind!

Go back to selling the Socialist Worker and cut your dreads.

ven0m

Peteee wrote: »

The community reinvestment act was not introduced by Clinton, but by Jimmy Carter in the 70's, has been amended several times by different presidents (Including Clinton and Bush)



Any links to show that banks were "fined" for not lending to these people? As far as I can see the Act says that it should be easier for people in marginal communities to get a mortgage, and they shouldn't be stopped from doing that due to race or where they live. It says nothing about ability to pay. or that banks should start accepting loans from people who couldn't pay.

The real failure in this is that mortage lenders and banks were no longer responsible for the mortgages that they put out, becasue they sold them off as securitisations and arcane CDS's that no-one understood.

If the banks are going to get the entire amount of the loan back immediatly by selling it off as a securitisation, then wheres the onus on them to check the ability of the person getting the loan to pay it back? Theres none because the buck is passed off to the (Often times other bank) that has bought the big packet of mortgages.

A nice easy to understand example that I saw on the web is below.



After the dot com bubble ended in 2001 everyone jumped on houses as the next big thing (Indeed, I'd wager they were already somewhat overvalued back then) but the last 8 years have seen house prices through the roof.

Banks checked nada cos they felt they had given themselves a comfy license to milk for as much profit as possible & no-one would ever be any the wiser.

It's a bit like boo.com, when that more or less stuck a big pin in the dot com love affair. Executive jets to go for lunch was the undoing there, where people couldn't wait to throw money at them while the guys running it basically treated it like a party at their investor's expense.

People have a hard time investing now in any ecom or dot com without it being able to reasonably show an avenue of return or profit (Daft.com, MyHome.ie, Facebook, Bebo, MySpace - all of which showed benefits to more tangible businesses that invested in them, or others who saw steady & proven revenues from advertisements, some of which were pre-paid annually in advance).

ven0m

Collie D wrote: »

Go back to selling the Socialist Worker and cut your dreads.

I don't have dreads, I don't believe in socialism - but I do believe in not taking the piss, which all of these ****heads did & now expect everyone else to cover through their taxation, which is in essence what we all will be doing; having our tax money used to cover the arses of bankers who took the piss when they should be facing inquiries and or jailtime for some of their bull****.

So you're obviously okay with your tax money NOW being used to cover people running AIB, BoI etc because they were too greedy & took the piss? Methinks if you're ok with that, you're the one who needs a dread cutting & to sell some more socialist propaganda toilet paper!

Collie D

ven0m wrote: »

I don't have dreads, I don't believe in socialism - but I do believe in not taking the piss, which all of these ****heads did & now expect everyone else to cover through their taxation, which is in essence what we all will be doing; having our tax money used to cover the arses of bankers who took the piss when they should be facing inquiries and or jailtime for some of their bull****.

Fair enough - I'm not happy about having to bail out banks either BUT that was not the original point that you made. The part that annoyed me was that you were enjoying watching the global markets crash and burn. Are you also enjoying seeing people who have worked all of their lives having their pensions wiped out/fearing that their savings willdisappear if the bank goes bust?

ven0m

Collie D wrote: »

Fair enough - I'm not happy about having to bail out banks either BUT that was not the original point that you made. The part that annoyed me was that you were enjoying watching the global markets crash and burn. Are you also enjoying seeing people who have worked all of their lives having their pensions wiped out/fearing that their savings willdisappear if the bank goes bust?

I was in a meeting THREE months ago with several pension advisors who AGGRESIVELY all tried to sell me into pension funds that were heavily dependent on the stock markets - and why? Because they got a bigger commission for people buying into THOSE plans.

These same people had no qualms about pushing these same plans onto many other people, & being probably as equally aggressive about it, & some people probably bought into it, & thankfully if it all does go tits, it'll be so early in their pensions it won't have cost them too much.

My uncle , father & aunt for years have been dismissive of pensions (even though my uncle is in fact still working for Goldman Sachs in the UK & my aunt was in Warburg Pinkus up to recent years until she left to prioritize being a full time mum to my cousins, who were turning into mini terrorists & going through nannies like I go through beer!) and all have always said 'keep cash in a deposit account', forget pensions or your state pension because they won't be worth anything to you the way things are going. And, to a degree they're right - although our Govt. did have to go as far as protecting all deposits in all major high street banks in Ireland ..... my family soooo got that one wrong! Shoulda said cash in matress LOL

Alot of people have also been keeping cash, & more than people realise which is why EBS & others in recent years had been offering these 'special investment saving schemes' etc, to try to get people to 'put money into institutions with promises of possible big money gains where they opted for share investments as part of the portfolio.

Now I realise people promising big money from shares is as old as Moses wearing sandals, but the banks have been very aggressive in how they pushed certain product sets that involved stocks & highly rewarding employees who successfully sold these, knowing full well that either way they won & to hell with those who invested.

Yes, Stocks & Shares are long term generally, as are Pensions - but property too is supposed to be long term & that was turned into short term investments where people were buying early off plans & selling a year ot two later at massive profit, & then going again.

I know several people who did this & were bragging about how much they made & kudos that they thought they were being entrepreneurial, but they are the same people right now who are hoping the government can bail them out if it goes tits, & I am furious my tax money, as well as tax money from everyone else is being used to help people like this.

If you had a business & it went tits up, the chances of the government helping you because you took the piss, mis-managed your business & treated your market like a personal plaything would be slim to nothing. And here we are, joe soap tax payer, having to take one for the team because of people like that? I don't think so ......

Time Magazine

Damn globalisation!

Damn spreading of the internet! Damn The Simpsons! Damn multiculturalism! Damn establishment of the UN! Damn EU enlaregment! Damn immigrants! Damn Intel, Microsoft and Dell being so damn greedy they employ Irish people! Damn the common European currency! Damn freer movement of people and goods! Damn J1 visas! Damn international trade alleviating poverty in China and India! Damn CdWow! Damn DealExtreme! Damn Boots! Damn fair-trade coffee! Damn Belgian truffles! Damn Cuisine de France! Damn Dr Oetker pizzas!

DAMN MOTHER-FUCKING CIABBATTAS!

jimmycrackcorm

The OP is correct - McDonalds are to blame for this. This never happened before they opened their waiterless "Restaurants" worldwide.

Wait - this is about globalization isn't it?