The seller has his reasons to sell; you must have your reasons to buy.
The seller thinks he's getting a good deal - so does the buyer.
It's even-steven, a square deal - a fair deal if no one has been coerced.
Every day in the stock market people unload stocks to people who want to get into them.
Some win, and others lose.
Democrats seem to think everyone should always be a winner and if they're not, then the federal government should step in and make the loser whole and punish the winner.
When people VOLUNTARILY bought homes with sub-prime or alt-a mortgages in the expectation that the value HAD TO GO UP, they bet wrong. When many of these homes went "underwater", many borrowers walked away from their mortgages and their homes leaving the financial institutions who lent them the money (or who had bought the mortgage) holding the bag.
Leftists - and the Democrat Party they now control - seem to think that the TAXPAYERS and the federal government has a duty and has the power to step in and help the homeowners and these financial institutions.
That's because the Left doesn't like it when the free market picks winners and losers.
Leftists think that there should either be no losers or that they should pick the winners and the losers.
When the government picks winners and losers, or sets prices, everyone suffers - everyone except the cronies of the Party in power.
Levin attacked Goldman today for selling stuff to people who wanted to buy it and who paid what they wanted to pay for it - because Goldman made money and the buyers lost money.
Realists know this is just the way of the world in the free market. CBS:
Before you get too nuts, let's review a few core concepts about capital markets. There's nothing wrong or illegal about taking the other side of a client's position. Even within firms, there can be conflicting views about the direction of a given asset class.CAVEAT EMPTOR.
Back in 2007, there were going to be Goldman clients that thought the housing market would continue to rise and those that thought it was destined to fall. Not even the SEC's allegation of fraud against Goldman is centered on taking the other side of a trade; rather it's about disclosure and materiality. Yes, synthetic CDOs exist purely for the betting purposes, but they aren't illegal. And, the transactions that Levin is likely to highlight weren't with retail investors, they were with sophisticated investors who held a contrary view to the one that Goldman held. (Those poor German bankers!)
It not only works better, it's fairer and produces prosperity.
If the Democrats get their way, they will destroy the economy and outlaw profit.
WE CAN STOP THEM THIS NOVEMBER.
(ROUND-UP HERE AT MEMEORANDUM.)
Hiya,
ReplyDeleteI posted a comment on here...it was here for a while then disappeared.
I think it might be because it had the word "shitty" in it, or I disagreed with you.
If it's the former, check out the hearings that have been going on concerning the "product" Goldman Sachs was selling people and you'll know it's a direct quote. If it's the former, and you delete posts (from people that have you on their own blogroll and you've yet to return the favor) because they disagree with you...I wouldn't even know where to begin.
Both reasons just seem outrageous to me...perhaps I'm jumping the gun a bit, and you had third reason...if so please let me know so I don't do it again...of course feel free to email me.
LOOK PAUL;
ReplyDeleteGOLDMAN WASN'T SELLING "PEOPLE" IN THE GENERIC SENSE; YOU WROTE: "concerning the "product" Goldman Sachs was selling people" AND THIS IS EITHER MISINFORMED OR MISLEADING.
THEY ONLY DEAL WITH HUGE SOPHISTICATED BANKERS WHO HAVE THEIR OWN RESEARCH DEPARTMENTS.
SO THE COMMENT IS SILLY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR PREVIOUS COMMENT.
COMMENTS DO DISAPPEAR AND REAPPEAR ON BLOGGER.
ALL THE BEST!