Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« Backpedaling Towards Reality | Main | Today's Photo Du Jour »

November 16, 2008

Comments

RichatUF

Uncle Bigbad-

He was saying that it was a mistake not to bail out Lehman.

Wonder if he let slip that his firm had taken a 9.5 million share stake in Lehman about a month and a half before it went bankrupt? He's probably also been crushed on his Petrobras stake (both on the oil price and the currency cross). Good times, maybe there is an upside to all this.

Syl

Rick

I don't believe I've seen anyone do that.

I've seen only one or two. The point is there are actually no 'denialists'. :)

Extraneus

The fact is, Bush did have a chance after 9/11.

I'm already planning a statement like that about O and 1/20/09. I like the word "squandered" as much as the next person, but I may go with a less-used substitute.

glasater

Rich--Couldn't Soros have shorted his Lehman shares? I think Rick B thought that could be the case.

Dave
On immigration, Bush was a border state gov, so was Clinton
I guess I need some updated maps. ;-)
Rick Ballard

"I think Rick B thought that could be the case."

Huh uh. I don't believe that I've speculated on that aspect. Soros is a destroyer, not a builder. His Lehman play may have been based upon his belief that Lehman was 'too big to fail' but I don't have an opinion as to why he did it. I do believe his main destroyer efforts were in illegal naked shorting against financials with large CDS exposure but he achieved the objective through hedge funds. You won't find his name on the order tickets.

Syl,

Just reinforcing your correct conclusion - true denialists could hold meetings in a phone booth.

RichatUF

glasater-

Couldn't Soros have shorted his Lehman shares? I think Rick B thought that could be the case.

I think I was the one who speculated that he used the shares for the explicit purpose of short selling. At the time it wasn't that large of an investment [for his firm] (say $200 million) but it was big enough that his people got a pretty good look at the books. His people could then have taken the information, spread it around the Soros clones in the community, and started the illegal short selling feeding frenzy that sank the firm. As Rick said above though, his name isn't on any order tickets or on any snowflakes in someone's email archive.

Rick Ballard

Rich,

Wasn't Lehman big in the carbon credits scam? And in promoting "renewable energy" crap as well? It seems as if Soros bought the Goldman-Sachs idiocy on 'Peak Oil Right Now!', tied it to the Warmerist horse manure and made his bets accordingly. He's a damned commie at heart and married to static analysis as well as to "reality creation" through manipulation of propaganda.

I sometimes wonder if the commies were so bent out of shape about Gore's loss because they recognized that nature was going to put the lie to the AGW crap before they had a chance to really tax air. If Gore had been elected we'd all be playing "Save the Cheerleader" today by taxing ourselves to death in order to prevent "warming".

PaulL

I think the best way to defeat global warming hysteria and, with it, carbon taxes, cap and trade, and all that--is with ridicule.

We need to help make global warming lose respect with the public at large, and today's youth seems to really appreciate the humor involved when it's unseasonably cold during global warming protests. Drudge is great for this.

My college kid smiles broadly or even laughs every time I call another "Gore effect" situation to his attention. Ultimately, I think Drudge will do more to end this nonsense than the science bloggers, although the more the merrier.

PaulL

Great! Rush led the show with James Hansen "making up" the October global warming numbers.

RichatUF

Rick-

Wasn't Lehman big in the carbon credits scam?

True, but isn't this more of an industry wide problem of elite schooling and Gramscian affinity networks. The EU's Phase I test should have killed the idea-people, though it is well concealed, have lost billions on the carbon-trading scam. Phase II doesn't look to be getting off to an auspicious start either.

Maybe Soros was a Goldman Sachs true believer-he definantly took a hit on the "Peak Oil Right Now!" mania, but the place I'm thinking that really got him was Goldman's other thesis: "BRIC". The thing is though, he's got so much money and power that he believes that not only is he above the law but what he does is the law, and he has enough lackeys and sycophants to get away with pretty much what he wants (hell he just bought the US Presidency). Why else would he have skipped out, then dragged out the appeals process, his insider trading conviction in France or an interlocking network of goons to spread the "open society" gospel?

If Gore had been elected we'd all be playing "Save the Cheerleader" today by taxing ourselves to death in order to prevent "warming".

Classic, had to look it up, wonder when GE is going to give up there AWG propaganda?

rhodeymark

"The laws of supply and demand have not been repealed folks. If there is a valid risk, people will lend to it. They will not lend to places that are way to risky"

Unless sued to the tune of a couple billion in settlements - see Citi circa early '90s, Cuomo's "affirmitive action housing" presser, etc.
In '02, Bush erred greatly in taking bad counsel from Stiglitz and others and pouring gasoline on the subprime market. That he would direct Section 8 mortgage payments to be made on no doc 100% loans still boggles my mind. Sure, he had buyer's remorse the next year, but by then golden goose was on life support.

rizables

The journalism industry runs these campaigns for global warming, Obama, etc. and then they buy into these same campaigns with all critical thought suspended.

I would always tell myself these are smart people I do not believe that any longer.

cathyf
The only people who can rightly be called denialists are those who claim that CO2 cannot and does not have any effect at all.
Well, it depends on whether or not you count "the limit as x goes to zero" as "does not have any effect as all".

Think about this and wind energy:

-- Windmills remove energy from the atmosphere.

-- It's a tiny effect when compared to the total energy.

-- CO2 is also a tiny effect when compared to the entire atmosphere.

The AGW arguments are fundamentally about non-linear dynamics and "tipping points" and "butterfly effects."

You can't simultaneously argue that the effects of windmills must be trivial while the effects of anthropomorphic CO2 might not be trivial.

Uncle BigBad

Rick, Rich, et al

Global warming hysteria has sunk more than one company. I recall, sometime before Enron failed, Ken Lay insisted Enron was not an oil company (he was right), it was an "energy company," and he intended to trade in carbon credits. He expected GW to swallow warming nonsense.

I also recall seeing Lester Brown (Worldwatch Institute)on C-Span. He talked about his friend Ken Lay, a fellow environmentalist.

kim

Ah, syl, we're beasts with biases.
====================

sophy

I do not know how to use the knight online gold ; my friend tells me how to use.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame