MedVision ad

Lehman Said to Prepare Bankruptcy as Buyers Withdraw (1 Viewer)

MasterPUA

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
83
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2007
I would like to know this also, for the sake of a close friend.

Lehman was one of my favourite white shoe ibanks.
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
apparently merryl lynch was bought by bank of america because of pressure from the regulators.

lol.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
sam04u said:
Yay! Great Depression 2.0
If only we lived under Communism; it seems to provide such great living and working conditions for everybody.
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
PwarYuex said:
If only we lived under Communism; it seems to provide such great living and working conditions for everybody.
It doesn't provide great living and working conditions immediately. But it provides security.
Capitalism is broken. If a company knows it can get something produced cheaper with foreign labour, they'll outsource it. That means the people in the Capitalist system will end up giving up jobs and thus living "conditions", over time to another country,
 

jb_nc

Google "9-11" and "truth"
Joined
Dec 20, 2004
Messages
5,391
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
sam04u said:
It doesn't provide great living and working conditions immediately. But it provides security.
Capitalism is broken. If a company knows it can get something produced cheaper with foreign labour, they'll outsource it. That means the people in the Capitalist system will end up giving up jobs and thus living "conditions", over time to another country,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparitive_advantage
 

sthcross.dude

Member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
441
Location
the toilet store
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
sam04u said:
It doesn't provide great living and working conditions immediately. But it provides security.
Capitalism is broken. If a company knows it can get something produced cheaper with foreign labour, they'll outsource it. That means the people in the Capitalist system will end up giving up jobs and thus living "conditions", over time to another country,
hahaha. you idiot. read the link jbnc posted.
 

MasterPUA

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
83
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2007
I'm waiting for someone to post something along the lines of "communism works well in theory but not in practice".

sam04u said:
Capitalism is broken. If a company knows it can get something produced cheaper with foreign labour, they'll outsource it. That means the people in the Capitalist system will end up giving up jobs and thus living "conditions", over time to another country,
Well done. Attention to the uninformed: This cannot be a serious post. This is an elaborate troll post. Two people took the bait.

I like the fact that a communism debate has emerged in a thread about failing investment banks. The ibanking bloodbath is the very antithesis of communist market ideology. I've always been a fan of bailouts, but I can only see them prolonging problems and inducing moral hazard.
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
hahaha. you idiot. read the link jbnc posted.
I read the article, and it makes quite a few assumptions which are not neccessarily true.

You see the system outlined there is contrary to the Capitalist system. The Capitalist system does not take into account the various industries. Infact, the system outlined in the article implies the entire industry is controlled by a state which weighs and measures the efficiency of production in each individual industry, and then influences these companies to pursue different nations for such production. No such thing happens.

Contrary to that article a company will work only in the best interest of it's self, and then only in it's isolated industry, usually oblivious to the other industries of which it is not involved. What logical reason would a company have to observe another nations workforce to ensure efficiency in a field in which it knows to be more expensive to produce in? Lets use a sport shoe company for instance. If it knows it can produce it's product in say Brazil, cheaper than it can in lets say the United States. Irrespective of whether or not Brazil can produce bananas (with the new work force) more efficiently than the United States, it will still if possible create it's factories in Brazil.

Now theoretically in a state controlled system, whereby the interests of the nation are put before the interests of a company, then sure - the notion of comparative advantage works. Otherwise, it's a complete load of horse manure.
 

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
MasterPUA said:
Well done. Attention to the uninformed: This cannot be a serious post. This is an elaborate troll post. Two people took the bait.
Not neccessarily buddy. Nice try though.

I've always been a fan of bailouts, but I can only see them prolonging problems and inducing moral hazard.
Wow. If anything, your post has to be the troll post in this thread. Do you honestly believe the government (whose money comes from the public) should be used to bail out private companies?

That makes no fucking sense. The only way in which it would even be acceptable, is where the government seizes control of the company, and then brings it into public ownership. (Like they did with FM/FM)
 

MasterPUA

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
83
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2007
sam04u said:
That makes no fucking sense. The only way in which it would even be acceptable, is where the government seizes control of the company, and then brings it into public ownership. (Like they did with FM/FM)
As I said, bailouts prolong problems and induce moral hazard. They are often a bad thing for the overall market in the long term.

I personally like bailouts, as they afford me an extra sliver of job security.
 

Rorix

Active Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2003
Messages
1,818
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
sam04u said:
Wow. If anything, your post has to be the troll post in this thread. Do you honestly believe the government (whose money comes from the public) should be used to bail out private companies?

That makes no fucking sense.
Maybe not from a philosophical point of view, but when the alternative is complete turmoil in the financial system, it's a necessary evil. Should we stick to the philosophical point of view and avoid moral hazard, etc., or should we prevent a total meltdown which would most likely spread to the larger economy and cause a significant recession, if not depression.

I think the Fed should have assisted with the Lehman bailout, but we'll see how that turns out. I don't think it'll be as serious as what would have happened if Bear fell, since LEH's issues were known for longer and there was more opportunity to unwind exposure. However, it's still quite concerning.

IMO the Fed should seek to address the moral hazard issue with regulation - not the best solution, but I think it's better than letting firms fail.

BTW, I don't mean to be offensive or condescending to anyone reading the thread, but I would recommend that before making a judgment on bailout/non-bailout, you understand the nature of the businesses the firms are involved in. After all, the only reason that financial firms should be bailed out (IMO) is because of the counterparty risk created by a firm falling, but if you don't understand what the businesses are, you won't understand why counterparty risk is a big deal.
 

Ragglebomb

New Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Messages
26
Location
Bushbaby
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
lol just wait till all the private equity implodes


edit: and lol at the fact the us federal reserve underwrote a bear stearns bailout but were like nahhhhhhhh to lehmans
 
Last edited:

blue_chameleon

Shake the sauce bottle yo
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
3,078
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
There's still about another $200 billion in bad debts to be written off, out there somewhere, waiting to be found.

Fun times ahead.
 

3li

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2006
Messages
220
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
yea my cousin said likely to go bust
but shes happy to retire and b stay home mummy hahaha
 

blue_chameleon

Shake the sauce bottle yo
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
3,078
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
havy said:
Originally Posted by Ralph
ITS CALLED GOLDMAN SACHS JP MORAGAN CHECK THE WEBSITE,

WTF STICK IT WERE IT SHOULD GO



Ralph could be right after all, there's a good chance of a merger between the two given the current market conditions:uhoh:
I wanna work a JP MORAGAN!

:D

More, again.
 

blue_chameleon

Shake the sauce bottle yo
Joined
Mar 7, 2003
Messages
3,078
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
havy said:
Goldman Posts Worst Quarter

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080916_102550.htm

Goldman, Morgan Stanley face biggest market test

http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSN1532406220080916


Does anyone believe we'll see the goldman sachs jp morgan website soon?
I'd hope not, but realistically, looking at the conditions, its a matter of when, not if.

Will depend on how exposed they are to the $200-$300 billion in bad debts that is still out there. That's a lot of money to be written off, and chances are, they won't miss getting hit.

Then of course, there's the secondary tier prime loans, car loans, and all the other debt people aren't paying off that's out there.
 
Last edited:

sam04u

Comrades, Comrades!
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
Messages
2,867
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
havy said:
why hate mergers so much? if there is only one bank around (lets call it THE Bank), then it saves alot of time for us to write applications :rolleyes:

Q. What motivates you to start a career at THE Bank?

A. Because it is great to work at a bank and THE Bank is the only bank around....
You don't know how wrong that question is do you? :rolleyes:
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top