joi, 27 ianuarie 2011

De ce a intrat America în criză (varianta oficială)


FCIC report

Nu l-am citit că a apărut acum 2 ore. Via

3 comentarii:

Radu Ionescu spunea...

600+ pagini e cam mult de citit dar vazand cuprinsul nu pare sa fie ceva spectaculos, ceva ce nu s-a tot discutat in ultimii ani.

Ma rog era greu sa scoata ceva complet diferit, si, evident, necitind tot, poate nu sunt fondate parerile mele, dar parca vad ca aceasta comisie a mancat o gramada de bani sa repete punctul de vedere mainstream.

De fapt daca o sa citesc ceva din raport o sa fie partea de dissenting views, poate aici sa fie ceva mai interesant, ca in rest parerea mainstream e cam standard da vina pe lacomie, si economisti de genu asta au dus lumea in criza. Nu sunt in general mare fan al opiniei populare in multe domenii.

Dan Selaru spunea...

Aia e singura parte interesanta, m-am uitat oblic. Aia sunt mai seriosi.

Rosencrantz spunea...

chiar ca 600 de pagini e mult. dar i-am citit pe dizidenti. mare lucru e sa fii specialist, dom'le ! Toata lumea te ia in serios, orice ai spune.

1. Starting in the late 1990s, China, other large developing countries, and the big oilproducing
nations consumed and invested domestically less than they earned. As
China and other Asian economies grew, their savings grew as well. In addition,
boosted by high global oil prices, the largest oil-producing nations built up large capital
surpluses and looked to invest in the United States and Europe. Massive amounts
of inexpensive capital flowed into the United States, making borrowing inexpensive.
Americans used the cheap credit to make riskier investments than in the past. The
same dynamic was at work in Europe. Germany saved, and its capital flowed to Ireland,
Italy, Spain and Portugal.

2. (zic bancherii intervievati un banc bun)

• We were solvent before the liquidity run started.
• Someone (unnamed) spread bad information and started an unjustified liquidity
• Had that unjustified liquidity run not happened, given enough time we would
have recovered and returned to a position of strength.
• Therefore, the firm failed because we ran out of time, and it’s not my fault.

Acu na, in the long term we're all dead, DAAAR dobanzile calculate pe 100 de ani sunt fabuloase.

2. For a policymaker, the calculus is simple: if you bail out AIG and you’re wrong,
you will have wasted taxpayer money and provoked public outrage. If you don’t bail
out AIG and you’re wrong, the global financial system collapses. It should be easy to
see why policymakers favored action–there was a chance of being wrong either way,
and the costs of being wrong without action were far greater than the costs of being
wrong with action.

Eu am aflat toate astea de la Bird si Fortune, nush de ce era nevoie sa platesti o gramada de oameni ca sa scrie niste plicticosenii de le stie toata lumea.

si anume: si

Dar da, va fi interesant de frunzarit. 600 de pagini. nu puteau sa zica "nu stim sigur, cauzele sunt diverse"?

oricum, multumim de link.