The RNC has apparently reached an internal compromise on how much to call us socialists. Instead of “rebranding” us, they are going to claim we wish to pursue “socialist ideals.” The original resolution was sponsored by Washington state RNC member Jeff Kent.
The GOP’s willful ignorance and inability to distinguish between regulated capitalism and socialism must really make them proud. Let’s see if we can give a simple example in hopes they can finally understand the difference, with the caveat that there are all sorts of variations and degrees of capitalism and socialism. As many others have pointed out, most systems contain elements of each. But you have to write slowly for conservatives.
Let’s say you buy a clock. You have a reasonable expectation that the clock will work, but you generally get what you pay for. Caveat emptor and all that.
The free market has provided you with nearly limitless options for time pieces, so you generally don’t want the government making clocks or telling companies how many clocks to make each year. As long as the clock doesn’t catch on fire when you plug it in, and is otherwise safe, society has little justification to intensely regulate the production of ordinary consumer items.
Now let’s say you also wish to purchase electricity to run your new clock. You may live in an area with a public utility, or maybe it’s a private one, but you have a reasonable expectation of reasonably priced, reliable power.
Now let’s say the free market for electricity is being distorted by a corporation engaging in monopolistic and criminal practices. Let’s call the electric utility company “Enron.” Now imagine their traders are deliberately causing brownouts and blackouts in your area, so when the power is off your new clock doesn’t work. You don’t really have to imagine this, because it really happened under Republican rule, and the GOP response was basically to applaud it.
Is it “socialism” to regulate key industries to prevent monopolistic practices, and all industries for basic consumer safety? And please, when conservatives get all up in arms about the government taking over failed companies, they act like it was some long-term deal instead of what it actually is, a desperate attempt to clean up the gigantic economic mess created during Republican rule.
Now suppose you wanted to buy a mortgage, or some stock mutual funds for retirement…I think you get the point, if you’ve made it this far.
Democrats don’t want socialism, we want to prevent the criminal greed-heads from ripping everyone off and causing economic meltdowns. Because for people who claim to be such hard-headed realists about human nature, conservatives often seem to overlook the fact that some percentage of people will always be criminal greed-heads who would sell their own mothers to make a lousy buck. If you want a perfect free market, contemporary examples include Somalia and the trade in illegal opiates, both of which are completely unregulated in any meaningful sense.
This makes Democrats the party of law and order, and no matter how many silly little resolutions the RNC passes, everyone knows they’re the party of the criminal greed-heads who broke the economy.
It’s gonna be pretty hard to re-brand that. Neener neener neener.
“Democrats don’t want socialism, we want to prevent the criminal greed-heads from ripping everyone off…”
I suggest you start with President Obama and his actions regarding the Chrysler bankruptcy. The senior bond holders should have been further up the chain from the UAW, but the Government arbitrarily gave the unions a much larger share than they should have been entitled to.
Democrats love giving away other people’s money, but eventually it runs out. (See: California’s current mess)
Long post made short:
“My party is running the country from top to bottom, but I’m going to spend my life ranting about the party that isn’t in power because I’m an unhappy person.”
– John
@ 1
The senior bond holders should have been further up the chain from the UAW, but the Government arbitrarily gave the unions a much larger share than they should have been entitled to.
What’s the economic argument for saying that “senior bond holders” should take precedence over labor? Bond holders stand to lose their original investment. Labor stand to lose their primary income stream.
If you don’t have an economic argument for the precedence, then the entire choice is arbitrary, not just the choice that the Obama Administration made.
The point is that the .gov broke the law in not allowing the secured debt holders the priority they were entitled via contract.
The economic argument is that when governments step in and usurp the law to break contracts, it raises risk for investors. Who is going to be willing to invest or lend in an economy where the government could potentially break contracts for the benefit of certain groups? Answer: fewer than in an economy where governments and judges uphold financial contracts.
@ 4
The point is that the .gov broke the law in not allowing the secured debt holders the priority they were entitled via contract.
Sorry, but your premise is factually wrong. The government was negotiating a compromise that would avoid having to go through bankruptcy. At no point did the government take bankruptcy off the table. Therefore, any argument you want to make about the legal precedence that would obtain under bankruptcy laws is completely bogus.
But, thank you for playing.
It doesn’t appear you know the details of the Chrysler “deal”.
By law, the secured bond holders (which could be pension funds or part of your 401k), get first priority on any assets leftover from a bankruptcy.
Instead, the UAW is getting 5x the assets as the secured bond holders and potentially controlling interest in the company.
It appears that not all of the bond-holders are going to roll over for Obama, though. A teachers retirement fund and a police pension are fighting for their first lenders rights in court.
@ 6
It doesn’t appear you know the details of the Chrysler “deal”.
No. It does, however, appear that you don’t grok the difference between a negotiated deal where the objective is to avoid bankruptcy vs letting the process wend its way out through the bankruptcy process.
Technically, you are correct. But you could also substitute “negotiate” with “coerce”.
Every senior debt holder who took TARP money, agreed to the .gov’s “deal”. Coincidence?
The majority of the senior debt holders that did not take TARP money are against the governments proposal.
Time will tell – this is supposed to be resolved by May 27th.
The senior bond-holders would get more in a bankruptcy. Why should they agree to the proposal?
Hedge fund manager says he may avoid lending to any more unionized companies after being burned by President Barack Obama in Chrysler LLC’s bankruptcy.
Without capital formation and investment, our markets and eventually our business environment will wither and die.
“This makes Democrats the party of law and order, and no matter how many silly little resolutions the RNC passes, everyone knows they’re the party of the criminal greed-heads who broke the economy.”
This concise (and extremely accurate) statement contains all the information that any voter needs to know about contemporary American politics.
@1 “The senior bond holders should have been further up the chain from the UAW”
I disagree. Workers should be first in line to get paid. They should get paid before the executives do, and they certainly should get paid before the creditors and investors do. In fact, not paying workers the wages they’ve earned for work they’ve performed should be a crimnal offense punishable by jail time.
@ 8
Technically, you are correct. But you could also substitute “negotiate” with “coerce”.
No. Factually I am correct, which, frankly, is all that matters.
@ 9
The senior bond-holders would get more in a bankruptcy.
Not necessarily. Have an attorney explain the details to you, but you’ve failed to take into account elements of uncertainty regarding the actual outcome and length of a bankruptcy proceeding. There’s a chance that the senior bond holders will come out better than they would have under the negotiated agreement, but there is risk involved in that assessment.
@ 10
Without capital formation and investment, our markets and eventually our business environment will wither and die.
Again, with the fallacy of the excluded middle. One can just as easily point out that when returns to labor take a back seat to returns to capital, there isn’t enough demand to support investment in the first place.
Say’s law is not like the law of gravity. It’s more like an article of faith given the extent to which we’ve encountered circumstances under which upholding that law requires extraordinary intellectual gymnastics.
I’ll forward your suggestion to the all the senior bond holders, and fund managers of retirement and pension funds who think they are getting a raw deal by the government.
They probably just didn’t account for the “elements of uncertainty regarding the actual outcome and length of a bankruptcy proceeding”! They are going to feel so foolish, but probably will eventually be thankful…
@12 “I disagree. Workers should be first in line to get paid.”
@3 “What’s the economic argument for saying that “senior bond holders” should take precedence over labor?”
That’s not the way bankruptcy law works, morons. There is a long established precedent for who gets paid, and in what order, when a firm goes belly up.
Obama broke that precedent to help his buddies in the Union. If that shit continues, we will no longer be a nation of laws.
@13 & 14 I see your lips moving, but all I hear is blah, blah, blah… You haven’t the faintest clue what you’re talking about.
Money goes where’s it’s treated well. If bond holders get fucked, they will take their money and go elsewhere.
Bonds pay low yields because they are supposed to be safe investments, treated preferentially during things like say, bankruptcy. Now take a low yield and couple that with high risk, and you have a bond that will not sell.
I thought the investors were taking all the risk? What’s risky about bondholders being backstopped by the government and workers losing their pay?
That would mean that workers are taking all the risk.
If a company cannot service both its wages and salaries obligations and its repayment of bond debt, then that company definitely has no business being in business. It’s almost as dire as a company not being able to cover its cost of goods sold with revenues: if the firm cannot make a profit at the basic operational level, then why is it in business? I can hear the board of directors at Chrysler now: “We’re losing money on every unit we sell, but we plan to make it up in volume!”
Yeah, right…the government needs to let Chrysler fail (and most likely GM, too). If workers are owed current wages and salaries, then they should be paid those wages and salaries for the work they have performed for the company. Then the SECURED creditors get paid – that’s how it works. Everyone else falls in-line behind the secured creditors at this point. That includes the poor guys and gals who are expecting a pension from Chrysler (or GM). Sorry, but if there’s nothing left after the secured creditors are paid, then there’s nothing left for the un-secured creditors or anyone else. Let’s not forget that the owners (the shareholders) get totally wiped-out, and that’s a risk everyone who buys an equity stake in a company should realize. Sorry, but an investment in the stock market is NOT FDIC-insured. If you want security, try buying CDs.
@17,
If it’s pay that’s currently due to the workers, they probably get paid. If it’s pay to be received in the future, i.e., a pension, then they probably won’t get it. Sorry.
@ 15
I’ll forward your suggestion to the all the senior bond holders, and fund managers of retirement and pension funds who think they are getting a raw deal by the government.
Why? I think they already understood that the trade-offs were rather complex. You’re the one who seems to be having difficulty understanding that concept.
@ 16
That’s not the way bankruptcy law works, morons.
In other words, you don’t have an economic argument for giving bond holders precedence over labor. Thank you for playing.
As for the relevance of bankruptcy law to the question of an economic justification, see my comment @ 5. Moron.
For the chrysler situation, I gave you one: the sanctity of contracts
We should let the bankruptcy courts handle any bankruptcy situation that may involve Chrysler or GM in the manner that any other companies entering bankruptcy would face: no special rules for Chrysler or GM.
All this little debate of yours appears to me to do is once again firmly establish the need for more regulation of financial markets.
In the case of Chrysler, the bondholders, traders, and banksters behaved like mortgage lenders competing to write liar loans to unemployed strippers. No company’s management should be allowed to put their employee’s pension funds at risk then walk away with billions in bonuses. Bondholders who lend to company’s like Chrysler should not be allowed to game the system by shorting what amounts to the employee’s pensions.
Looks like a compelling argument for much more regulation.
Mad Doctor @23,
What’s the point of being a secured creditor if there’s no security? Sorry, but the Milk Chocolate Messiah is re-paying unions for their support in the 2008 election. It’s the same as if a Republican president were trying to make abortions illegal to re-pay the Christian right. Both parties do the bidding of their supporters, but sometimes the established rules get in the way. That’s what’s going on here with the Chrysler bondholders and the auto unions. The unions supported Obama, and the bondholders most likely didn’t. Guess who gets a pay-back?
As far as the sanctity of contracts goes, I hope that includes the social contracts that John Locke and our founding father’s found so persuasive.
If the social contract to pay people for the work they’ve done is no longer honored, there will be hell to pay. Swift’s depiction of Gulliver, ineffectively tied down by hundreds of tiny ropes, would be the situation that workers and their employers would face.
@ 21
For the chrysler situation, I gave you one: the sanctity of contracts
Which I’ve already pointed out is a non-issue. We’re talking about a negotiated deal which no one was compelled to accept.
Likewise hedge fund managers pissing and moaning because the government drove too hard a bargain on behalf of the working stiffs is also not a relevant point of fact to the question of an economic argument for precedence.
Hopefully, at some point, the word “interdependent” will start working its way into this discussion. I was hoping to not have to drop such a heavy-handed hint, but the density of the fog around here appears to have obscured quite a few people’s ability to see.
Monopolies SUCK
Big business AS WELL AS big government.
What are you suggesting, Sam?
Creating a non-monopoly at any particular level of government would equate to fomenting civil war, wouldn’t it?
@17
_Stock_ investors are gambling their money that the company will grow. They have a high risk/high reward position.
_Bond_ investors are more like lenders. Theirs is a low risk/low reward position. They depend on consistent laws, including bankruptcy laws, to place a value on the company. When a politician steps in and rearranges the winners and losers in a bankruptcy, all that is thrown out the window.
@20
There is a legal requirement. Secured creditors come first.
Legal requirements trump theoretical economic arguments.
Thank you for playing. Moron.
re 29: You may have a point. Could you be more specific?
Why wouldn’t a worker who has performed his work be a secured creditor. Is being an employee a ‘high risk’ option? If so, shouldn’t their wages reflect that?
@23
What color is the sky on your planet?
You think bondholders are some venture capital outfit slapping down billions on black at the roulette wheel? Bondholders are employee pension funds, states, cities, private firms and whatnot. Your CD at the bank is invested in a mix of bonds and maybe a few, very low risk stocks.
“Legal requirements trump theoretical economic arguments.”
Many post WW II German citizens made similar claims about the letter of the law.
Seems that there are higher laws that trump the letter of the law — every time.
“What color is the sky on your planet?”
If you had your way, it would be grey-brown.
@26
“Which I’ve already pointed out is a non-issue. We’re talking about a negotiated deal which no one was compelled to accept.”
Except it wasn’t and you’re wrong. It was forced and three of the bondholders went to court to force the issue.
Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund
Indiana State Police Pension Trust
Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund
@ 30
There is a legal requirement. Secured creditors come first.
Once again: we’re talking about a negotiated settlement the very purpose of which was to obviate a bankruptcy proceeding.
Legal requirements trump theoretical economic arguments.
Not when we’re talking about a negotiated settlement in which the position of one side of that negotiation has been characterized as “arbitrary”. It’s a negotiation. I’m surprised that I have to keep pointing this out.
@31 The UAW retiree health plan is a junior creditor. They knew that when it was set up. They accepted that as part of the negotiated payment to the health plan from Chrysler years ago. The payment order was set in case of bankruptcy, senior first, then junior.
The yield on Chrysler bonds reflected that order. Had any of the bondholders known that they were going to get corn-holed by Obama, the yield would to have been much higher to compensate for the risk/pain.
@33
“Seems that there are higher laws that trump the letter of the law — every time.”
Not in bankruptcy court.
@36
You can’t negotiate with a gun to your head.
It wasn’t negotiated, it was decreed by Presidential fiat. No pun intended.
@ 38
You can’t negotiate with a gun to your head.
Come again? Chrysler is now in bankruptcy.
What color is the sky on the planet where you reside?
“Seems that there are higher laws that trump the letter of the law — every time.”
‘Not in bankruptcy court.’
Bankruptcy rules are changed all the time. A person may have incurred a medical debt under the assumption that they would not lose their home in a bankruptcy action.
But that law was changed. I know, because Biden and Obama voted to change it.
So, your veiled accusation that Obama is always in favor of the worker has no merit.
@40
The relevant yields changed as the bankruptcy _laws_ changed too. When Congress changed the bankruptcy law, it affected everyone.
This was a case of the Treasury and the President declaring a change in the status of a single company’s situation.
I’m not veiling my accusation – Obama paid his political supporters back with taxpayer money and bondholder money.
Actually I wouldn’t mind socialism but we don’t go that far yet. What we do know is that impotent and irrelevant GOP has nothing better to do than stand on the schoolyard calling names. Perhaps that’s part of the reason that the Pew study that came out today showed the biggest gap in recent history between those supporting the Dems and the Publicans. Hint – the Publicans were on the wrong side of that equation.
re 41: Do you suppose Biden and Obama’s vote on the bankruptcy bill could have had political motives, or was it done in a vacuum?
What state are a lot of credit card companies in??? Delaware??
You didn’t seem to mind it when Bush abridged your constitutionally guaranteed rights by fiat (no pun possible). But, if you and your president are both dittoheads, I guess free speech doesn’t much matter.
@8 “Every senior debt holder who took TARP money, agreed to the .gov’s ‘deal’. Coincidence?”
So if you offer me money under certain conditions, and I don’t like the conditions but accept them to get the money, I’m being coerced?
@10 I see. It’s all the unions’ fault. Without unions, everything would be peachy-keen. Why not just bring back slavery and whips? That’s what you guys ultimately want, isn’t it? Free labor and the right to abuse people?
@15 What makes the senior bond holders so fucking holy? They get paid for taking risks. In this case, the risks were realized. Tough break, better luck next time. That’s business, and everyone who buys corporate bonds ought to understand that, or they have no business owning bonds. I wonder how many of these bondholders bought the bonds at deep discounts hoping for a windfall.
@ 44
So if you offer me money under certain conditions, and I don’t like the conditions but accept them to get the money, I’m being coerced?
Seriously. I have no idea what “delbert” means by “coerced”. I’ve yet to see him square his concept of coercion with the fact that Chrysler is presently in bankruptcy. Obviously, people had an option to not accept the deal that was on the table (because they have, in fact, exercised that option), but that, somehow, means that they had a gun to their heads.
All this talk about “setting precedents” is rather amusing. Look, folks…America is now in a crisis that’s not quite like any we’ve seen before. Before it’s all over there we’re going to see the setting of a lot of precedents. Hell’s bells, we already have
The fact that Chrysler’s bondholders include a couple of pension funds makes for a sort of irony, adding the question of which group of hapless old folks gets screwed the worst to the whole sorry spectacle. That’s a sideshow, though. More likely than not, the current set of bondholders includes the same bunch of mongo sleazeball banks who’ve been trading them back and forth along with those lovely derivatives they invented–you know, the ones whose value was supposed to be based on coercing almost all of us into one sort of indentured servitude or another.
Aside from that, remember that if the gubmint didn’t do anything, GM and Chrysler would collapse anyway, and that in and of itself is cataclysmic for the entire nation. Why? Well, if you add it all up, a huge segment of our economy consists of a sort of giant daisy chain of putting people to work building or doing stuff that has to do with…getting people to work and back. That’s about to get all different. It’s gonna be adapt-or-die time, on a very, very large scale.
It doesn’t have to make sense. Delbert is in favor of the rich, right and wrong be damned.
@47, 49 The point is, it’s impossible to have a grown-up conversation about anything with these juveniles.
I can’t recall the facts in this case with Chrysler but maybe one of the HA posters will remember.
Didn’t a super majority of Chrysler’s creditors invoke some sort of bankruptcy proceeding that could alter the way debt holders are paid.
It seems to me it’s called the 2/3 rule, or something like that.
Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that the bondholders weren’t happy about the terms of the deal that a super majority of debt holders agreed to.
Capitalism with forced liberal ideas is what fucked up the pooch. Are ya stupid? Oh yeah you are!
We do wish pursue socialist ideals.
American Liberalism has pulled our capitalist system out of the dumper many times.
Eventually, people are going to wonder why? Why do we keep running into the same wall? We save their system and they fuck it up again the SAME WAY AS THE LAST TIME.
That’s the insanity.
Mark: I’m not ‘debating’ with you over who is right and who is wrong. It is always Liberal America that saves capitalism. It has never been the other way around.
Have you wondered at your inability to do that? You can thank Liberals for stopping the Nazi menace (the Nazis were supported and extolled by American conservatives)and you can thank the Liberals for a Marshall Plan that eventually stopped the Communists.
Unless you think that RR’s little schoolmarm morality statements did the trick.
Morally and mentally bankrupt — that’s you, Mark.
See headless me and the rest are awesome historical revisionists…fear us!
@55 I see the fudgepacker lost on American Idol. Bye gop , you must be devastated! How did you get so badass? I’d bet you were in an
all boys school? Cub scouts? NAMBLA Counselor?
Come on, its killing me.
Fudgepacker, if he catches you you’re through!(Add your own music)
Lucy you are a revisor of history! So teaching Europeans how to stand in a soup line stopped communists? Hmmm I wont even bother with the Nazi statement. Real men stopped the Nazis and in this country Real men will stop the Nazis I mean liberals.
Fudgepacker, if he catches you you’re through! Hahahahahahahahahaahah
And when the mess becomes a bigger mess he will still blame the past administration,the blame game is over for the communtiy organizer, his ego so massive all he talks about is himself, he is tranparent, and i think Americans are finally seeing the real bo, an angry child stomping his feet because he didn’t get his way.
HOPE AND CHANGE, HOW IS IT WORKING FOR YA?
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/arc.....ers-union/
Terrorizing America for almost 100 years
Soviet style socialism would be the best, it would be just scrumptious.
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck05.22.08.html
Well mr bentover for the gop you will soon have a taste.
http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=2114
I wanna live in a place like this, Love your big mack daddy
http://frontpage.americandaughter.com/?p=2308
So much for open debates ha ha ha ha!
Republicrats, Dem-publicans…who cares.
It’s all the same with this facade of a 2 party system.
Wake up people. You’re being brainwashed to buy into the 2-party-is-the-ONLY-way-to-go- system.
At this point in American History, there isn’t much to separate the 2 main parties anymore. Both promote platforms of BIG Centralized Government, unconstitutional taxation, extreme deficit spending, limiting privacy and civil liberties , promoting American Imperialism abroad and the perpetuation of binding ties with foreign Governments.
These labels are worthless.
Both sides will continue to rob you of your liberties, your hard-earned income and your American Identity world-wide if you continue buying into their system.
Educate yourself and vote third party!
So Bill what makes you think the 3rd party would be any different? Be realistic they are all politicians, when they are honest we will be able to vote true policy not publicity. But i will try to educate myself.
Watchman, I understand your skepticism.
3rd Party candidates ARE still politicians.
If you checked out the contract that almost all of the 3rd Party candidates signed in the last election though, you’ll see in a short and concise list how 3rd Party candidates pledged to make real “change”. They set aside personal ideologies to agree on getting the country back on a path of balanced budgets, transparent government, scaled back American Military excursions and eliminating the criminal syndicate that is the Federal Reserve.
I certainly don’t mean educate yourself as derogatory. Just another reminder to people that there are other options outside of the 2 party “matrix”.
Republicans and Democrats have fooled you into thinking voting with conviction for candidates other than them is a wasted vote and have gone to GREAT lengths to marginalize the candidates and their supporters. Educate yourself on this corrupt approach to diversity in the political realm as well.
Cheers
@66: Which 3rd party would that be, Billo?
I use the term loosely.
Pick any of them.
Independent or other.
4 were represented in signing the Campaign For Liberty Contract.
@ 70
I’m a party of one, thank you. Though, frankly, I still contend that the Democrats are the lesser of the abundant forms of fairly evil politicritters.
@71
Not trying to convert anyone.
I don’t belong to any particular party.
Just commenting on the incessant and irrelevant name calling and finger pointing both Democrats and Republicans spend so much time doing when there really isn’t a whole lot separating them anymore.
and Don Joe….
the lesser of two evils is STILL evil.
“Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.”
-John Quincy Adams
@ 72
and Don Joe….
the lesser of two evils is STILL evil.
So, show me something that’s less evil. I’m all ears.
Well, I also wouldn’t even be mentioning third party options unless I was championing them to some degree. I believe some of them to be viable options to the current duplocracy-the phony Republican/Democrat battle.
I still contend that the Democrats are the lesser of the abundant forms of fairly evil politicritters.
That just doesn’t seem to be a comment from someone that votes with much conviction.
That’s a shame ;)
re 58: What in the hell are you blathering about?
‘Real Men’…. Feh! You sound like a bitch. I hope you are not considering your chickenhawk leaders to be real men.
@75: Mark is not a 24×7 bitch?
[Deleted]
@32
More like the casino bosses doing everything they can to keep play going, even when they know a player is in way over their head.
78 It’s pretty easy to keep making sucker bets, as long as you’re doing it with someone else’s chips.
Well Bill I believe every person has the right to thier own opinion,and should live by thier own convictions as they, in the end, will stand responsible to themselves.
I was not blasting you and hope you didn’t take it that way.
The comment section of HA only does what its leaders do.
Point fingers,slam staistics,(and who really cares about numbers) call names and really doesn’t care about anyones thoughts or opinions but thier own( they have the me me me me syndrome much like the ONE they voted for.
When i started coming to HA i thought that i could find some reason to believe that mr obama was the right choice for this country, but all that i have seen, is violence, back biting the last administration, name calling and and no viable coversation as to how to come together as Americans to fix what is happening to this country.
So Bill don’t take things personal,they attack because that is the democratic way.
80 Hey, the democrats have been itching to dismantle the USA and have a dictatorship like Hugo Chavez. Why I have no idea, maybe because they can’t think or take care of themselves. They teach that in our schools. Get up when you dont want to get up, do shit all day you dont want to do with people you dont want to be with (not all of them) and have your teacher make all your decisions for you then you go get a job. Same thing only your boss makes all your decisions for you (or your union). Problem with America is most of the people cant think for themselves (democrats).
This is why they so love the nanny state.
@78,
Actually, hedge funds are mis-named because they really don’t engage in hedging, which is a cautious strategy. Hedge funds, despite their name, engage in taking major bets on the direction of investment opportunities. They certainly are NOT for the average person and often limit participation to sophisticated institutional investors and/or wealthy clients who can handle inordinate amounts of risk. These clients seek very high returns and are willing to assume the inordinate amount of risk to get into these funds.
Since hedge funds are not publicly available like mutual funds or exchange-traded funds, there is usually little information available about past performance. Often, failed funds will disappear entirely and not be included in any performance statistics provided by a hedge fund manager. This particular problem is a survivor-ship bias that leads to hedge funds managers “cherry-picking” the information they release to potential investors. However, these potential investors are usually very, very wealthy folks or institutions who should know what the hell they’re doing.
Should hedge funds be regulated like mutual funds and other securities? Probably not. These investments aren’t designed for the public and should be left to the entities and wealthy folks willing to take-on the risk and knowing that they are doing so in hopes of high returns.
I know that when you have freedom you will always yearn for it.If this country keeps heading in the same direction, all that have tasted freedom in thier youth will yearn for that same freedom when they are old.
No exceptions,
They won’t understand until it is gone, then it will be to late.
Fore sight is better
Hind sight is really 20/20
You have the freedom to go home any time you wish, nekulturny. After all, you’re not an American, and never will be.
Conservative Radio Host Has Himself Waterboard to Prove It’s Not Torture, Realizes He Was Wrong
Here is the video on YouTube
Hey ButtPutty, think you can last 10 seconds? 20 seconds? I think you’d be a 3 second wonder.
We should be trying to get information from terrorists by giving them blowjobs and footrubs.
@86
Give ’em Larry Craig maybe. And ButtPutty. And Marvie with his pet goats.