Discussion in 'Politics & The Economy' started by Badger0-0, Feb 14, 2012.
Actually I'd like to retract my apology. I said "everyone", not "all"
My conclusion is that because ALL THREE of the major agencies (Fitch, Standard & Poor's and Moody's) failed to downgrade the rating of American sub-prime mortgage lenders in time to prevent a world economic calamity, they are no longer reliable.
I'm astonished you said that. I was merely correcting Sidicks invalid response, and I have been courteous enough to provide my reasons. I think the only one who can be accused of pedantry here is Sidicks, and I think that is plain for anyone to see.
My car had a fuel injector problem last year. Does that mean I can't rely on the car to get me to the shops later today?
Or just maybe I can balance the likelihood of issues bearing in mind past problems without just dismissing it as inherently unreliable forever?
Nope. His question was about whether Moody's were the ones that made all those mistakes. And the answer remains "YES". To dismiss those mistakes as insignificant is deceptive, because they destroyed the financial system, as we all know, and it rendered financial institutions insolvent, and requiring salvation by the tax payer. It was Moody's that provided those asset ratings - which was Desmo's question. They may well have rated "some" assets correctly, but who cares? It's the mistakes we are talking about. Whether the mistakes were foreseeable or not, is neither here nor there.
Someone has to counter "your usual crap".
And a mighty fine observation it was too! Well done.
But it was you that merely corrected his response with, dare I say it: flippant mimicry, rather than explaining why you disagreed with him.
And now you are both throwing crap at each other
I've come to expect the kinds of comment MikeTV makes, and I've learned that it's easier just to smile and nod at them than try to engage on them. I'm surprised at you though Steve. Do you always throw the baby out with the bathwater?
sidicks is a master of thatWhen you cant smash your opinions into someone else, then resort to excrement
But I went on to explain why I used "flippant mimicry" - it was to highlight his flippant (and incorrect!)remark, and I later went on to explain why I thought so.
I'm still none the wiser as to why you are criticising me.
Who said I was criticising you?
Maybe we need two separate forums:
One for people to back slap each other and moan about how all the ills of the world were caused by the banks / rating agencies (and possibly also blame the Tories for the current economic situation - extra points for mentioning Tory ideology and Thatcher)
And a separate one for people wanting a sensible, objective and adult debate about the issues...
This is preposterous. I challenge someone who makes an incorrect statement. I demonstrate why I think they made an incorrect statement. And now I am having insults hurled at me from multiple quarters, and being criticised by the "moderator"!
AVF really is laughable at times.
It was people not paying their mortgages (and the perception thereof) that precipitated the crisis....
Pecker accused sidicks of pedantry and I commented that I didn't think it was his fault and it was as a result of his and your posts that the thread was side tracked. That's an observation, not a criticism.
You crticised me when you said I derailed the thread with pedantry. You also described me as using "flippant mimicry". Well it wasn't flippant, it demonstrated how vacuous Sidick's response was, rather succinctly, I thought. Let's not kid ourselves - we both know Sidicks just said it because he's on a mission to portay the entire finance industry as a paragon of virtue and righteousness, beyond criticism, and utterly infallible.
I can agree that we have deviated from the thread. But there is a real point here - if someone posts a deliberate falsehood, and fails to qualify their remarks, they deserve to be challenged by others.
He did eventually qualify his statement - but only in a very much watered down pedantic way, and only after being challenged.
Why not try to be a little more condescending.
Or a more rationale and reasonable person, having read my posts (and yours) would conclude I was trying to provide some balance to your notion that everything that is wrong in the world is down to the banks and that all banks and bankers are exactly the same, all are evil etc etc...
With all due respect, your car is unreliable.
Your car will quite possibly break down again, and you'd not want to live in a society with no public transport for when your car does break down.
You use your car a lot, but you don't rely on it 100%.
Meanwhile, it appears that your car may have broken down once. Moody's & Co. have been 'credit rating' countries since the mid-'70s. Since then we've had 3 major world crises, and they've been succesful in predicting and preventing none of them.
If your car was that unreliable I doubt you'd have raised the same analogy.
Is it their job to predict and prevent major world crises?
I thought they just used available information to give their ratings to securities and institutions?
If their opinion is so worthless what are you worried about? The markets will just ignore them.
Have you told Moodys that it is their job to predict future financial crises?!
Does a credit rating mean that a country or company will never default?
Is it not the case that governments and their policies can change and hence their risk of default also changed?
How many countries have defaulted from AAA?
Hasn't Moody's continued to modify its ratings (and outlook) for countries and debt issues as their situations have changed?
Isn't that what would be expected??
I wonder if you'll even notice the irony in that your first and only contribution to this thread is to jump up and sling some crap about how someone else is always slinging crap.
Yes, yes, I know... Similar irony here...
First you are putting words in my mouth, and using the "all" word, which is highly hypocritical since you just criticised someone else for doing precisely that.
And secondly - if you consider yourself as the "more rational", "reasonable", "balanced person" in our discussions, you must be living on another planet!
It's easy to hurl those sorts of insults at others who don't share your views. But it doesn't make it true.
You might like to re-read any of your posts about banks...
Feel free to post any of mine where I've claimed banks are 'whiter than white'...
Oh yes, you are famous for your balanced views on banks. My personal favourite was...
Transparency is the enemy of profit. Everything the banks do is undertaken with the utmost secrecy, obfuscation, and downright lies. It's good for business. Their entire business model depends upon misleading investors.
Yep. And I stand by everything I said. It's not me that's shocking, it's the situation itself, and the behaviour of the banks. Just because I highlight it, it doesn't make me an extremist. But it's convenient for some to portray me that way.
And furthermore, the difference between me an extremist is that extremists typically expound marginal views. But my experience has been that a large section, if not the majority, of the population agree with my views, in one way or another, albeit to differing degrees. But are simply less vocal about on AVF!
Whereas perpetually defending the indefensible despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is a marginal and extreme pastime.
No, it's because what Badger0-0 and myself thought was going to happen in this thread has in fact happened...
... constant bloody pointless bickering.
Separate names with a comma.