how jp morgan got in trouble

How JP Morgan will get in further trouble:

The person they hired (Zames) to replace Ina Drew was the 'boy wonder/baby genius' who helped create the wonderful computer model that told Long Term Capital Managment to go all in on Russia in 1998... they did... Russia then proceeded to reward LTCM by devaluing their currency by 80%. This is the idiot that Jamie the crook Dimon just put in charge of managing risk/hedging in their London office. Duck and cover.
 
Wow, experts cannot even figure it out. How it is supposed to wiork anyway.
And another possible 5+ billion loss.

Yep this is where I want my SS money invested.

The Wall Street Casino.
 
Occupant said:
Wow, experts cannot even figure it out. How it is supposed to wiork anyway.
And another possible 5+ billion loss.

Yep this is where I want my SS money invested.

The Wall Street Casino.
Click to expand...

LMAO... you do know which bank holds all the SS funds don't you?

J...P...MORGAN
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... you do know which bank holds all the SS funds don't you?

J...P...MORGAN
Click to expand...


That's just slightly disingenuous, isn't it? What do you mean by "holds" and "all the SS funds?" Pretending that JP Morgan can gamble away SS funds, as you imply in your response, is ridiculous.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
That's just slightly disingenuous, isn't it? What do you mean by "holds" and "all the SS funds?" Pretending that JP Morgan can gamble away SS funds, as you imply in your response, is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I didn't imply that they could gamble them all away...

Also... it is equally ridiculous to pretend that privatization means gambling away SS. Which is what you constantly do.
 
Superfreak said:
I didn't imply that they could gamble them all away...
Click to expand...

In the context of the comment and your response, you kind of did. Why does it matter if JP Morgan "holds" SS funds (and I still don't know what you mean by that) if it can't do anything with the funds that it "holds"


Superfreak said:
Also... it is equally ridiculous to pretend that privatization means gambling away SS. Which is what you constantly do.
Click to expand...

Quote me on it. I oppose privatization not because it means gambling away SS, but because it shifts the risk to individuals as opposed to the collective, which I feel is inappropriate. But pretending that shifting trillions of dollars of money to be managed by the investment banks through individual customer accounts isn't likely to result is large scale gambling on Wall Street is laughable.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
In the context of the comment and your response, you kind of did. Why does it matter if JP Morgan "holds" SS funds (and I still don't know what you mean by that) if it can't do anything with the funds that it "holds"
Click to expand...

No, I did not. UScit said 'oh, thats who I want to have my money'... my post was... 'they already have it'. I know you aren't intelligent enough to understand simple irony, which is likely why you are so confused.

Quote me on it. I oppose privatization not because it means gambling away SS, but because it shifts the risk to individuals as opposed to the collective, which I feel is inappropriate. But pretending that shifting trillions of dollars of money to be managed by the investment banks through individual customer accounts isn't likely to result is large scale gambling on Wall Street is laughable.
Click to expand...

That was hard.

Again... privatization does not mean anything other than the accounts are in the hands of the public. The investment options can remain the same as they are today. It just means the idiots in DC will no longer be able to use the SS funds to borrow against. But that is a point you and your ilk continue to ignore. Instead you resort to the same type of fear mongering that you did above.
 
Superfreak said:
No, I did not. UScit said 'oh, thats who I want to have my money'... my post was... 'they already have it'. I know you aren't intelligent enough to understand simple irony, which is likely why you are so confused.
Click to expand...

Actually, USCit sarcastically said that was where he wants his money invested. Social Security funds are invested in US government securities. It's not irony because it isn't true. We've been over this before.

Superfreak said:
That was hard.

Again... privatization does not mean anything other than the accounts are in the hands of the public. The investment options can remain the same as they are today. It just means the idiots in DC will no longer be able to use the SS funds to borrow against. But that is a point you and your ilk continue to ignore. Instead you resort to the same type of fear mongering that you did above.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't put the accounts in the hands of the public. That's where the money is now. It means placing money held by the public in accounts of individuals and these individuals will bear the risk if their investment decisions do not pan out.

And I haven't heard of a single privatization scheme that says individuals will only be permitted to invest in United States securities, which is the only investment permitted for the SS Trust Fund. That whole second paragraph you have there about where it can be invested and what the government could do makes absolutely no sense at all.

Finally, if you want to live in a fantasy land where handing over trillions of dollars to investment bankers would not result in speculative risk-taking, by all means do so.
 
Also, too, it would be nice if you provided a link describing precisely what JP Morgan's role is with respect to Social Security.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
Actually, USCit sarcastically said that was where he wants his money invested. Social Security funds are invested in US government securities. It's not irony because it isn't true. We've been over this before.
Click to expand...

Yes dearest little dipshit, I know he was being sarcastic. That is why it was ironic. Fucking idiot.

Actually, it doesn't put the accounts in the hands of the public. That's where the money is now. It means placing money held by the public in accounts of individuals and these individuals will bear the risk if their investment decisions do not pan out.
Click to expand...

do you enjoy your word games? Playing semantics? Again, you can control what types of investments they are able to go in. They would not have to take on risk. You also ignore the risk that is currently existing in having the idiots in DC in control.

And I haven't heard of a single privatization scheme that says individuals will only be permitted to invest in United States securities, which is the only investment permitted for the SS Trust Fund. That whole second paragraph you have there about where it can be invested and what the government could do makes absolutely no sense at all.
Click to expand...

The 'scheme' is what we currently have. Privatization is not a scheme. It is getting the money out of the control of the government. Period. I know you like the government to wipe your ass for you, but most of us do not like being that cozy with the idiots in DC.

That same money we invest can be put into whatever we give as options. You can limit it to just the US securities as it is now.

Finally, if you want to live in a fantasy land where handing over trillions of dollars to investment bankers would not result in speculative risk-taking, by all means do so.
Click to expand...

and there you go again... pretending that the money will all be handed over to investment bankers blah blah blah... it would not you fucking dolt... that is just the fear mongering line of bullshit idiots like you continue to parrot. The fact that you actually asked me to quote you on where you made such comments is hilarious given you have done so twice in this thread alone.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes dearest little dipshit, I know he was being sarcastic. That is why it was ironic. Fucking idiot.
Click to expand...

What you said wasn't ironic. It was just stupid. No Social Security money is invested in Wall Street. It's all invested in government bonds.


Superfreak said:
do you enjoy your word games? Playing semantics? Again, you can control what types of investments they are able to go in. They would not have to take on risk. You also ignore the risk that is currently existing in having the idiots in DC in control.
Click to expand...

It's not semantics. The accounts wouldn't be held by "the public." The accounts would be held by individuals and individuals would bear the risk individually. You can some up with mitigation methods, but it doesn't change this underlying fact that individuals would bear the risk of investments going to shit. As I said, I think that's inappropriate.


Superfreak said:
The 'scheme' is what we currently have. Privatization is not a scheme. It is getting the money out of the control of the government. Period. I know you like the government to wipe your ass for you, but most of us do not like being that cozy with the idiots in DC.
Click to expand...

And you criticize me for playing "word games?" Social Security works just fine as it is thank you very much. Don't fuck with it. If you want to fix it, increase taxes.


Superfreak said:
That same money we invest can be put into whatever we give as options. You can limit it to just the US securities as it is now.
Click to expand...

Well, what's the point then other than to funnel trillions of dollars into Wall Street who can then charge nice little commissions for the honor of managing it if the returns will be the same that we have now?


Superfreak said:
and there you go again... pretending that the money will all be handed over to investment bankers blah blah blah... it would not you fucking dolt... that is just the fear mongering line of bullshit idiots like you continue to parrot. The fact that you actually asked me to quote you on where you made such comments is hilarious given you have done so twice in this thread alone.
Click to expand...

Who the hell else is going to manage these accounts if not investment banks?
 
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba366
General Buck Turgidson said:
Actually, USCit sarcastically said that was where he wants his money invested. Social Security funds are invested in US government securities. It's not irony because it isn't true. We've been over this before.

SF please expalin agan how JOP Morgan holds SS funds...


Doesn't the Trust Fund Hold Government Bonds?

Yes and no. Technically, the trust fund holds bonds that represent the cumulative surplus (payroll tax collections minus benefit payments). But these bonds are only important for accounting purposes. They have no financial significance. They are like bookkeeping entries, without any market value. The annual reports of the Social Security trustees list the yields and maturity dates of the special-issue bonds in the Social Security trust fund. But these special-issue bonds are not the same as the bonds held by the public. They are not part of the official outstanding debt of the U.S. government. They cannot be sold on Wall Street or to any foreign investors. And they cannot be used to pay benefits.

Moreover, the Social Security trust fund exists within the U.S. Treasury - not as an independent entity. Thus the issuer of the bonds (the U.S. Treasury) and the holder of the bonds (the Social Security trust fund) are the same entity. As a result, the trust fund's special-issue bonds are actually nothing more than IOUs the government writes to itself.






Actually, it doesn't put the accounts in the hands of the public. That's where the money is now. It means placing money held by the public in accounts of individuals and these individuals will bear the risk if their investment decisions do not pan out.

And I haven't heard of a single privatization scheme that says individuals will only be permitted to invest in United States securities, which is the only investment permitted for the SS Trust Fund. That whole second paragraph you have there about where it can be invested and what the government could do makes absolutely no sense at all.

Finally, if you want to live in a fantasy land where handing over trillions of dollars to investment bankers would not result in speculative risk-taking, by all means do so.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top