Another favorite topic. Given that we are only 2 weeks away from one of the hardest choices the US population has to make (thats what I also thought in 2004), clearly there has to be someone to blame.
Just so we are clear, I need someone to blame for the fact that banks are constantly writing off $50B, 3 large banks have vanished, and the various Central Banks have had to back-stop these idiots with my money. So... who is to blame for my money being wasted like this?
I watched super-villan Fuld getting his bones chewed at some irrelevant House Committee.
The moron questioning Fuld, I don't event want to hunt down his name, is not worth the piece of paper he is reading from.
Anyway, who is really to blame? The bankers? They ran un-regulated and no one complained when it was raining money... the government? As we all know they are incompetent. They wouldn't see a financial crisis if it came and knocked at the door. Plus clearly they were not going to shut down a source of re-election money.
I gave my money to the MF houses to invest since you know diversification and all that crap. They bought stock in Lehman amongst other things. Lehman was wondering what to do with all this money, so they gave some of it out as bonuses and with the rest of it, they leveraged it, and bought some cashflow on a bad loan pool from assets whose price was about to fall. In order to leverage, they issued bonds to the same mutual fund houses. The mutual fund houses then also bought insurance against default from AIG. AIG was supposed to take this money and put it away, just in case. But you know the same mutual fund also had equity in AIG. So AIG took the money, handed out bonuses to their people, and with the rest...
You know how it goes and how it went.
But at the bottom of it were the investors who invested in Lehman without knowing what Lehman was doing with the money.
Now the same investors, having lost their money, are being asked to pay out more money to save whatever money they might have left.
What other choice is there?
If it is still not clear, I feel it is those investors who are to blame. I think there was a slight amount of laziness from individual investors who trusted institutions, not with their funds, but with their judgement. They let professional money managers make decisions for them. Good when the going was good.
Capitalism is driven by individuals being responsible and curious for information. It is quite similar to democracy in that sense. It only works if each of us makes our own decisions and exercises our judgement. If we are lazy and give that power to a few, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
But neither BO or JMac will, can, or afford to blame Joe the Plumber or Joe Six Pack.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
1. Capitalism... Who was the winner?
Rather interesting turn of events in the world today... I refer to my original post on the role of the firm... and the role of banks in the world... Banks are supposed to allocate money to firms that have good (cash generating) ideas.. instead these morons sit and productize money...
I am a simple guy and as I studied for the hardest exam in the world, only one law was really needed to to solve all the problems that came my way. Energy is conserved.
On wall street, I strongly believe that once a $1 bill is printed it can't vanish. Where did that $1 bill go? What I wanted to know was which smart-ass got the money.
I've started buying the FT Weekend edition. Its a great read and its also good for quality time with my better half, since one section is on how to make money and the other (the better half) is on where to spend it.
Anyway, thats when I heard the name David Einhorn for the first time.
When I first studied economics at IITM, the final exam was to write an essay on a financial event in the last decade. 90% of the class wrote about the Liberalization of the Indian economy. I guess that whole jing bang had completely escaped me... I wrote about Bearings Bank and my personal hero at the time, Nick Leeson. I was 17 and the only idiot who thought that a bank going down was a financial event of some magnitude.
So, Mr. Einhorn who is a hedge-fund manager at Greenlight Capital, apparently had the smarts or the patience to look at Lehman's balance sheet. He then went on to talk to the CFO and other Fuldian cronies and decided they were in the Structured Bullshit business.
This is the most sensible thought process I have heard from anyone on Wall Street.
And he is currently the owner of that missing $1 bill. There is really no value lost on Wall Street in my opinion. All the widows and orphans invested in Lehman and Bear, just gave their money to David.
The winner and my new hero.
I am a simple guy and as I studied for the hardest exam in the world, only one law was really needed to to solve all the problems that came my way. Energy is conserved.
On wall street, I strongly believe that once a $1 bill is printed it can't vanish. Where did that $1 bill go? What I wanted to know was which smart-ass got the money.
I've started buying the FT Weekend edition. Its a great read and its also good for quality time with my better half, since one section is on how to make money and the other (the better half) is on where to spend it.
Anyway, thats when I heard the name David Einhorn for the first time.
When I first studied economics at IITM, the final exam was to write an essay on a financial event in the last decade. 90% of the class wrote about the Liberalization of the Indian economy. I guess that whole jing bang had completely escaped me... I wrote about Bearings Bank and my personal hero at the time, Nick Leeson. I was 17 and the only idiot who thought that a bank going down was a financial event of some magnitude.
So, Mr. Einhorn who is a hedge-fund manager at Greenlight Capital, apparently had the smarts or the patience to look at Lehman's balance sheet. He then went on to talk to the CFO and other Fuldian cronies and decided they were in the Structured Bullshit business.
This is the most sensible thought process I have heard from anyone on Wall Street.
And he is currently the owner of that missing $1 bill. There is really no value lost on Wall Street in my opinion. All the widows and orphans invested in Lehman and Bear, just gave their money to David.
The winner and my new hero.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Copyright Battles Heat Up on Web
I read a nice article on the Washington post recently...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103131_pf.html
and something struck me...
"Hasbro is stupid," said Saffo. "Thanks to this new electronic lounge called Facebook, board games are hot. Two Indian students pointed [Hasbro] to what could be their iTunes and they responded with lawyers."
One of my pals has written a nice argument in favor of 'People should have to pay for music'. I am unable to write an argument against it. But something in my head tells me that this is not right. I need to frame my thoughts... but along the way... this story also captures part of what I feel...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103131_pf.html
and something struck me...
"Hasbro is stupid," said Saffo. "Thanks to this new electronic lounge called Facebook, board games are hot. Two Indian students pointed [Hasbro] to what could be their iTunes and they responded with lawyers."
One of my pals has written a nice argument in favor of 'People should have to pay for music'. I am unable to write an argument against it. But something in my head tells me that this is not right. I need to frame my thoughts... but along the way... this story also captures part of what I feel...
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Mom fights music giant
I wonder if I am breaking copyright rules by posting this here, with a reference to the newspaper?
Mom fights music giant
S.J. COURT CONSIDERS KEY COPYRIGHT CASE
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Launched: 07/19/2008 01:33:24 AM PDT
For Pennsylvania mom Stephanie Lenz, a closely watched copyright showdown in San Jose federal court is a simple matter of standing up to powerful music moguls and petulant pop stars.
"I figure I have nothing to lose," Lenz said Friday in a telephone interview with the Mercury News. "The music companies are just going to keep doing this to people. I think it's my responsibility to stand up to them and say, 'That's enough.' "
Lenz, whose case reached a critical stage Friday, finds herself at the heart of an epic copyright fight over Universal Music's attempt to force her to take down a YouTube video of her toddler learning to walk with the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" blaring in the background.
Calling it a "case of first impression," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday considered Universal's attempt to dismiss Lenz's lawsuit, which maintains the media giant and Prince are abusing a 10-year-old copyright law intended to curtail movie and music thievery on the Web. Lenz is seeking unspecified damages and a court finding that she did not violate Universal's copyrights with the YouTube video.
'Takedown' letters
The case centers on a so-called "takedown" letter Universal sent to Lenz after she posted the video in February 2007. Music and movie companies send tens of thousands of such letters under the copyright law each year, essentially forcing the material to be at least temporarily removed unless
Advertisement
the target fights the request.
Lenz fought back hard, backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties organization. She maintains that the video was a harmless, legal use of a popular song, and that her case exemplifies how a powerful industry can abuse the copyright law, known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Fogel dismissed a previous version of Lenz's lawsuit, but her lawyers filed a revised complaint that recasts the case as a test of what copyright holders must consider before sending out takedown letters. Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers urged the judge to keep the case alive, arguing that companies such as Universal have an obligation to investigate and evaluate a video such as Lenz's before firing off the threatening letters.
Claim of 'fair use'
"It's a tiny, blurry little home movie," said Corynne McSherry, the foundation's attorney on the case.
Lenz and her legal team depict the video as a "fair use" of the Prince song. But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.
Fogel took the company's request to dismiss the case under consideration and will rule later.
"The copyright owner is arguing that this is infringing; Lenz says it is fair use," said Mark Lemley, director of Stanford University's Law, Science and Technology clinic. "There are no cases directly on this question of user-generated content that incorporates songs as background. Lenz will be the first."
In the meantime, Lenz is prepared to take her case as far as it goes in the courts. The video is back up on YouTube, but that's not enough to appease Lenz.
"Somebody needs to tell these music companies they can't just throw out these (takedown letters) and accuse people of violating federal crimes," she said. "I didn't like feeling like I'd done something wrong, even though I knew I hadn't. It made me panic."
Mom fights music giant
S.J. COURT CONSIDERS KEY COPYRIGHT CASE
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Launched: 07/19/2008 01:33:24 AM PDT
For Pennsylvania mom Stephanie Lenz, a closely watched copyright showdown in San Jose federal court is a simple matter of standing up to powerful music moguls and petulant pop stars.
"I figure I have nothing to lose," Lenz said Friday in a telephone interview with the Mercury News. "The music companies are just going to keep doing this to people. I think it's my responsibility to stand up to them and say, 'That's enough.' "
Lenz, whose case reached a critical stage Friday, finds herself at the heart of an epic copyright fight over Universal Music's attempt to force her to take down a YouTube video of her toddler learning to walk with the Prince song "Let's Go Crazy" blaring in the background.
Calling it a "case of first impression," U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel on Friday considered Universal's attempt to dismiss Lenz's lawsuit, which maintains the media giant and Prince are abusing a 10-year-old copyright law intended to curtail movie and music thievery on the Web. Lenz is seeking unspecified damages and a court finding that she did not violate Universal's copyrights with the YouTube video.
'Takedown' letters
The case centers on a so-called "takedown" letter Universal sent to Lenz after she posted the video in February 2007. Music and movie companies send tens of thousands of such letters under the copyright law each year, essentially forcing the material to be at least temporarily removed unless
Advertisement
the target fights the request.
Lenz fought back hard, backed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based civil liberties organization. She maintains that the video was a harmless, legal use of a popular song, and that her case exemplifies how a powerful industry can abuse the copyright law, known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Fogel dismissed a previous version of Lenz's lawsuit, but her lawyers filed a revised complaint that recasts the case as a test of what copyright holders must consider before sending out takedown letters. Electronic Frontier Foundation lawyers urged the judge to keep the case alive, arguing that companies such as Universal have an obligation to investigate and evaluate a video such as Lenz's before firing off the threatening letters.
Claim of 'fair use'
"It's a tiny, blurry little home movie," said Corynne McSherry, the foundation's attorney on the case.
Lenz and her legal team depict the video as a "fair use" of the Prince song. But Universal attorneys insist the company had the legal right to send the letter in Lenz's case, and that it would be unfair to artists and media companies to force them to undertake lengthy inquiries before asserting copyright violations.
Fogel took the company's request to dismiss the case under consideration and will rule later.
"The copyright owner is arguing that this is infringing; Lenz says it is fair use," said Mark Lemley, director of Stanford University's Law, Science and Technology clinic. "There are no cases directly on this question of user-generated content that incorporates songs as background. Lenz will be the first."
In the meantime, Lenz is prepared to take her case as far as it goes in the courts. The video is back up on YouTube, but that's not enough to appease Lenz.
"Somebody needs to tell these music companies they can't just throw out these (takedown letters) and accuse people of violating federal crimes," she said. "I didn't like feeling like I'd done something wrong, even though I knew I hadn't. It made me panic."
Friday, July 18, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Intellectual Property - The Question
One of the things that I have been unable to resolve for myself is whether people should have to pay for music.
If individuals use music to generate revenue, part of the revenue belongs to the author. Granted. But if I am simply listening to music without paying for it, should I be charged with a crime?
The argument from record companies is that downloading music illegally is like stealing from a shop. The latter is a crime and so should the former be.
I guess the greater question here is who owns the right to music, art, etc., and when do things become a crime?
Who owns music? How far is this discussion away from 'Who owns water and air'? That is the purpose of the next discussion.
If individuals use music to generate revenue, part of the revenue belongs to the author. Granted. But if I am simply listening to music without paying for it, should I be charged with a crime?
The argument from record companies is that downloading music illegally is like stealing from a shop. The latter is a crime and so should the former be.
I guess the greater question here is who owns the right to music, art, etc., and when do things become a crime?
Who owns music? How far is this discussion away from 'Who owns water and air'? That is the purpose of the next discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)