Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (106818)	1/19/2010 1:37:58 AM
From: NOW	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

i agree with one amendment: "ou either agree that there was a conspiracy to profit from the system imploding or you dont"

To: mishedlo who wrote (106818)	1/19/2010 2:31:31 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	2 Recommendations Respond to of 116555

my position has been miss stated. the conspiracy is to game the system to maximize the profits of the few, not take it down. since they can't maximize profits without increasing risk until the system breaks, they infiltrate government to make sure the public eats their losses when the system inevitably breaks down. if they could do it without the inherent "take down" and still maximize their profits (at public expense, of course), i think they would. gladly. they can't, so we get what we get the system that guarantees the eventual take down. yes, these people use an ideology as a shield protecting their criminal intent, but logic dictates that their actions are not consistent with any kind of "text book" or formula. any fool knows this is a debt saturation problem. any fool knows you don't solve debt saturation by increasing debt. the fed knows this. treasury knows this. they are simply trying to back stop the banks at tax payer expense without ever telling anyone that is what they are doing. during the run up they simply did what maximized bankster profits without concern for the ultimate consequences b/c they didn't need to pay that price. a cartel fed chairman and an ex-goldman sachs CEO treasury secretary would make sure that didn't happen. period. goldman sachs lost money trading 1 day in Q2 09. anyone think they did that playing fair? i think they made $100 million a day over 60% of the time. they are just "good," right? no insider information there. they only lost money 8 days during the Q1 09 market collapse. how about that? trading the most volatile market in ages and only losing money 8 days in 6 months and earning $100 million or more per day over 50% of the time.