Comments on: Why we get no respect, part XXVI

By: jet

jet — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:53:03 +0000

David Sucher, I thought I was ;) Are you begging the question of what is immoral? Or do you not believe that market actors can not have morality in the framework of a market? If so let me remind you that markets exist in the real world where jobs lost in Indonesia equate to starved pensioners and more childhood deaths.

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Fri, 14 Jan 2005 05:35:47 +0000

“…immorally manipulating the market.” Now that is an interesting & odd phrase, Mr. Jet. Can you offer an example of immoral manipulation but which is not illegal?

By: jet

jet — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:01:48 +0000

Tim Worstall, So if setting a max income tax at 30% would maximize economic growth, we should do that because long term growth means long term benefits for everyone, even if we have to cut government programs? George Soros corrected the long term idiocy of SE Asia and it only cost a little short term suffering and poverty? What a guy. And using his wealth as a psychological tool to effect the market, plunging the currencies down the shitter, isn’t so immoral once you see the good he was trying to do. How many more people per year starved to death in Malaysia and Indonesia after Soros’s lesson was given? Looks like you get a free ticket to the Joy Luck Lefty Club as long as you profess a belief in all things lefty, regardless of your actual deeds.

By: Tim Worstall

Tim Worstall — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:22:39 +0000

Soros wasn’t a currency manipulator, he was a currency (and other markets) speculator. He did indeed make fortunes by speculating on the idiocy of Governments and politicians, to the great long term benefit of the citizens of those countries, introducing a little economic reality .

By: jet

jet — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:53:08 +0000

“It’s pathetic to hear people who are supposedly pro-capitalist attack people who actually make money from capitalism. But then again many people on the kooky Right — you see it at places like Samizadata (astute exceptions acknowledged) — who talk about things like “manipulate the markets” have only read about markets in a book and who have no actual experience in the capitalist system except as consumers.” Oh brilliant. So if someone is pro-capitalist but against someone immorally manipulating the market, they are part of the “kooky Right” and those views cannot be held at same time without making them a sophist? What, I can’t be against fucking Ken Lay because I dig free markets? And then you go on to accuse people of being ignorant of how markets work? Well speaking of ignorance, your hero George “fucking” Soros wrote a book, you should know about if you are so fucking brilliant about market functionality, about how to use the market to effect investor psychology in order to effect the market. He even came up with a cutesy buzz phrase for it. He lines out exactly what he did in all those nations himself, no one needs to guess if he understood his actions. So he isn’t some innocent virgin who accidently caused mass panics in order to make a buck. Never mind those mass panics meant millions sinking deeper into poverty. He knew exactly what he was doing and you are putting your dick on the block for this guy. Jackass.

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:30:32 +0000

How much did Chuck Simmins donate? I did a Google search and I couldn’t find anything. ••• It’s funny (in a grim way) to hear people who are supposedly pro-capitalist attack people who actually make money from capitalism. But then again many people on the kooky Right—you see it at places like Samizadata (astute exceptions acknowledged)—chatter on about about things like “manipulate the markets” but have only read about markets in a book and who have no actual experience in the capitalist system except as consumers.

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:23:27 +0000

It’s pathetic to hear people who are supposedly pro-capitalist attack people who actually make money from capitalism. But then again many people on the kooky Right—you see it at places like Samizadata (astute exceptions acknowledged)—who talk about things like “manipulate the markets” have only read about markets in a book and who have no actual experience in the capitalist system except as consumers.

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:53:07 +0000

Perhaps we’re being a little harsh on Mr. Simmins. I’ll bet he took time off from his job at Glamour Shots to write that post. Maybe he only gets 30 minutes for lunch and didn’t have time to call George Soros.

By: jet

jet — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 12:31:19 +0000

X, “Aww, isn’t that cute. Such dedication to one’s country is touching.” Ease up cap, I’m detecting hyper-tension. But while you are mocking Congress in the discussions of root problems, how to provice grants to Argentina while it goes through default, and all the testimoy that said the US helped bring down Argentina via bad policy in the IMF, you ignore any responsibility Argentina might have had. I suppose you feel the same way about everything. Then X please forgive me. I’m just a culmination of all the bad advice I’ve been given, I just couldn’t say no conservativism. And yeah, that marxist wanking line made me laugh the instant I thought of it.

By: Harald Korneliussen

Harald Korneliussen — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:38:49 +0000

When you support a political cause with your money, saying so loud and clear is the right thing to do. People in general should not conceal their political views unless they really have to, at least according to me. However, charity is another matter. Boasting about that is considered somewhat distasteful, and you know the part about not letting the left hand know what the right hand gives (or was it the other way around?). Chuck S, I suspect, would be quite comfortable criticising Mr. Soros for publicising his tsunami donations, if that had been his course of action. abb1, you’re right. Although Soros is by no means a saint, he is very self-introspective and honest, so he has made statements like that many times. Perhaps it has something to do with that Popperian philosophy of his?

By: x

Tue, 11 Jan 2005 08:36:20 +0000

“…wanking your marxist johnson off to that WaPo article…” Oh man. No parody could make up this stuff! I am sooo suprised to hear that even in the US Congress – an independent source of news! – the True Patriots are as predictable as on the blogosphere: “But I do want to say that while I think that there are going to be a lot of attempts within Argentina to blame everybody else, including the United States, and perhaps there are problems with the IMF and the advice that they gave, perhaps there are…” Aww, isn’t that cute. Such dedication to one’s country is touching. “The big meanies on Wall Street were responsible for the few good years Argentina had.” Heh, yes, yes. Absolutely. “What happened with Soros in SE Asia is an entirely different story.” Go on, tell us! The MSM won’t, because they’re all wanking their marxist johnsons to Soros, the one and only marxist capitalist! Please, enlighten the public, oh knowledged and impartial blogger!

By: Larry Yudelson

Larry Yudelson — Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:28:16 +0000

Actually, Soros’s Open Society Foundation does give to Indonesia, partnering with a foundation there. Neither have any news about the tsunami on their web pages, and Google news sources tend to be very vague in their desciption of the 200 NGOs active in Indonedia. Given that Soros tends to be involved in long-term projects, I would expect him to be listening to what the medium-term aid requirements are, rather than indulging in photo-ops with the emergency relief team. As for the donors: I recall reading about $10k for George Bush, and $1m for Sandra Bullock.

By: jet

jet — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:36:42 +0000

X wrote, “All I see is a bunch of groupies suddenly discovering anticapitalism because the capitalist in question is some Mr Soros who appears to have ruined entire national markets, no less.” You crack me up. Yeah, because if you voted for Bush then you can’t believe in restrictions on capitalism. Your kung fu is growing weak. And when you are done wanking your marxist johnson off to that WaPo article, check out the real story here: http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/bank/hba77785.000/hba77785_0.HTM The big meanies on Wall Street were responsible for the few good years Argentina had. It was never in good shape, it just momentarily held the glorious attention of the world. So even though the IMF was simply retarded in policy advice (not advice, more like commands), it doesn’t change the fact that the economy was screwed up all along, the IMF was just there to lift it up with lots of cash then push it back down through negligence. What happened with Soros in SE Asia is an entirely different story.

By: x

Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:37:12 +0000

I would have thought it had more to do with Argentina’s inability to implement the required changes in their economy There you go, predictable as rain after thunder. The great instamaster has forged many minds to his standards of knowledge! Of course, suggesting any less than saintly involvement of the US in Latin America, past and present, political or financial, is only conspiracy mongering from those lazy antiamerican corrupt latino anarco-communists, such as the editors of the WaPo. And just who compared Argentina to Indonesia? Who is talking of evil corporations? All I see is a bunch of groupies suddenly discovering anticapitalism because the capitalist in question is some Mr Soros who appears to have ruined entire national markets, no less. No doubt as a consequence of being a "socialist" and supporting the Democrats (meanwhile, the fact that the Democrats are about as socialist as Dick Cheney goes unnoticed, as ever). Nothing new or unusual. Just another entertaining day in the right wing blogosphere. The People Who Are Going To Revolutionise The Meeeeeedia. Good luck with that.

By: The Navigator

The Navigator — Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:14:27 +0000

Chuck, “let’s not forget, the candidate they were supporting was the deciding vote to extend unemployment benefits, only he was too busy campaigning. All in all, one could conclude a certain hypocrisy.” One could, or one could acknowledge the fact that the GOP Senate leadership deliberately set up a variety of votes for the specific purpose of embarrassing the Democratic candidates – the GOP knew, and intended, that if Kerry came back to DC just to vote, and left off campaigning, they would just get one additional Republican to switch votes and side with the majority, and the result would be the same, except that Kerry’s campaign would be interrupted. Kerry loses either way. Nice of you to continue their propaganda victory.