StrangeSox

An article entitled "To Have Is To Owe" by economic anthropologist David Graeber grabbed my interest last year. Part of the article touched on the mythology surrounding the formation of money going back to Adam Smith and how the standard story, that money evolved from a simple spot-trade barter system, doesn't really make much sense and isn't supported in the historical records. Graeber published a book this summer entitled Debt: The First 5000 Years. In it, he explores the origins of debt and credit in human civilization and the moral underpinnings from which it sprung: He's also had a few articles and interviews on Naked Capitalism lately: What is Debt? An Interview... Lengthy interview covering many of the ideas presented in the book. David Graeber: On the Invention of Money A rebuttal to some criticism, a thorough layout of his concepts of the formation of money and an attack on the nature of blog "echo chambers"

forums user VictoryMC98 has 233 posts too many

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 01:24 PM) You may ridicule it...but that doesn't mean that a person taking home $400k a year in this economy feels wealthy. I don't care if someone who is making more than 99.99% of the world "feels" wealthy, it's still a really, really stupid thing to say and shows how divorced he is from the reality of most people. edit I don't disagree with what you're saying there, just that ignorance isn't a good excuse.

#plutocratproblems

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 12:59 PM) So he played roughly 16 games... OOOO NOOO out of 28 games... That's 16 games too many.

Social Network was a good movie with a really cheesy ending.

I know #firstworldproblems is a tag used to make light of the difficulty of some of the problems Americans face compared to third world problems eg chronic starvation problems, this tag is a good one for Fleming's statement: #plutocratproblems

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) espnchijon jon greenberg Things you find out watching NFL.com rewind, Bears burned second timeout (in second seriess) because Chris Williams' shoe was untied. they mentioned that during the broadcast.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 11:46 AM) well obviously kw is going to say that. what do u want him to say. no ozzie must play all these high priced players? its just funny how everyone acts like they know exactly whats going on. u dont know whats going on behind the scenes. Why would Kenny say one thing to the media and then force Ozzie to play these players? Why wouldn't Ozzie or his goon son say something to the media, since they haven't had a problem speaking up in the past?

I'd say that can't be serious, but I've seen similar things before. "Well after I pay my two $800/month luxury car payments, the mortgage on my $1m home, save for our $10k luxury vacation, I only have $2-3k (around what the average person brings home total) left over each month in discretionary income!"

The problem was that Martz was leaving 6 or 7 people in to block, but they just kept blowing their assignments or getting beat off the snap.

QUOTE (Melissa1334 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 11:11 AM) im sure management was making him play dunn. they know hes done so why not just release him? because the money. not becuase ozzie Management publically stated that he should play the best players regardless of contract. There's also no reason to believe management forced Ozzie to PH Dunn in critical situations or to keep batting Rios 4th.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:11 AM) NPR is streaming Wilco' new album today at 11 am central: http://www.npr.org/2011/09/13/140429798/mo...arty-with-wilco bumping for anyone who might be interested, just started. not bad overall, definitely better than the previous two albums and some songs that are already standing out to me.

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:48 AM) You do realize, I have been here for 2 weeks, and lingered around maybe 2 weeks prior to joining? I didn't go, research every thread/post when stated that comment. Yet you felt justified in saying no one ever blames KW for anything...

Hey jenks, I know you've pushed for student loan forgiveness in here before. Now you have an ally in MoveOn!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:30 AM) Talking to my boss who has been doing this for 25 years, never. ..so if they never face problems if they turn a blind eye to these trades that eventually wind up positive after enough bets, how do you get to this: QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:16 AM) Because from a regulatory standpoint, they would have been just as in trouble as if they lost billions. It still would have been front page news, and it would have created more rules because of it. Or are you saying that what this guy did never ends up profitable?

QUOTE (VictoryMC98 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:25 AM) And in the "I hate Ozzie" camp, nothing is Kenny's fault.. All the bad roster moves is somehow Kenny's. That's pretty dumb since a majority of the people here would be happy if both were gone.

Nothing can ever be Ozzie's fault, the only fair way to judge him is to give him the Yankee's roster.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:16 AM) Because from a regulatory standpoint, they would have been just as in trouble as if they lost billions. It still would have been front page news, and it would have created more rules because of it. This was "discovered" because the trader came forward. How many times have banks faced problems from similar actions that eventually wound up profitable?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:14 AM) To be clear here, I am not defending UBS here. Clearly, even if the trader was very crafty, UBS has major internal problems, and they are now paying the steep price for it. Just saying that you have entirely the wrong motivation here for them. Possibly, I'm asking questions to test the validity of the "let it happen" theory that gets tossed around whenever a story like this happens. I appreciate the both of you explaining the various ways it doesn't add up to you.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:12 AM) You can't be serious with this. Again, paranoia not connected to reality. UBS already makes money, and takes risks. If they wanted a trader to take a $2B risk, then they would have DONE THAT. No need for the illegal covers, just make the bet - if they actually thought the way you think they do (which they don't, but I am playing along). I'm phrasing these all as questions because I simply do not know how this functions and you guys do. But how do we know that "rogue" traders haven't made similar moves and netted billions in profits in the past?

I just watched Frontline's The Card Game episode this morning so I'm extra at banks today

NPR is streaming Wilco' new album today at 11 am central: http://www.npr.org/2011/09/13/140429798/mo...arty-with-wilco

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:04 AM) Very simply, you don't have to "hide" a profit. Why would you? You hide the losses long enough until you turn that profit.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 19, 2011 -> 10:03 AM) Partially. The problem is that when their first bet doesn't pay off, they make a second larger bet, that covers the first one. Then when the second one doesn't pay off, they make a third larger one. In these cases, he was showing that his losses from the first bets didn't exist, because he had already sold and "covered" those losses. Because he didn't have any negatives, he was allowed to keep going. And as long as that pays off eventually for enough traders, what incentive does UBS have to actually stopping this practice? If it goes to s***, they'll just throw the trader under the bus. This is assuming that this sort of gambling pays off more often than not, which may not be the case. Lets say this guy had accumulated $2B in losses but hit it big in his next trade, resulting in a net gain for the bank. Where's the downside for UBS?