日本不是已经搞了很久的太阳能发电了？好象核电厂比太阳能的希望还大点儿。自拍肩膀说我的简陋生活就很环保。
说一千道一万，不管是BO 还是HRC，人根本就不需要拉咱这种资产阶级自由派知识分子的选票，难道还真的变成共和党不成？吃定了你。要哄要拉要连蒙带骗混到手的是在OH，PA，FL，MI，WI 那几个州的选民而已。
索罗斯：衰退刚刚开始没有避风港
Republicans have proven themselves to be incapable of being fiscally conservative or slightly responsible. No, they have spent far more $$$$$ than Carter and Clinton put together. So don't tell me Republicans give people small government -- just ask ex-Republican and still a conservative Andrew Sullivan. Or any credible macroeconomist.
I would be the first to admit that I like McCain as a person, but he has said several times that he knows nothing about economy.
In state governments, some Republican and some Democratic governors have both done well or done poorly in running the state budget and social issues. In California, the problems are deep and long-standing. The way states are run is different from the federal government. Some Republican governors, eg, Mike Huckabee, was socially quite liberal. Some Democratic governors can be pretty conservative, eg, the female govenor in Kansas whose name I can't remember. Mitt Romney, for example, was quite liberal as the governor of Mass.
In federal government, from Congress to the Executive branch, Republicans have screwed everyone in the past decade. State and federal governments are run very differently and voting in either types of election requires different considerations.
I would be the first to admit that I like McCain as a person, but he has said several times that he knows nothing about economy.
In state governments, some Republican and some Democratic governors have both done well or done poorly in running the state budget and social issues. In California, the problems are deep and long-standing. The way states are run is different from the federal government. Some Republican governors, eg, Mike Huckabee, was socially quite liberal. Some Democratic governors can be pretty conservative, eg, the female govenor in Kansas whose name I can't remember. Mitt Romney, for example, was quite liberal as the governor of Mass.
In federal government, from Congress to the Executive branch, Republicans have screwed everyone in the past decade. State and federal governments are run very differently and voting in either types of election requires different considerations.
Last edited by Jun on 2008-04-14 15:44, edited 1 time in total.
此喵已死，有事烧纸
First of all, current government is just a BAD government, it doesn't even have anything to do with Republican. NewCon hijacked republican party in the past decade.
Secondly, I am for complete free market. Free market has its limitations, and with all the fast changing financial market, not only the administration did not make an effort to keep the regulation up-to-date, but they kept removing old ones.
So, the government is not fiscally conservative, they just kept deregulate. Not that regulation will prevent all diasters, but no regulation at alll, is like putting a bunch of race cars on the road with no traffic light -- a diaster waiting to happen.
Secondly, I am for complete free market. Free market has its limitations, and with all the fast changing financial market, not only the administration did not make an effort to keep the regulation up-to-date, but they kept removing old ones.
So, the government is not fiscally conservative, they just kept deregulate. Not that regulation will prevent all diasters, but no regulation at alll, is like putting a bunch of race cars on the road with no traffic light -- a diaster waiting to happen.
有事找我请发站内消息
Oh no?First of all, current government is just a BAD government, it doesn't even have anything to do with Republican.
I completely disagree with xiaoxixi in that the problem US has now is not that there are no good politicians. Actually, all 4 candidates are pretty good, smart, effective, and basically decent people (I would even include Huckabee in this group despite his personal ideology). In another peaceful time, any one of them would bring prosperity.
The problem is that the system has been irreversibly corrupted in the past decade by neoconservatives. Because it is proven that corruption can be done so easily, it will continue to be repeated. The cat is out of the bag.
The political and financial systems have been so badly damaged that they are beyond repair. That is why I think even the best prez cannot save this federal budget and financial disaster and a broken legislative system. Even the best driver can go nowhere with a totalled car.
Last edited by Jun on 2008-04-14 15:53, edited 2 times in total.
此喵已死，有事烧纸
Yes, it is the Republicans. Not all Republicans but a specific group of neoconservatives who are also religious fundamentalists. It is a segment of politicians and academics and corporate moguls, plus a few prominent southern religious leaders. A very discreet circle of powerful people. They have been chipping away in the political system for the past four decades. Slowly mounting a war on "librals" and "the left", by any means necessary.
此喵已死，有事烧纸
CDS 基本性质就是保险，比如你在A有个帐号，里面放了１MILLION钱或者股票或者别的什么，听说A最近不太可靠，你就担心上了，这怎么办呢？把钱挪到别处吧，谁知道哪个银行可靠呢。这时候B 就说了，你给我点钱，A倒闭了我就赔你。一般这种卖的很便宜，因为A倒闭的可能性很小。万一它真倒闭，B也会赔你钱 －－ 除非B也倒闭。两家公司一起倒闭的可能性应该不大。
糟糕的是，B跟很多人都那么说，卖了５万份这样的CDS。现在A如果倒闭，大家都去跟B要钱，B就会立刻被要倒闭。然后如果C 卖了好多B 的CDS，C会接着倒闭。。。。就这样一串下去。。。A的倒闭就把整条街都弄倒闭了。
有人就要问了。B怎么能卖五万份合同出去而不想一想它付不出５０BILLION现金呢？付不出就不要卖啊。
问题就在这里。这些合同之所以不叫保险，就是为了不受所有关于保险的法律规章控制。如果随便有人在街上卖健康保险给你，而没有足够的资金来付你的CLAIM，那他犯法。但是卖这些CDS不犯法。为什么？它不叫保险。为什么你会买？因为你相信这些银行都是花儿街上的大银行，不会为赖一米林破产。你不知道他们其实卖了五万份。为什么不知道？因为他们不在任何公开的帐上，不用报告。
糟糕的是，B跟很多人都那么说，卖了５万份这样的CDS。现在A如果倒闭，大家都去跟B要钱，B就会立刻被要倒闭。然后如果C 卖了好多B 的CDS，C会接着倒闭。。。。就这样一串下去。。。A的倒闭就把整条街都弄倒闭了。
有人就要问了。B怎么能卖五万份合同出去而不想一想它付不出５０BILLION现金呢？付不出就不要卖啊。
问题就在这里。这些合同之所以不叫保险，就是为了不受所有关于保险的法律规章控制。如果随便有人在街上卖健康保险给你，而没有足够的资金来付你的CLAIM，那他犯法。但是卖这些CDS不犯法。为什么？它不叫保险。为什么你会买？因为你相信这些银行都是花儿街上的大银行，不会为赖一米林破产。你不知道他们其实卖了五万份。为什么不知道？因为他们不在任何公开的帐上，不用报告。
有事找我请发站内消息
我看到这里，觉得knowing也讲的好清楚。Knowing wrote:我觉得这事儿他讲的很清楚。一个时期已经结束，但泡沫时代尚未结束。美国需要一个肯面对事实的总统。
老实说，要人民面对这种残忍的事实是很困难的。大选里那么多有争议性的话题，我几乎没听到媒体提及三个候选人间一个巨大的区别：OBAMA 反复强调：这些工作不会回来了，我们得创造新的工作机会。而HRC 和MCCAIN 都还在保证要把工作拉回来，重现美国汽车业的辉煌，BLAHBLAH。然后OBAMA 说美国小镇的人失业了二十五年还在等，所以变的苦涩，转向宗教寻求安慰，又受到攻击，HRC 和MCCAIN 都说他脱离现实，精英态度。是谁脱离现实？人民一天要上WALMART 买便宜货，一天就别指望工作回来。驱动整个经济制度的火车头是collective greed， 光骂花儿街资本家大企业有什么用。靠全球化剥削发展中国家顺风船搭久了，美国人以为永远该这样捏，哪有那么便宜的事。
索洛斯在这些年总是一付哲学家的样子，可是他是一贯的投机家，和另一位一贯唱空的家伙一样（忘了名字了，记得熊斯坦刚刚被救的时候npr采访过他），他们的言论就算很有道理，但是动机总是让人怀疑。
我不是很能理解的是：为什么会有主权财富基金。这样的基金不愿再持有美国政府债券，而是尽可能购买房产，尤其是日用品。。。我不认为sovereign wealth fund转而投资房产，虽然投资粮食是有可能的，这也解释乐最近global food价格上涨的原因。全球的sovereign wealth fund，除了很少的国家比如挪威以外，其他国家，比如中国，比如中东，有多大的量和投资策略的透明度都很差。我对索洛斯能够做很好的估计深表怀疑。我倒是更加相信索洛斯认为大家都在投资food，然后火上浇油，制造恐慌可能性更大。
艾，说了一堆，还是去关心一下我自己的投资账户，看应该做怎样的投资才是上上策。
我不是很能理解的是：为什么会有主权财富基金。这样的基金不愿再持有美国政府债券，而是尽可能购买房产，尤其是日用品。。。我不认为sovereign wealth fund转而投资房产，虽然投资粮食是有可能的，这也解释乐最近global food价格上涨的原因。全球的sovereign wealth fund，除了很少的国家比如挪威以外，其他国家，比如中国，比如中东，有多大的量和投资策略的透明度都很差。我对索洛斯能够做很好的估计深表怀疑。我倒是更加相信索洛斯认为大家都在投资food，然后火上浇油，制造恐慌可能性更大。
艾，说了一堆，还是去关心一下我自己的投资账户，看应该做怎样的投资才是上上策。
已经卖出去的东西，想买回来哪那么便宜。一年前5 basis points 卖的，到熊四叹接近破产的周五已经卖到450 basis points。就是九十倍价钱。豪情 wrote:那B能不能退这个很少的钱, 不做了? 不过A立即就到掉了. B是不是JPM, A是BSC?
我猜是指他们不投资美元国债而投资reit, commodity, 本来嘛，美元贬的那么厉害，投资什么不比那个强。小豪不就改买金子了嘛。commodity 市场去年赚也赚死了。大米石油金子，什么都张。主权财富基金。这样的基金不愿再持有美国政府债券，而是尽可能购买房产，尤其是日用品
我不知道。。。。。还有说泡沫时代自里根撒切尔时代起是因为自由市场的原则导致这个雪球越滚越大，到现在已经不好控制了吗？
政府应该对货币和信贷进行控制是什么意思？索洛斯是说中国政府正是做了这个控制所以是值得学习的吗？那么他所说的中国问题又指什么呢？
日郎说的对，cds 现在是不受什么监管，想买就买，不需要提供抵押和资金证明，才有这种混乱的现象。所以索罗丝要建议由中心交易系统监管。
有事找我请发站内消息
第一个关于自由市场的问题，我觉得是不好控制了，里根我不知道，撒切尔时代主要工作就是把原来国有化的的行业象铁路什么的私有化，以达到大市场小政府的状态也就是他前面所提到的“从那之后，市场上占主宰地位的思维方式是，市场应该被赋予更大的余地，而监管调节机构则全然放弃了他们的监管调节责任”现在，我感觉这不是一个单纯的经济问题。笑嘻嘻 wrote:还有说泡沫时代自里根撒切尔时代起是因为自由市场的原则导致这个雪球越滚越大，到现在已经不好控制了吗？
政府应该对货币和信贷进行控制是什么意思？索洛斯是说中国政府正是做了这个控制所以是值得学习的吗？那么他所说的中国问题又指什么呢？
第二对货币供应量的控制就是公开市场业务，就是央行对于国债的买卖，现在中国大量发行国债，以减少货币供应量。这个似乎是欧美比较常用的货币政策。
对于信贷的控制我想是指中国拼命提高存款准备金率，这个是有效缩小货币乘数的方法。这个似乎欧美不常用，而且他们现在面对的问题似乎是反向，我说不清楚。
另外中国要面对的问题我也没看明白？
对，CDS可以倒买倒卖， 价格当然跟风险大小有关。
SWAP 是个什么东西其实也不复杂，但是三言两语讲不清。连个WIKI PAGE 吧。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swap_%28finance%29
SWAP 是个什么东西其实也不复杂，但是三言两语讲不清。连个WIKI PAGE 吧。
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swap_%28finance%29
有事找我请发站内消息
