On Oct 11, 8:46=A0pm, Del Cecchi` <dcecchinos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> OK, here we go with tbird. =A0Don't blame the current finance fiasco on
> "free markets". =A0After all the soviets and the chinese had to adopt
the=
m
> to have any semblance of a working economy. =A0You do remember the
> collectivization of the kulaks and the great leap forward? =A0Rather it
i=
s
> the result of bad assumptions carried to extremes, augmented with
> government interference in the form of fannie and freddie and the desire
> of politicians to bring the joy of home owner****p to everyone.
>
> In many ways it was cross between LTCM's brilliant nobel prize
> mathematical models and the dotcom bubble of 2001 only on a much larger
> scale. =A0Why rational rating agencies would assume that house prices
> would never go down in the face of historical evidence to the contrary
> is a mystery to me. =A0And the companies and employees who went along
and
> made the loans have been punished by the loss of their investment,
> including all the smaller banks encouraged by the government to buy
> fanny and freddy preferred
stock.http://dailybriefing.blogs.fortune.cnn.c=
om/2008/09/08/fannies-preferr...
> Note that fannie was a "GSE", and had many politicians and ex
> politicians on the payroll in one way or another.
>
> But that is outside the scope of this newsgroup and a sure way to finish
> it off.
I don't think you're following closely. This newsgroup *is* finished
off. I didn't do it. The only reason there is traffic now is because
of comments I've made.
I've learned from you and I respect you, but on this one you're way
off the mark. What I'm opposed to is religious belief in anything
other than God. I'm opposed to religious belief in free markets or
any other false god. This nation has been wor****ping false gods with
the guidance of false prophets. I mean all of this in the exact sense
as it would be interpreted in the most common western religious
traditions.
> So I will not be responding further on this issue.
Again, Del, I respect you, but your choice of subject matter won't
determine mine.
>
> As for " you need to put your IBM stuff away", I don't understand what
> you are getting at. =A0Could you explain?
>
Sure. The Intel jealousy among the IBM'er's here is just too plain.
IBM has sup****ted AMD in every way that it possibly can without
running afoul of the DOJ. It's all pretty transparent. Why do you
need me to explain it to you?
I admire IBM, otherwise I would have been excoriating in my criticism
of their behavior. IBM protected Power by propping up AMD. That's
the IBM we all know and love. Had IBM not done so very much to atone
for those sins, I would be loathing IBM right along with AMD.
> As for AMD being a waste of time and talent, if it wasn't for AMD we
> would all be typing on Itaniums.
As I have explained, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Again,
Del, I respect you, but if you don't care to read what I write, then
don't expect me to repeat myself for your benefit. I've been through
some pretty tough times, and I'm way past caring what people think of
me.
> So they have made contributions in the
> past and they might again, if only to keep Intel on the straight and
> narrow. =A0And if people want to invest their money in AMD or their fab
> divisions, who are we to say they shouldn't?
People can dump their money in the ocean, if they care to. It's a
free country. If you think the world a better place for AMD's
shenanigans, we simply disagree. AMD reads the same academic papers I
do.
> Should some chip czar in
> Wa****ngton determine which companies we or others are allowed to invest
> in?
I don't know, Del. Sup****t Rush Limbaugh, or something. I don't
think the free marketeers at the U of C are either much brighter or
more moral than, say, the average ditto head. Actually, I loathe
them. They are as presumptuous as the pompous ***** gathered here.
> How much in campaign contributions will it take to get the
> venture capital?
>
Finally, you are on the right track.
> I guess the degeneration of the group is a symptom of the fact that
> client systems are commodities and of little technical interest these
> days. =A0At least to me.
>
You can form your own estimate of how interesting my utterances are.
You can even try to influence others by expressing your opinion.
> Don't worry, Obama will probably win, and the Democrats will have total
> control. =A0The last couple times this happened it wasn't any prettier
> than when the Republicans had total control.
>
I don't care in the least. Obama takes money from the same people.
Robert.
|
