Discussion in 'Politics & Economy Forum' started by Badger0-0, Feb 14, 2012.
Isn't that like putting the fox in charge of the hens?
Ah well you see, the Tories always do everything better.
For John and Mike :
Oh I'm sorry - I'd forgotten the rule that only one person is allowed to be cynical of the tories in an AVF thread.
What!! All I said was that the Tories always do everything better. Or was it the way I wrote it?
Tory bashing how dare thee
It seems both Kav and I thought you were being ironic. Can't imagine why
I'm right handed!
Only joking gents - it was more to do with the fact that for several posts there were no other contributions, just a back and forth between you two, and I pictured the two of you in such agreement with each subsequent post that you were virtually high-fiving.
So there was no subliminal message intended with the left handed (ie sinister) high five.
We have to watch you right leaning types, conspiracies everywhere.
Has this negative outlook come from the same company that rated everyone AAA when they were shifting their bad debts around? Or have I got the system all wrong?
You are totally wrong.
You are totally right.
Wonder how much "performance" bonuses the CEO's of these companies are on
I mimicked your post to highlight the absurdity of just contradicting someone else's observation. We can all just say "you're wrong" or "rubbish" whenever we encounter an opinion we disagree with - it's pathetic behaviour.
Seems totally wrong to me - which bits are true?
It wasn't an opinion being disagreed with, it was a question asked and answered. I think you jumped in with both feet there before thinking, just because it was sidicks who commented.
Except that Desmo's observation was correct. Sidicks comment was his unqualified opinion, and wrong. And here's why:
I think you jumped in with both feet there before thinking, just because it was me who commented.
You do realise this report will be rubbished
Except for a number of key factors:
1. Desmo referred to the companies holding theses assets not the assets themselves
2. Desmo referred to all these companies being rated AAA which is not true
3. Neither were all of the securities rated AAA
4. Finally not all of these assets have been downgraded to junk.
Happy to try and put some balance to this one-sided discussion...
So he's right, you were wrong to say he was 'totally wrong'. He was mainly right, but just wrong about the extent.
I'm afraid you've just demonstrated how easy it is to pick up a slightly-less-than-accurate phrase in an internet thread and completely derail the discussion.
Desmo's point was that these agencies are not to be trusted as they AAA rated the very companies and banks who caused the current crisis. Whether he said 'all' or 'most' or 'some' isn't the issue - well, not much of an issue.
The most important point is that the very raison d'être of these agencies is to flag up which institutions are worth investing in, and which are on dodgy ground. They fundamentally failed to do that in this instance, and that in turn impacts on how much authority we give to their 'negative outlook' judgement, which is what this thread is about..
Whether or not Desmo was completely correct in saying 'all' is, on the other hand, not really what this thread is about at all.
Your missing the key point - it was nothing to do with the rating of Institutions which "caused the crisis" (your words).
It concerned the underlying assets that were being rated, which represent a proportion of the total assets they rate.
Do you not realise that you've just done it again?
Whether or not it's accurate to say the agencies 'caused' the crisis instead of saying 'they could have helped prevent it but didn't' adds nothing whatsoever to the point at issue - the agencies are not reliable.
The question begged is 'Why should we trust this latest pronouncement when they missed the upcoming storm?' None of your posts on the issue add anything of any value to that question, and trying to sidetrack the debate by questioning pedantically the use of the words 'all' or 'caused' doesn't hide that fact.
You completely (and incorrectly) dismissed his statement as untrue, in one succinct sentence. And you now have the audacity to criticise him from not qualifying his remarks, even though they were substantively correct, other than to the most excruciatingly pendatic.
How unbelievably hypocritical. Or should that be - deliberately deceptive?
I thought it was you and MikeTV that side tracked it into a pedantic dissection as to whether he made a valid response, not sidicks
So your conclusion is that because some mistakes (in some cases large) were made on some securities, some of which could not be foreseen, then nothing that any rating agency has ever produced or will ever produce is useful or relevant??
Brilliant, well done.
I guess it's consistent with your usual crap about m:
All banks were bailed out
All bankers are evil
All banks rip you off
Repeat ad nauseum...
Bloody hell ladies, keep your hair on
It was just an observation and I humbly apologise for using the word "all"
I can see why I took a break from here a little while back, off I go again
I'll bet Desmo wished he hadn't asked now.
Separate names with a comma.