I know right? It's like when Alan Greenspan finally admitted there was a "flaw in his worldview" because he expected the people running public companies to behave rationally. The stock market has NEVER been a wholly rational venture; the Tulip Mania of the 1600s wasn't a bug, it's an endemic feature of the system.
Because it doesn't really have anything to do with AIG, persay. You've got two things going on here. The first is that national numbers are starting to look better: less layoffs planned, a smidge more hiring, the housing numbers are good. The market is seeing a floor, and the market likes floors. Personally, I think 'floor' is the wrong term here, but so says the economist I live with, so thus do I call it. Anyway. Everything is edging up slightly, and staying consistently up if you can call 'a week' consistent, because of that. It's got nothing to do with specific companies.
The second issue is specific to AIG: what the AIG CEO said to Congress yesterday. He played mea culpa. Granted, it was a smarmy form of mea culpa, but it removed the war of chicken AIG and the government were involved in, and it put both parties back on their respective sides of the street. Frankly, Congress' new measure to tax AIG's benefits may have long term repercussions, in that it might kill the way the industry has come to rely on bonuses (I am
( ... )
Sorry, didn't mean to sound so argumentative about it.
Can you explain, though? Because everything I've read so far (and there are conflicting reports, totally) says that the employees who received the bonuses weren't the same employees who played fast and loose with the market. It's a separate division.
Oh man, it is gambling. I think that's why I enjoy watching and very low-priced playing with it. So it's pretty much always an eternal mystery how anyone who doesn't do this professionally can make money except by accident (literally, the only time I've made money was with Bank of America buying and selling bumps, and I was doing it for very low returns, mostly just to see if I could) or on purpose. And not have some kind of nervous breakdown. Unless, you know, they have weight in how it goes, which is kind of obvious they do.
Oh yes, this is the other part of gambling: the odds are subtly stacked against the players and the bank always wins over the long term, that's the whole point of running a gambling joint. It's random... except that the house makes money while the gamblers tend to lose money over the long term.
And the final piece of this? Is that the gambling industry is so profitable that it is generally controlled by crooks, if not organized crime.
Note: I am not going to examine this last too closely though, because I am unclear on what goes on in Las Vegas casinos owned by indian tribes. They could be an exception to this last, for all I know... but I doubt it, human nature being what it is.
Comments 30
Reply
Reply
The second issue is specific to AIG: what the AIG CEO said to Congress yesterday. He played mea culpa. Granted, it was a smarmy form of mea culpa, but it removed the war of chicken AIG and the government were involved in, and it put both parties back on their respective sides of the street. Frankly, Congress' new measure to tax AIG's benefits may have long term repercussions, in that it might kill the way the industry has come to rely on bonuses (I am ( ... )
Reply
I would disagree flatly with that.
Reply
Sorry, didn't mean to sound so argumentative about it.
Can you explain, though? Because everything I've read so far (and there are conflicting reports, totally) says that the employees who received the bonuses weren't the same employees who played fast and loose with the market. It's a separate division.
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
And the final piece of this? Is that the gambling industry is so profitable that it is generally controlled by crooks, if not organized crime.
Note: I am not going to examine this last too closely though, because I am unclear on what goes on in Las Vegas casinos owned by indian tribes. They could be an exception to this last, for all I know... but I doubt it, human nature being what it is.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Leave a comment