Why can't we all just get along. :( Isn't there some Irish hunk you two could fight over? :o
Printable View
Why can't we all just get along. :( Isn't there some Irish hunk you two could fight over? :o
My last reply here is going to be that before this reply I thought you are a lazy observer, you have just confirmed my suspicion. Other than Steely you don't even have the excuse that you could mistake my jibes about Brits as directed against you.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I doubt it, could you think of any? Maybe some Irish person who I consider of a different nationality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I'm sure a google search will provide you with some answers.
:( now I have to accuse you of laziness as well :(
I think we agreed not to post x-rated photos. :o
Yeah, sure, lazy observer. Comfort yourself with that, and enjoy your denial about the attitude you internalized from those long old threads where you debated with Rand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
A name would do :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It's not that normal to be that emotionally invested in a currency, or indeed, anything to do with finance, which is widely recognized as one of the driest subjects in existence. Why don't you just choose a football team, or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
What, exactly, makes them "pseudo"?Quote:
Because I am not going to give in at all to the psuedo arguments of eurosceptics?
I take it you don't know that many euroskeptics.Quote:
Randblade is by far the most cynical eurosceptic I know
Thanks for letting me know. Hadn't realized I was doing it.Quote:
Now, let me tell you something; every now and then you feel you have to bud in when I am cutting down the arguments of somebody who I consider to be on the other extreme side of the debate (Randblade)
PersonallyQuote:
And without fail you take everything I say about his stupid ideas personal.
Or, maybe you're just a terrible communicator, who can't make a proper distinction between opposition to a set of ideas and blatant xenophobia, or maybe you just actually exactly as xenophobic, closed minded and arrogant as you come across in ever thread about Europe? Possibilities!Quote:
That gives me two choices about the way I can see you. You are either an idiot who doesn't understand that no matter what you will not win over an opponent so you may just as well cut him off at the knees or you are indeed somebody who holds the same ideas.
Incidentally, we've seen much the same behavior from you in relation to other EU countries: Greece, Iceland and now Ireland. Britain may be the primary target for your bluster, but it's hardly the only one, so you can't really pass it off as just a reaction to Randblade and British euroskepticism. You seem to want to, fundamentally, run the European Union by bullying member states and telling them that if they don't like it, they can just get out where upon you would vindictively try and ruin their economies by having the remaining EU states cut off the outcast, while you chortle at an entire nation being reduced to poverty.
Maybe you should consider fucking off? This is a public forum. If you want to keep your feud with Randblade private, we have these things called PMs.Quote:
If you're going for the third option of being the voice of reason, then maybe you should consider toning down your contributions as you aren't addressed to start with.
How, exactly, does confirming everything they think and say constitute "calling them out"? Isn't that like 60's era black civil rights campaigners "calling out" racists by embarking on a campaign of raping white women ?Quote:
I love to say all those things that drive eurosceptics up the wall. One of the reasons for that is that I don't feel they are called out on the idiocy of their ideas often enough. They are a bunch of Neanderthals that couldn't find their own asses without a map.
What is the reason you gloat about the inevitably dire consequences for the UK should such an eventually occur (something akin to being reduced to the financial and political equivalent of the aftermath of an IRA bomb, if I read your semen encrusted posts on the subject correctly)?Quote:
The only reason why I want to be rid of the UK as a member of the EU is that the UK consistently takes upon itself the role of brake on whatever process is initiated.
If they did that, you'd get what you want: Britain out of the EU.Quote:
Probably because they are kowtowing to the worst eurosceptics permanently.
The UK has an inherently adversarial political system. Describing these things in terms of victories/defeats is simply part of the standard political vocabulary.Quote:
The effect of that is that the rest of the EU has to regulate around the UK for pretty much everything which usually results in the shoddy arrangements we have. And really, it's funny that I get blamed for sounding anti-UK with UK governments communicating about their relationship with the EU in terms of victory as if a new hundred year war is being fought on the fields of Flanders.
Hmm.. looks like there is a serious case of the Jitters about the Irish bail out. Did anybody see any figures of the costs of a bail out of financial institutions if Ireland folds?
Why should I, with the currency being such a cute red flag for the opposite party :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
In general; they consistently ignore that the EU is not the bureaucrats in Brussels but you and me voting for particular politicians. Nobody is being taken over at all. On the euro more specifically; basically the same repeats itself. The euro doesn't mean success or failure, and can be used in policies highly successful or in policies leading to the Irish disaster. Yet, 'they' make it automatically into a debate about the existence of the euro. They don't want the EU to be more democratic, they don't want the euro to function better. They just want it to go away.Quote:
What, exactly, makes them "pseudo"?
I know enough, this particular one plays the game of the pro-European who the second you move past that general concept is against anything the EU stands for or does.Quote:
I take it you don't know that many euroskeptics.
Your point being?Quote:
Thanks for letting me know. Hadn't realized I was doing it.
Personally
Or, maybe you're just a terrible communicator, who can't make a proper distinction between opposition to a set of ideas and blatant xenophobia, or maybe you just actually exactly as xenophobic, closed minded and arrogant as you come across in ever thread about Europe? Possibilities!
And again; what is your point? Are you seriously suggesting I should include all possible ifs and buts in a swipe at some 'generally' expressed ideas?Quote:
Incidentally, we've seen much the same behavior from you in relation to other EU countries: Greece, Iceland and now Ireland. Britain may be the primary target for your bluster, but it's hardly the only one, so you can't really pass it off as just a reaction to Randblade and British euroskepticism. You seem to want to, fundamentally, run the European Union by bullying member states and telling them that if they don't like it, they can just get out where upon you would vindictively try and ruin their economies by having the remaining EU states cut off the outcast, while you chortle at an entire nation being reduced to poverty.
Of course I could do that. You could say the same to everybody, all twenty or so of us.Quote:
Maybe you should consider fucking off? This is a public forum. If you want to keep your feud with Randblade private, we have these things called PMs.
Because it is bloody funny.Quote:
How, exactly, does confirming everything they think and say constitute "calling them out"? Isn't that like 60's era black civil rights campaigners "calling out" racists by embarking on a campaign of raping white women ?
What is the reason you gloat about the inevitably dire consequences for the UK should such an eventually occur (something akin to being reduced to the financial and political equivalent of the aftermath of an IRA bomb, if I read your semen encrusted posts on the subject correctly)?
:) joker, the UK wouldn't leave the EU if it got money offered to do so.Quote:
If they did that, you'd get what you want: Britain out of the EU.
Oh really?Quote:
The UK has an inherently adversarial political system. Describing these things in terms of victories/defeats is simply part of the standard political vocabulary.
Bought 42 shares of Bank of Ireland today.
Are you serious ? Why would you do that ? It seems like the last thing to do with those banks being on the verge of full nationalisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Am I looking at the right share price? This seems to be rather chump change compared to how much a trade would cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I always regretted not buying Bear Stearns at $2 before it was absorbed amoeba-like into JP Morgan. But this is obviously not as smart. At least not yet.
But given how volatile the stock has been I'm willing to make the general bet that it will get better over time. The country is being bailed out, they do recognize the problem and something is being done. The worst that can happen is I lose about $100.
Basically I'm making-up for not being enough of a bottom feeder with US stocks a year or so ago.
EDIT: Down 30% in pre-market trading. Heh.
Well, if they are sold off to some foreign bank you may gain something out of this, but chances are you just threw your money at a big black hole.
None of this is funny. Not even in a ha, told ya so way. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
http://www.independent.ie/multimedia..._i_467125t.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
How's that?
Damn...I might just go Catholic for that!
After today, increasingly likely it's a black hole. But it's also gone up huge amounts in a day based on the status of a bailout. I'm betting on things eventually evening out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Assuming that the bank still exists after the bailout and the shareholders aren't screwed outright (two fairly reasonable assumptions), you have a pretty safe bet IMO. That's unfortunately part of the moral hazard problem in the financial industry, but it has some nice corollaries for the investor who can stomach some pretty wrenching volatility in the short term.
This is exactly why people are ticked off at banks and governments. Banks are supposed to be safe places to park our money. Government regulators are supposed to be the "experts" that keep it safe from corruption or fraud.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Banking is not supposed to be some gambling game where depositors have to rely on the government nationalizing or rescuing banks from their bad choices, using tax payer money. And it's definitely not supposed to mean profit for traders or speculators while it's all sorted out. Just ask anyone who had an IceSave or NorthernRock account in the UK when Iceland went bust. Ask anyone in the US about our contributions to the IMF, when our FDIC is barely keeping up.
Sometimes I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Okay, scratch that. Most of the time. Stock price has very little to do with the safety of deposits.
When you regularly get way more irate than the opposing party, I don't think you can realistically claim that the opposition are the ones it's a red flag for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Quote:
Your point being?
Quote:
Or, maybe you're just a terrible communicator, who can't make a proper distinction between opposition to a set of ideas and blatant xenophobia, or maybe you just actually exactly as xenophobic, closed minded and arrogant as you come across in ever thread about Europe? Possibilities!
Quote:
And again; what is your point?
Quote:
Incidentally, we've seen much the same behavior from you in relation to other EU countries: Greece, Iceland and now Ireland. Britain may be the primary target for your bluster, but it's hardly the only one, so you can't really pass it off as just a reaction to Randblade and British euroskepticism. You seem to want to, fundamentally, run the European Union by bullying member states and telling them that if they don't like it, they can just get out where upon you would vindictively try and ruin their economies by having the remaining EU states cut off the outcast, while you chortle at an entire nation being reduced to poverty.
So, you admit it's actually ok for a third party to take part in a discussion originally between two people on a public forum?Quote:
Of course I could do that. You could say the same to everybody, all twenty or so of us.
Yes, it is. But we're not laughing with you...Quote:
Because it is bloody funny.:)
Rafter Man, that means the UK government isn't pandering to the worst euroskeptics.Quote:
joker, the UK wouldn't leave the EU if it got money offered to do so.
Yes.Quote:
Oh really?
Erm, you are doubting the Risk-return spectrum?Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Depository banks don't regularly invest in their own stock. :confused:
I wasn't referring to stocks or bonds at all. Jut simple bank deposits. From the depositor's POV. Depositor money is supposed to be safe and guaranteed, gaining some interest in exchange. Banks are supposedly borrowing from depositors, and it's meant to be a win/win transaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
<If I park my money in your bank, you can borrow it and lend it to others. Just give me X interest rate and charge X+Y to borrowers. Your bank makes a little, I make a little, some guy gets an affordable loan. It's not that complicated.>
I will expound on that, because I had a sweet roll and damn well feel like expounding. :D Banks should be serving their depositors. More like the savings and loan model before that got all fucked up. The depositors are the true money holders, the banks are the trustees and borrowers of our money. But somehow, with fancy financial finagling, the banks became more important to our economy than the depositors or their actual money.
The banks took our deposits and tried to turn that into their exponential gains. Giving loans to people who couldn't pay, off-loading loans via securitization, turning real dollars into synthetic dollars, adding middle men who needed a cut, counter parties and fractional parties, fuzzy accounting methods. The banks turned into speculators, chasing profits by introducing risk. And they ate it up. After they'd gorged and puked, the initial depositor still needed their money back, with interest.
How great is it for depositors to see a paltry 0.5% interest rate, when the bank used that money to sell loans at double digit interest rates plus other fees, put the profits in their pockets, and proceed to run the bank dry. Then they get a bail-out from the government, using the same monies from their depositors as well as unwilling participants. But the CEO retires with a $50 million bonus, or some guys earn a million bucks per day and leave after two weeks, while they call their loans and foreclose on families using robo signers or MERS.
This doesn't pass the smell test.
No just in each others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
They maintain a mix of assets, which is entirely reasonable.
Of course it is. But some banks (i.e. Credit Suisse) sold so called "secure" investment programs and had a high amount of Lehman assets in it. Some banks actually started to gamble with money they claimed to be safe to the clients.
Lehman looked good until it didn't. Everyone got hosed by Lehman, that's why it precipitated the financial crisis. You're calling it a gamble, when it didn't look like that at all before.
That said, unless there was a Swiss bank run I'm not aware of, no bank depositors who just deposited cash have lost money in the developed world. Anyone who bought a specific investment program should know that there is some element of risk. That's as true today as it was two years ago and 50 years ago.