Bailout for Dummies – Part I

[TheBreeze]

[quote=jpinpb]Ok, guys. I know I’m missing something here. Why are you giving Breeze such a hard time. He’s posted some interesting articles. [/quote]

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but davelj (bankster), FLU (currently on disability but has family in investment banking), and Allan (business owner) never really venture out of their respective comfort zones. They just sit back and wait for me to make mistakes. Of course I’m going to make a lot of mistakes because I don’t have a background in finance, but I’d still like to know how I’m getting screwed by all the bailouts so that I can at least try to do something about it.

FLU, Allan, and davelj think the bailouts are a good thing (FLU’s family is a direct beneficiary, Dave’s bank may benefit because if there is a fire sale of assets, his bank may have to mark down their assets). I think the bailouts are a bad thing, so they will try to discredit me at every turn.

Notice how davelj didn’t try to explain the article himself, he just pointed out where I was wrong. These guys aren’t here to help. They are here to drum up support for the bailouts.

If you want to learn more about the bailout issues, I recommend you read Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, and Option Armegeddon. There’s lots of good stuff on those blogs.

By the way, in my layman’s opinion, the other interpretation of the above article is that the author believes at some point there will be a massive stampede out of the dollar.

Edit:And regardless of whether you agree with the author’s conclusion, you got to hand it to him for taking the time to put together a very good overview of the bailouts.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]I think the bailouts are a bad thing, so they will try to discredit me at every turn.

Notice how davelj didn’t try to explain the article himself, he just pointed out where I was wrong. These guys aren’t here to help. They are here to drum up support for the bailouts.

[/quote]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.

Second, why bother explaining the potential flaws in such an article when (a) you’ve already made up your mind, and (b) you don’t even understand the article itself, thus any alternative view wouldn’t be understood either? It’s a waste of time.

And “support for the bailouts”? I love this site and all the work Rich does, but please. Let’s keep things in perspective. Any discussions here at Piggington will have zero impact on whatever direction the bailouts take.

This is entertainment, bro. With a little learning thrown in. Nothing more, nothing less.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]I think the bailouts are a bad thing, so they will try to discredit me at every turn.

Notice how davelj didn’t try to explain the article himself, he just pointed out where I was wrong. These guys aren’t here to help. They are here to drum up support for the bailouts.

[/quote]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.

Second, why bother explaining the potential flaws in such an article when (a) you’ve already made up your mind, and (b) you don’t even understand the article itself, thus any alternative view wouldn’t be understood either? It’s a waste of time.

And “support for the bailouts”? I love this site and all the work Rich does, but please. Let’s keep things in perspective. Any discussions here at Piggington will have zero impact on whatever direction the bailouts take.

This is entertainment, bro. With a little learning thrown in. Nothing more, nothing less.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]I think the bailouts are a bad thing, so they will try to discredit me at every turn.

Notice how davelj didn’t try to explain the article himself, he just pointed out where I was wrong. These guys aren’t here to help. They are here to drum up support for the bailouts.

[/quote]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.

Second, why bother explaining the potential flaws in such an article when (a) you’ve already made up your mind, and (b) you don’t even understand the article itself, thus any alternative view wouldn’t be understood either? It’s a waste of time.

And “support for the bailouts”? I love this site and all the work Rich does, but please. Let’s keep things in perspective. Any discussions here at Piggington will have zero impact on whatever direction the bailouts take.

This is entertainment, bro. With a little learning thrown in. Nothing more, nothing less.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]I think the bailouts are a bad thing, so they will try to discredit me at every turn.

Notice how davelj didn’t try to explain the article himself, he just pointed out where I was wrong. These guys aren’t here to help. They are here to drum up support for the bailouts.

[/quote]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.

Second, why bother explaining the potential flaws in such an article when (a) you’ve already made up your mind, and (b) you don’t even understand the article itself, thus any alternative view wouldn’t be understood either? It’s a waste of time.

And “support for the bailouts”? I love this site and all the work Rich does, but please. Let’s keep things in perspective. Any discussions here at Piggington will have zero impact on whatever direction the bailouts take.

This is entertainment, bro. With a little learning thrown in. Nothing more, nothing less.

[davelj]

[quote=TheBreeze]I think the bailouts are a bad thing, so they will try to discredit me at every turn.

Notice how davelj didn’t try to explain the article himself, he just pointed out where I was wrong. These guys aren’t here to help. They are here to drum up support for the bailouts.

[/quote]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.

Second, why bother explaining the potential flaws in such an article when (a) you’ve already made up your mind, and (b) you don’t even understand the article itself, thus any alternative view wouldn’t be understood either? It’s a waste of time.

And “support for the bailouts”? I love this site and all the work Rich does, but please. Let’s keep things in perspective. Any discussions here at Piggington will have zero impact on whatever direction the bailouts take.

This is entertainment, bro. With a little learning thrown in. Nothing more, nothing less.

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.
[/quote]

Dave,

Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,
Breeze

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.
[/quote]

Dave,

Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,
Breeze

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.
[/quote]

Dave,

Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,
Breeze

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.
[/quote]

Dave,

Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,
Breeze

[TheBreeze]

[quote=davelj]

First, Breeze, I don’t need to discredit you. You discredit yourself. Often. You need no assistance. But I enjoy helping out when I can. You’re welcome.
[/quote]

Dave,

Go fuck yourself.

Sincerely,
Breeze

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breezhnev: Again, you play fast and loose with the facts. I am not for the bailouts. I’ve argued that sometimes a bad decision (bailouts) is better than the worst decision (systemic collapse).

For a guy that lashes out with nasty epithets (like “welfare queen”) when challenged, you’re pretty quick to cry foul and act aggrieved. If you’re not prepared to take lumps, don’t dish ’em out.

In terms of the various “experts” parading around the blogosphere: Every year, before the NFL season begins, there are dozens of publications, ranging from “Sporting News” to “Sports Illustrated” and the major outlets like NYTimes and WashPost, that all call the winner of the upcoming SuperBowl. Universally, they’re nearly all wrong (how many picked Arizona to go the distance?).

Same applies to financial writing. While Shedlock is an engaging read, he’s not an authority. He’s a financial planner who happens to blog about economics. He isn’t someone with a strong academic background, nor is he an extensively published author in the field of economics (or finance or even general business).

Similarly, I enjoy Jim Jubak and Bill Fleckenstein, and while they both enjoy a deserved reputation for their solid grasp of the fundamentals, both are, by their own admission, wrong as often as right.

If you want a particularly instructive example: Look at what happened to Peter Schiff’s portfolio over the last two and a half years. Schiff enjoys tremendous esteem and deservedly so. Like Nouriel Roubini, he has been remarkably prescient regarding world economic events. Yet his portfolio has gotten hammered. Why? For all his prescience, events have occurred that he hasn’t gotten right and his investments have suffered accordingly.

The dynamics of the market are beyond any one player and that includes Warren Buffett. One of the most successful investors in American history had his ass handed to him last year and, in his annual shareholder’s letter, he explained the mistakes he made and how he misread the larger forces at play in the market.

My issues with you, Breezie, are twofold: You aren’t open enough to listen to a viewpoint that differs from your own, and you believe that throwing a lot of unconnected, seemingly intelligent writing at us constitutes some sort of knowledge. It doesn’t. Learn to separate knowledge from information and fact from fiction. Learn from your mistakes and don’t believe everything you read. Most of it is bullshit anyway.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breezhnev: Again, you play fast and loose with the facts. I am not for the bailouts. I’ve argued that sometimes a bad decision (bailouts) is better than the worst decision (systemic collapse).

For a guy that lashes out with nasty epithets (like “welfare queen”) when challenged, you’re pretty quick to cry foul and act aggrieved. If you’re not prepared to take lumps, don’t dish ’em out.

In terms of the various “experts” parading around the blogosphere: Every year, before the NFL season begins, there are dozens of publications, ranging from “Sporting News” to “Sports Illustrated” and the major outlets like NYTimes and WashPost, that all call the winner of the upcoming SuperBowl. Universally, they’re nearly all wrong (how many picked Arizona to go the distance?).

Same applies to financial writing. While Shedlock is an engaging read, he’s not an authority. He’s a financial planner who happens to blog about economics. He isn’t someone with a strong academic background, nor is he an extensively published author in the field of economics (or finance or even general business).

Similarly, I enjoy Jim Jubak and Bill Fleckenstein, and while they both enjoy a deserved reputation for their solid grasp of the fundamentals, both are, by their own admission, wrong as often as right.

If you want a particularly instructive example: Look at what happened to Peter Schiff’s portfolio over the last two and a half years. Schiff enjoys tremendous esteem and deservedly so. Like Nouriel Roubini, he has been remarkably prescient regarding world economic events. Yet his portfolio has gotten hammered. Why? For all his prescience, events have occurred that he hasn’t gotten right and his investments have suffered accordingly.

The dynamics of the market are beyond any one player and that includes Warren Buffett. One of the most successful investors in American history had his ass handed to him last year and, in his annual shareholder’s letter, he explained the mistakes he made and how he misread the larger forces at play in the market.

My issues with you, Breezie, are twofold: You aren’t open enough to listen to a viewpoint that differs from your own, and you believe that throwing a lot of unconnected, seemingly intelligent writing at us constitutes some sort of knowledge. It doesn’t. Learn to separate knowledge from information and fact from fiction. Learn from your mistakes and don’t believe everything you read. Most of it is bullshit anyway.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breezhnev: Again, you play fast and loose with the facts. I am not for the bailouts. I’ve argued that sometimes a bad decision (bailouts) is better than the worst decision (systemic collapse).

For a guy that lashes out with nasty epithets (like “welfare queen”) when challenged, you’re pretty quick to cry foul and act aggrieved. If you’re not prepared to take lumps, don’t dish ’em out.

In terms of the various “experts” parading around the blogosphere: Every year, before the NFL season begins, there are dozens of publications, ranging from “Sporting News” to “Sports Illustrated” and the major outlets like NYTimes and WashPost, that all call the winner of the upcoming SuperBowl. Universally, they’re nearly all wrong (how many picked Arizona to go the distance?).

Same applies to financial writing. While Shedlock is an engaging read, he’s not an authority. He’s a financial planner who happens to blog about economics. He isn’t someone with a strong academic background, nor is he an extensively published author in the field of economics (or finance or even general business).

Similarly, I enjoy Jim Jubak and Bill Fleckenstein, and while they both enjoy a deserved reputation for their solid grasp of the fundamentals, both are, by their own admission, wrong as often as right.

If you want a particularly instructive example: Look at what happened to Peter Schiff’s portfolio over the last two and a half years. Schiff enjoys tremendous esteem and deservedly so. Like Nouriel Roubini, he has been remarkably prescient regarding world economic events. Yet his portfolio has gotten hammered. Why? For all his prescience, events have occurred that he hasn’t gotten right and his investments have suffered accordingly.

The dynamics of the market are beyond any one player and that includes Warren Buffett. One of the most successful investors in American history had his ass handed to him last year and, in his annual shareholder’s letter, he explained the mistakes he made and how he misread the larger forces at play in the market.

My issues with you, Breezie, are twofold: You aren’t open enough to listen to a viewpoint that differs from your own, and you believe that throwing a lot of unconnected, seemingly intelligent writing at us constitutes some sort of knowledge. It doesn’t. Learn to separate knowledge from information and fact from fiction. Learn from your mistakes and don’t believe everything you read. Most of it is bullshit anyway.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Breezhnev: Again, you play fast and loose with the facts. I am not for the bailouts. I’ve argued that sometimes a bad decision (bailouts) is better than the worst decision (systemic collapse).

For a guy that lashes out with nasty epithets (like “welfare queen”) when challenged, you’re pretty quick to cry foul and act aggrieved. If you’re not prepared to take lumps, don’t dish ’em out.

In terms of the various “experts” parading around the blogosphere: Every year, before the NFL season begins, there are dozens of publications, ranging from “Sporting News” to “Sports Illustrated” and the major outlets like NYTimes and WashPost, that all call the winner of the upcoming SuperBowl. Universally, they’re nearly all wrong (how many picked Arizona to go the distance?).

Same applies to financial writing. While Shedlock is an engaging read, he’s not an authority. He’s a financial planner who happens to blog about economics. He isn’t someone with a strong academic background, nor is he an extensively published author in the field of economics (or finance or even general business).

Similarly, I enjoy Jim Jubak and Bill Fleckenstein, and while they both enjoy a deserved reputation for their solid grasp of the fundamentals, both are, by their own admission, wrong as often as right.

If you want a particularly instructive example: Look at what happened to Peter Schiff’s portfolio over the last two and a half years. Schiff enjoys tremendous esteem and deservedly so. Like Nouriel Roubini, he has been remarkably prescient regarding world economic events. Yet his portfolio has gotten hammered. Why? For all his prescience, events have occurred that he hasn’t gotten right and his investments have suffered accordingly.

The dynamics of the market are beyond any one player and that includes Warren Buffett. One of the most successful investors in American history had his ass handed to him last year and, in his annual shareholder’s letter, he explained the mistakes he made and how he misread the larger forces at play in the market.

My issues with you, Breezie, are twofold: You aren’t open enough to listen to a viewpoint that differs from your own, and you believe that throwing a lot of unconnected, seemingly intelligent writing at us constitutes some sort of knowledge. It doesn’t. Learn to separate knowledge from information and fact from fiction. Learn from your mistakes and don’t believe everything you read. Most of it is bullshit anyway.

[Author]

Posts