Saturday, June 4, 2011
The Man With the Midas (On Steroids) Touch
You can say what you want about George Soros (the far-right hates him, the far-left loves him). But you definitely have to give him credit in this respect. The fellow is a flat-out genius in terms of making cash. He basically took a couple of million in spare change and turned it into a fund (the Quantum Fund) that is currently worth over TEN BILLION DOLLARS!!!! That, in my mindset, makes him a genius....I'm telling you, folks. If this Soros guy ever wants to hang around with me, I ain't sayin' no. And I don't think that you would, either.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
George Soros has his good and bad qualities.
I believe it is bad for society for anyone to be this wealthy. Of George Soros, a critical Paul Krugman said, "...these days there really are investors who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit".
I was against George bush's bailout of the "too big to fail" banks for this reason. Goldman Sachs, in particular, should have been allowed to fail.
I don't have any problem with rich people, wd. As long as they make the money legally and pay their taxes, God bless 'em. Of course, it helps, too, if they're generous/philanthropic like Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, and Moses Annenberg.
Wasn't TARP a bipartisan piece of legislation?
"And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God". (The Christian Bible: Matthew 19:24, King James Version)
Clearly God disagrees with you Will.
There a quite a few things people can do to "earn" money that are legal but not morally right.
for instance: beginning in late 2006 and ending in early 2008 millions around the world starved due to food speculation. Regarding how many died -- it looks like the figure wasn't calculated, but a UN representatived called it "a silent mass murder".
Goldman Sachs, along with a number of the other large banks, participated in the murder for profit scheme. God bless 'em?
I've never been one to form my opinions via scripture, wd.........As to these various forms of market speculation, I've never said that I was opposed to regulation. If there are abuses out there, absolutely, clean 'em up........I've actually done a little more research on Mr. Soros. It seems that some of his speculation has hurt people, too. What he does is try to manipulate the currency of one country in a manner that helps his investments. He either sells at a profit or buys at discount prices. A lot of it is Chinese to me but it does sound pretty draconian (and we can't regulate it because it's all overseas). It seem that Mr. Soros is yet another one of these people who rails against capitalism and simultaneously benefits from it. And it's all just pushing paper around. At least the frigging Trump company built stuff.
Goerge Soros' main bad quality is to waste money on politics with the aim of making things worse in general.
W-Dervish: Some agreement! I was against the bailouts too. Which puts me on the same side with you, Michael Moore, and most of the Republicans in Congress.
dmarks, what you say is the main bad quality of George Soros... that would be what I would consider his main BEST quality. The main bad one would be the quality that Will mentioned (the currency manipulation).
In regards to the bailouts... I do not FOR ONE SECOND believe that "most of the Republicans in Congress" were against the bailouts. They felt safe voting against it because they KNEW it would pass. If more votes had been needed I am positive some Republicans would have stepped up and thrown themselves on their swords.
The bailouts benefited the rich and powerful whom the Republicans serve exclusively. There is no way they would have let the bankers and Wall Street types lose their shirts.
If you think I'm wrong then please explain why the Republicans were ADAMENT that the higher-ups at the bailed-out institutions keep their bonuses.
Here's the official breakdown, gentlemen. The Senate passed TARP 74-25 (Kennedy on medical leave). The Republicans voted 33-15 in favor and the Democrats voted 41-10 in favor. The Congress passed TARP 263-171. The Democrats voted 172-63 in favor. The Republicans voted 108-91 against. These statistics seem to bear out what I initially stated; i.e., that Tarp was a bipartisan piece of legislation.
Yes, wd, Wall Street likes the Republicans. But they seem to very much like the Democrats, too. According to the Wall Street Journal and CBS News, during the 2008 cycle, Wall Street donated 34 million dollars to political campaigns - 62% of it going to the Democrats. And it's even worse when you look strictly at Goldman Sachs. They gave 73% of their donations to Democrats. Now, has it changed since 2008? It's exceedingly possible. But, still, to me, it looks like they're all pretty dirty and, yes, why I remain favor of public financing of elections.
What you initially stated?? You speak as if you think someone disagreed with you. YES, the Democrats voted for it, which is why fewer Republicans had to. YES, they are all beholden. IMO though, the Democrats are reluctantly beholden (most of them), while the Republicans are gleefully beholden.
How do I know this is true? Look at where the parties stand on the issues. The Democrats supported the consumer financial protection agency while the Republicans oppose and are trying to hobble it.
Wall Street doesn't give a shit about either political party -– they're willing to pay off whichever one is willing to do their bidding. Although they do know that they are much more likely to get exactly what they want when the Republicans are in control.
The reason they gave so much to the Democrats is because they saw the writing on the wall. McCain didn't have much of a chance, and they knew it! Which is why they ingratiated themselves with the candidate most likely to win.
They are not "ALL" pretty dirty. The system is corrupt. The Republicans love it a lot, while the Democrats love it much less.
Bill Clinton was the first Democratic presidential candidate to embrace courting the moneyed interests (they called it the "third way"). I think third way Democrats suck, which is why my feelings about Clinton are mixed to negative.
I think Barack Obama is, in many ways, trying to emulate Clinton, which I find very disappointing. Given that the candidate who spends the most money generally wins, the third-wayers probably believe they have no choice.
They may be right, but that doesn't mean I have to like it. However, it doesn't then mean I have to agree with your nonsense about them all being pretty dirty.
Will: Now, has it changed since 2008? It's exceedingly possible.
From the 2010 NYT: Chase's political action committee is sending the Democrats a pointed message. ...it has rebuffed solicitations from the national Democratic House & Senate campaign committees. Instead, it gave to their Republican counterparts.
Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street's "buyer's remorse" with the Democrats. Industry execs & lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Obama keeps attacking Wall Street ... they may fight back by withholding their cash.
Maybe it's all total bullshit, wd. But most of the Republicans that I've been listening to are clamoring against these bail-outs (all of those douche-bags on Fox Business), "too big to fail", etc........And, NO, not EVERY politician is dirty. I was exaggerating....It does, however, seem like they are, at times; Barney Frank having an affair with somebody at Fannie and Freddie while he was simultaneously spouting off about how solvent they were, that idiot with the 90-something thousand dollars in his freezer, Blagsonofabitch, and, yes, even Christopher Dodd (this, according to your buddy, Michael Moore).......Really, those 15 Republican Senators and 108 Republican Congressman ALL voted against it BECAUSE they KNEW that a lot of Democrats would in fact vote for it? Come on! That's majorly conspiratorial, even for you.............And I'm not even necessarily convinced that it was the wrong vote. I mean, we did avoid a major meltdown, no (that, and a lot of the money's been paid back)?
So, if a politician votes "no" (for political reasons) when he actually wants the bill to pass... that's majorly conspiratorial? Care to explain why or how?
I said my theory was proved by the fact that the Republicans voted against limiting executive bonuses for the bailed out entities... but I guess you're ignoring that point.
Wd, how many of those 172 Democratic Congressmen and 41 Democratic Senators were on the record as to how they would vote prior to the vote. If they weren't on the record (I seem to recall it as a bang-bang scenario), then you're basically saying that the Republicans are claivoyant.......The Republicans were wrong in opposing those limits (was it unanimous?). I cannot speak as to their motivation. In my opinion, as long as a company receives tax-payer money, tax-payers have every right to limit their bonuses (of course, if you voted AGAINST the bailouts, I don't know). We agree on this.
Post a Comment