Typically a Hedge Fund manager makes 'only' 20% of what he makes for his customers, oft above some given percent. Unlike say a mutual fund manager who makes a flat 1%/1.5% even if the Fund goes down. You don't understand the difference I see.Bull****. They just transfer wealth from others. If you want to consider acquiring wealth the same as earning wealth, then maybe you are correct, but personally, to me, "earning wealth" means creating wealth, not simply getting a piece of someone elses wealth.
Do you REALLY think that a hedge fund manager creates a billion dollars worth of new wealth that wouldn't exist if they didn't perform their job? All they are really doing is skimming a percentage of wealth from investors who are have way to much faith in the hedge funds. Statistically the investors would actually do better if they randomly invested directly into the stock market. The reason for this is simple - the fees that hedge fund managers charge eats up any small statistical "above market" profits that hedge funds may make....
Investing in mutual funds in general creates No 'new wealth', but it's performing a valid and valuable service to it's customers. Investing is a different business than manufacturing.Now lets say that a fund manager is able to manipulate the market and actually does year after year predictably beat the market. Does that actually create any new wealth? Does making bets on a investment and then intentionally driving up or down the price of that investment as to benefit from that bet create any new wealth? Of course not. It just creates a situation where people who take the other end of the bet are loosers - and transfers wealth from the loosers to the fund investors. No new wealth created.
Say that I am able to convince you that I can communicate with the dead (although I can't) and you paid me a million dollars to convey a message to your dead loved one. Did I create any new wealth? heck no, all I did was to scam you out of a million dollars.
Fund managers are not creating wealth. They are simply getting paid for a valueless service. Claiming that they made wealth is no more legitimate than a bankrobber creates wealth when he robs a bank. Yes, he did something that made him wealthy, but it created no new wealth.
As a society we really need to re-evaluate what we call "earning" money. There's a difference between creating wealth and transfering wealth, and while most certainly creating wealth can be called "earning" it, and that is positive for society, but simply transfering wealth has little value to our society. It's a concept that tends to get lost in the wee minds of many conservatives.
And you apparently didn't watch/have no reaction to the content of the vid. I wish you would watch and comprehend it, or even disagree with it. I think it was enlightening.
You watched it and obviously got nothing. Perhaps more unfortunate than not watching. You don't agree, disagree, nor discuss it's main premise/premises.Obviously I did watch it, and in detail. The evidence is the fact that I was the only one who commented on an apparent descrepancy between a charge shown on the video and one posted on DP recently.
I refuted this in detail in my last. Which is why You didn't quote me save for One line. Very poor posting/debate practice. I think an example of denial.imagep said:You obviously didn't read my post as you made no comment about my allegation that the "valuable service" that hedge fund managers are alledged to provide is actually valueless, much like any service performed by any other type of confidence man.
[......]The prices Bass paid for default insurance now look absurdly cheap. Greek government default insurance cost him 11 basis points, for instance. That is, to insure $1m of Greek government bonds against default, Hayman Capital paid a premium of $1100 a year. He guessed that when Greece defaulted, as it inevitably would, it would be forced to pay down its debt by roughly 70% - which is to say that every $1100 bet would return $700,000.
He couldn't see how any sane person could do anything but prepare for another, bigger financial catastrophe. "It may not be the end of the world," he said. "But a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. Our goal is not to be one of them." He was totally persuasive. He was also totally incredible. A guy sitting in an office in Dallas, Texas, making sweeping claims about the future of countries he'd hardly set foot in: how on Earth could he know how a bunch of people he'd never met might behave? [......] As he laid out his ideas, I had an experience I've often had while listening to people who seem perfectly certain about uncertain events. One part of me was swept away by his argument and began to worry the world was about to collapse; the other part suspected he might be nuts. "That's great," I said, already thinking about the flight I had to catch. "But even if you're right, what can any normal person do about it?"
He stared at me as if he'd just seen an interesting sight: the world's stupidest man. - I asked him: "What do you tell your mother when she asks you where to put her money?" "Guns and gold," he said simply. So he was nuts. "But not gold futures," he added. "You need physical gold." He explained that when the next crisis struck, the gold futures market was likely to seize up, as there were more outstanding futures contracts than available gold. People who thought they owned gold would find they owned pieces of paper instead. He opened his desk drawer, hauled out a giant gold brick and dropped it on the desk. "We've bought a lot of this stuff."
At this point I made my excuses and took my leave of Dallas, and more or less Dismissed him.
When I wrote the book, I left him on the cutting-room floor.
Then the financial world began to change again -and very much as Bass had imagined it might. Entire countries started to go bust. I began to travel to these places, just to see what was up. [......] For most of the 1980s and 1990s, Greek interest rates ran 10% higher than Germany's, as Greeks were regarded as far less likely to repay a loan. There was no consumer credit in Greece: Greeks didn't have credit cards. They didn't usually have mortgages, either. [......]
As a society we really need to re-evaluate what we call "earning" money.
Governments are the worst at this. They print money imagep. They print, money. And right now our global crisis is exacertbated by exactly that. Governments cannot bail anyone out right now, because the public allowed the governments themselves to run way too far into debt/defecit. This is the only significant global economic problem on the long-term horizon.
As to investing, you are not characterizing it correctly. Investing is NOT transferring wealth. It's investing, call it what it is please.
A Hedge fund manager directs the investment. Say it with me, they direct the investment. On one end you have someone with money, that wants to fund something that will grow in value. And on the other end you have someone that is growing (or not!) that needs funding to realize that growth, or even greater growth. The fund manager, lines the two up. The amount of money at risk is staggering, so you pay for the best. That's all there is to it.
You do realize that in our economy, money is akin to potential energy, it is STORED ENERGY. When you apply that energy into something that can efficiently use that energy to create *even more*, that's growing that energy. You should not get confused and claim that someone with $1M to invest is simply moving money around and not doing anything, because that's factually, logically, reasonably, false. They have stored up "energy", and are directing it to where it presumably will Grow (earnings) more energy. Money has value, it can be transferred to generate labor, for example.
For you to be correct, you have to claim that investments, do not contribute to real growth. And that is of course, demonstrably absurd (False).
Governments are the worst at this. They print money imagep. They print, money. And right now our global crisis is exacertbated by exactly that. Governments cannot bail anyone out right now, because the public allowed the governments themselves to run way too far into debt/defecit. This is the only significant global economic problem on the long-term horizon.
As to investing, you are not characterizing it correctly. Investing is NOT transferring wealth. It's investing, call it what it is please.
I've never said that investments do not contribute to real growth, but an individual who skims off of the top of other peoples investments is not neccesarally contributing to real growth at the same rate that he is skimming wealth. Income does not equate to productivity. It should, but in real life it doesn't.
Oil, isn't transferring anything, it's a natural resource.Things like oil is just transferring wealth.
He spoke Yesterday at the 2011 version of the OP. (AmeriCatalyst 2011)Good news for the housing markets.
Hedge Fund Manager Buys 4.9% Stake in MGIC
"Hedge-fund manager Kyle Bass, who earlier made a correct bet on the housing market’s collapse, recently invested in the nation’s largest mortgage insurance company.
[..............]
Mr. Bass said that while the housing market was still around two to three years from firmly “bottoming out,” he said any future price declines would be quite modest. “I don’t anticipate a huge decline,” he said.
In an earnings conference call last month, MGIC’s chief executive, Curt Culver, said the company’s home state regulator in Wisconsin had consulted with independent experts who determined that even in a “stress scenario” the company would have enough capital to pay its claims."
Hedge Fund Manager Buys 4.9% Stake in MGIC - Deal Journal - WSJ
I've never said that investments do not contribute to real growth, but an individual who skims off of the top of other peoples investments is not neccesarally contributing to real growth at the same rate that he is skimming wealth. Income does not equate to productivity. It should, but in real life it doesn't.
Oil, isn't transferring anything, it's a natural resource.
Bull****. They just transfer wealth from others. If you want to consider acquiring wealth the same as earning wealth, then maybe you are correct, but personally, to me, "earning wealth" means creating wealth, not simply getting a piece of someone elses wealth.
Do you REALLY think that a hedge fund manager creates a billion dollars worth of new wealth that wouldn't exist if they didn't perform their job? All they are really doing is skimming a percentage of wealth from investors who are have way to much faith in the hedge funds. Statistically the investors would actually do better if they randomly invested directly into the stock market. The reason for this is simple - the fees that hedge fund managers charge eats up any small statistical "above market" profits that hedge funds may make.
Now lets say that a fund manager is able to manipulate the market and actually does year after year predictably beat the market. Does that actually create any new wealth? Does making bets on a investment and then intentionally driving up or down the price of that investment as to benefit from that bet create any new wealth? Of course not. It just creates a situation where people who take the other end of the bet are loosers - and transfers wealth from the loosers to the fund investors. No new wealth created.
Say that I am able to convince you that I can communicate with the dead (although I can't) and you paid me a million dollars to convey a message to your dead loved one. Did I create any new wealth? heck no, all I did was to scam you out of a million dollars.
Fund managers are not creating wealth. They are simply getting paid for a valueless service. Claiming that they made wealth is no more legitimate than a bankrobber creates wealth when he robs a bank. Yes, he did something that made him wealthy, but it created no new wealth.
As a society we really need to re-evaluate what we call "earning" money. There's a difference between creating wealth and transfering wealth, and while most certainly creating wealth can be called "earning" it, and that is positive for society, but simply transfering wealth has little value to our society. It's a concept that tends to get lost in the wee minds of many conservatives.
imagep said:an individual who skims off of the top of other peoples investments is not neccesarally contributing to real growth at the same rate that he is skimming wealth.
So those few hedge fund managers who called the sub-prime crisis correctly and made billions, they were just 'skimming'? But what about those pension and other fund managers who lost billions of mostly OPM (other people's money)?
Your usage of the word 'skimming' implies that there is some sub-class of folks sitting out there in front of their computer screens taking a nickel or a dime out of every dollar transacted in the securities markets in some secret riskless manner. Sortuva you gotta know the secret handshake to get in on this kinda thing. Do you really think that?
It's Out.
Only 200 views so far.
KB Redux at AmeriCatalyst 2011. This was November 7.
(OP is 2010)
Not so much as a Hat Tip/Thanks from Nathanj63 for using him on his 'smartest' economist list for bringing him to this board in this string or another.
It's Out.
Only 200 views so far.
KB Redux at AmeriCatalyst 2011. This was November 7.
(OP is 2010)
Not so much as a Hat Tip/Thanks from Nathanj63 for using him on his 'smartest' economist list for bringing him to this board in this string or another.
Did anyone else find what he said at 47:25? (Im paraphrasing here)
"I spoke to a senior member of the Obama administration last week about how we are going to get out of this deficit. They said we are going to export our way out of it. I asked how can we achieve this if we do not allow nominal wage deflation? He replied "were just gonna kill the dollar"."
I found this very interesting. Is the Obama administration planning to deflate the dollar to compete with more competitive countries? As others here have suggested and been ridiculed for that the Obama administration is intentionally bringing US standards down or "intentionally destroying" our country. His comment seems to support this to some extent. Is the plan to lower our standards to a 2nd would country?
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years.
I thought I would add something I found today that supports Kyle's claim. The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33% - Forbes
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?