I would like to see Erin Burnett keep him in a little bottle and call him forth like a genie to perform on command. Then, all of a sudden, he makes some ridiculous accusation and dissolves into a tenuous mist smelling of fetid tobacco.
Well he is right that they are speculating about the bonuses. It makes me wonder where the source of this story really came from. Who cares in June what may or may not be paid out in December? A year ago at this time, Goldman was probably looking to pay some nice bonuses too.
After reading the pull quote from the first paragraph, I am convinced that NYT is describing teenage masturbation: They do it late at night when their parents are asleep. They do it in restaurants and while crossing busy streets. They do it in the classroom with their hands behind their back. They do it so much their thumbs hurt.
I need someone to find our story from the 1990s when we warned that Playstation, Nintendo, et. al. are ruining kids thumbs. Change it around for texting and get it in the paper for Monday.
@CaptainFantastic: "And be sure to include at least three anecdotes about parents who let their children text whenever/whatever they want so all the Park Slope Parents will go nuts with condemnation in the comments."
The other panelists, Liz Claman Fox business, and Alan Murray, wsj, blamed CNBC for sending Jim Cramer. Said he was an entertainer, not a journalist. Murray said anybody who followed Cramer's advice was, basically, an idiot.
@Edward_Barrera: But that might have been the brilliance of it. CNBC didn't lose any credibility because they sent in the clown. When Stewart eviscerated Dennis Kneale for all the world's entertainment, that would have hurt. And to be sure, the floor would have been slick with Kneale's blood.
He only wishes that Jon Stewart would deign to go through a bunch of CNBC clips and put something together on him. Gasparino is like Q-list anchor-celeb status at best.
You guys need to update your picture of Charlie. He's hardly recognizable here - he has sort of let himself go during the financial crisis. He rocks the 24/7 5 o'clock shadow.....
@BenjiMinoskovich: Heh, and he apparently pushes the CNBC makeup people away when they attempt to apply matte foundation to his face. Why so shiiiiiny?
Anyway I love Chazzie especially because he openly fights, shushes, interrupts, and torments all the other on-air anchors. It's delightfully awkward and horrific. Fun for the whole family!
Now THAT's a porno movie script if I ever seen one. (Side note to teh clueless - I believe in 3D commenting so check all the comment streams if you want to have a clue. Linear commenting is so 2008.).
@Worst Spelling Ever: I do much of my commenting on the surface of a 4th dimensional hypersphere. If you rotate around just right, you'll be able to see it for a second or two.
The biggest problem with index funds? They're relentlessly positive. They don't short, they don't liquidate stagnant positions, and they bias passive investors to the upside. The popularity of index funds to the exclusion of other strategies is a huge contributor to bubbles - observe how many index funds fueled capital runups in financials.
Guys like me who invest actively can look at stupid runups like we had two years ago and say, "Yeah, this is fucking stupid" and short the living hell out of everything. That's why I booked more capital gains tax over the past two years than I made at work. If you view market speculation as a tool for securing your future, surely you don't think that expressing confidence is always the right move? Get negative, people! Cynicism is a hell of a money-making trait in a human being if utilized properly.
@ADismalScience: I agree with Aatom, you sound like you know what you are talking about. I wish I did, but stock talk just makes the corners of my brain all hurty.
@ADismalScience: This is how the funds-of-funds people talk, you know...while they're adding their fees on top of the two-and-twenty they're already paying out on your behalf.
I don't dispute the wisdom of going negative for professional investors -- but for individuals, I'm convinced it would lead to a lot more total wipeouts than the current system does.
And wipeouts mean lawsuits, which mean an increase in deadweight loss for the economy as a whole (except for bankruptcy and class-action attorneys, of course).
@Smirk: If you want to retire and not eat cat food you won't listen.
If you want a stable economy and no bubbles and catastrophes you won't listen.
If you want a quick million that you will inevitably get stolen or fraudulently managed or pissed away on overpriced real estate or commodity bonds because "Hey I made this million I can make more" then listen.
Also, if you can make that million and just walk away and live on it for the rest of your life listen. So no addictive personalities plz (look around your apt. If you have ashtrays, a coffee pot, enough sugar filled foods to kill an elephant, or just a fat gut because you are too lazy to exercise and thus have endorsed the bear culture because you get to eat as much as you want, sit as much as you want, and have sex as much as you want. DO NOT LISTEN).
@skahammer: 'preciate it. You'd be horrified to learn Sweetie's an approaching middle-age husband and wife team of mid-Atlantic corporate lawyers. Granted, the female half is a pretty hot Hollins and W&L grad.
Suggesting that index fund investing somehow absolves you from participation in economic bubbles and is a "morally superior" way to invest is ridiculous.
The point is apt. "Passive investment" lost you about half of your money this past
year. What is the difference if I lose a ton of money in a stock that I pick myself or if some suit loses it for me in the form of a mutual fund. Or maybe it would be better if I lose it in the falling equity of the "safer" asset class of real estate. Of course, I can always stay in cash and lose just the value of my money as we dilute our currency by printing trillions of dollars for the Chinese.
Exactly what are Wall Street executives advocating? That I should trust them with my money until they can find the next bubble to create? Let's see. We've had a tech bubble, a real estate bubble, and an energy bubble in just the last decade. At this rate, the average person could experience 23 bubble crashes during his or her life.
@ChillbearLatrigue: The number one difference between those two investment methods, as I'm sure you're aware, is diversification and the resulting effect it has on the total risk you wind up taking as an investor.
If your investment horizon was Jan 1-Dec 31 2008, then you're right, the differences in how your loss was accomplished are probably insignificant to you.
But most people seeking investment advice are looking to the future. And the amount of total risk they're taking makes a big difference to how well different portfolio options align with their future investment objectives and risk tolerances.
Also, I suggest that you might also have the capital-flows issue backwards: The Chinese actually don't want us printing trillions of dollars and thus driving down the value of all dollar-denominated assets, which would materially ding all sorts of asset balances they currently hold. Whatever you think of the direction of US economic policy (and I'm sure you and I share some unease over it), we're definitely printing the dollars for ourselves.
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
ahh so the NYT article was really a hidden iPhone add - less speed, but less pain!
05/26/09
05/26/09
I need someone to find our story from the 1990s when we warned that Playstation, Nintendo, et. al. are ruining kids thumbs. Change it around for texting and get it in the paper for Monday.
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
How quaint that you think we aren't already there.
05/26/09
05/26/09
05/26/09
04/23/09
04/23/09
04/23/09
04/23/09
04/23/09
04/23/09
Anyway I love Chazzie especially because he openly fights, shushes, interrupts, and torments all the other on-air anchors. It's delightfully awkward and horrific. Fun for the whole family!
04/18/09
Did I miss a period?
.
04/18/09
04/17/09
Guys like me who invest actively can look at stupid runups like we had two years ago and say, "Yeah, this is fucking stupid" and short the living hell out of everything. That's why I booked more capital gains tax over the past two years than I made at work. If you view market speculation as a tool for securing your future, surely you don't think that expressing confidence is always the right move? Get negative, people! Cynicism is a hell of a money-making trait in a human being if utilized properly.
04/17/09
04/17/09
04/17/09
God, stop it. This is how we rip you all off.
Whoops! Too much honesty. Now I'm going to be dragged off by the Freemasons over at Goldman.
04/17/09
That being said, can I join your fuckemfund?
You know, Love.
04/17/09
I don't dispute the wisdom of going negative for professional investors -- but for individuals, I'm convinced it would lead to a lot more total wipeouts than the current system does.
And wipeouts mean lawsuits, which mean an increase in deadweight loss for the economy as a whole (except for bankruptcy and class-action attorneys, of course).
04/18/09
This comment was sent by my fucking iphone, which is paid for by my class action defense lawyer salary and bonuses.
04/18/09
Unless Julia Allison has been posting here as "pufflehuff," which I highly doubt.
04/18/09
If you want a stable economy and no bubbles and catastrophes you won't listen.
If you want a quick million that you will inevitably get stolen or fraudulently managed or pissed away on overpriced real estate or commodity bonds because "Hey I made this million I can make more" then listen.
Also, if you can make that million and just walk away and live on it for the rest of your life listen. So no addictive personalities plz (look around your apt. If you have ashtrays, a coffee pot, enough sugar filled foods to kill an elephant, or just a fat gut because you are too lazy to exercise and thus have endorsed the bear culture because you get to eat as much as you want, sit as much as you want, and have sex as much as you want. DO NOT LISTEN).
04/18/09
04/18/09
04/19/09
Suggesting that index fund investing somehow absolves you from participation in economic bubbles and is a "morally superior" way to invest is ridiculous.
04/17/09
year. What is the difference if I lose a ton of money in a stock that I pick myself or if some suit loses it for me in the form of a mutual fund. Or maybe it would be better if I lose it in the falling equity of the "safer" asset class of real estate. Of course, I can always stay in cash and lose just the value of my money as we dilute our currency by printing trillions of dollars for the Chinese.
Exactly what are Wall Street executives advocating? That I should trust them with my money until they can find the next bubble to create? Let's see. We've had a tech bubble, a real estate bubble, and an energy bubble in just the last decade. At this rate, the average person could experience 23 bubble crashes during his or her life.
04/18/09
If your investment horizon was Jan 1-Dec 31 2008, then you're right, the differences in how your loss was accomplished are probably insignificant to you.
But most people seeking investment advice are looking to the future. And the amount of total risk they're taking makes a big difference to how well different portfolio options align with their future investment objectives and risk tolerances.
Also, I suggest that you might also have the capital-flows issue backwards: The Chinese actually don't want us printing trillions of dollars and thus driving down the value of all dollar-denominated assets, which would materially ding all sorts of asset balances they currently hold. Whatever you think of the direction of US economic policy (and I'm sure you and I share some unease over it), we're definitely printing the dollars for ourselves.
04/17/09