Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 06:04:59 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Critiques of Libertarianism  (Read 1631 times)
Anonymous
Guest

August 17, 2011, 08:13:42 PM
 #21

It would be in their best interest to do so and it only makes sense with the absurdly high ratings we have now when the markets have clearly deduced the genuine situation.


You still haven't provided a citation.  You need a citation for your baseless claim.


Your current statement isn't even coherent.  You need to repeat it in English or explain it in detail.
The statement is intelligible. I can cite the situation just as much as I can about the secret decisions that are made in The Federal Reserve. The fact is confidence in the markets is lower among private citizens than what the rating agencies are reporting.
1481263499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481263499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481263499
Reply with quote  #2

1481263499
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481263499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481263499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481263499
Reply with quote  #2

1481263499
Report to moderator
1481263499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481263499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481263499
Reply with quote  #2

1481263499
Report to moderator
1481263499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481263499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481263499
Reply with quote  #2

1481263499
Report to moderator
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 17, 2011, 08:27:06 PM
 #22

It would be in their best interest to do so and it only makes sense with the absurdly high ratings we have now when the markets have clearly deduced the genuine situation.


You still haven't provided a citation.  You need a citation for your baseless claim.


Your current statement isn't even coherent.  You need to repeat it in English or explain it in detail.
The statement is intelligible. I can cite the situation just as much as I can about the secret decisions that are made in The Federal Reserve. The fact is confidence in the markets is lower among private citizens than what the rating agencies are reporting.


Ok, still no citation of your claim that is bribing them.

And again, your post has nothing to do with the situation to which I'm referring (CDO's and the financial crisis).

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 17, 2011, 09:13:44 PM
 #23

Because independent rating agencies are so reliable.

The logical fallacy you're committing is called cherry picking. Since when are Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratories unreliable? You pick one bad example and pretend that it speaks for all ratings agencies. You're either trolling or an idiot.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 17, 2011, 09:56:11 PM
 #24

Because independent rating agencies are so reliable.

The logical fallacy you're committing is called cherry picking.

LOL

It's really too bad that the irony of your own posts is so lost on you.


I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong).

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
August 17, 2011, 10:21:34 PM
 #25

I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong).

What is the fundamental reason that independent rating agencies are (or would be) unreliable?
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 17, 2011, 11:10:55 PM
 #26

I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong).

What is the fundamental reason that independent rating agencies are (or would be) unreliable?


Conflict of interest, for one.  These rating agencies get funded from somewhere, they get products from somewhere, their board members have friends in other companies, etc.

Lack of disclosure - goes hand in hand with the above.  If there's no central authority mandating disclosure of information these agencies sure as shit aren't going to volunteer it.  Joe Bob board member from Great Ratings is also a major shareholder of Big Company... who'da thunk it?



Basically all the issues the libertards will list with government agencies also exist with indepedent ones, but with the added downside of no accountability.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 18, 2011, 01:45:42 AM
 #27

I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong).

The entire reason you started whining about independent rating agencies is because I said "Businesses would brag about how their products are rated A+ by 'Really Trustworthy Rating Agency'." which is what Consumer Reports does. Now you're talking about investments, which is completely irrelevant. In other words, you're an idiot.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 18, 2011, 02:22:34 AM
 #28

I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong).

The entire reason you started whining about independent rating agencies is because I said "Businesses would brag about how their products are rated A+ by 'Really Trustworthy Rating Agency'." which is what Consumer Reports does. Now you're talking about investments, which is completely irrelevant. In other words, you're an idiot.

Familarize yourself...

http://www.standardandpoors.com/home/en/us

http://www.moodys.com/

http://www.fitchratings.com/index_fitchratings.cfm


They rate investments.  People that sell financial instruments brag about how their products are rated AAA by S&P.

In other words, you're an idiot.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
August 18, 2011, 02:49:46 AM
 #29

I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong).

The entire reason you started whining about independent rating agencies is because I said "Businesses would brag about how their products are rated A+ by 'Really Trustworthy Rating Agency'." which is what Consumer Reports does. Now you're talking about investments, which is completely irrelevant. In other words, you're an idiot.

Familarize yourself...

http://www.standardandpoors.com/home/en/us

http://www.moodys.com/

http://www.fitchratings.com/index_fitchratings.cfm


They rate investments.  People that sell financial instruments brag about how their products are rated AAA by S&P.

In other words, you're an idiot.

You're not even trying anymore. Good day sir.
memvola
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896


View Profile
August 18, 2011, 02:54:52 AM
 #30

What is the fundamental reason that independent rating agencies are (or would be) unreliable?
Conflict of interest, for one.  These rating agencies get funded from somewhere, they get products from somewhere, their board members have friends in other companies, etc.

Lack of disclosure - goes hand in hand with the above.  If there's no central authority mandating disclosure of information these agencies sure as shit aren't going to volunteer it.  Joe Bob board member from Great Ratings is also a major shareholder of Big Company... who'da thunk it?

Both are valid concerns of course, but I believe that they could be overcome by appropriate consumer behaviour. Lack of disclosure for instance should not be an issue if you just don't trust agencies that aren't fully transparent and auditable by the consumer. They could even be open source public platforms. I really don't see why not.

And conflict of interest doesn't strike me as a problem specific to this kind of organizations, it does happen with state institutions as well. Again, transparency would help a lot.

Of course as I said earlier, I don't believe that this level of consumer awareness is automatic, the society has to evolve in that direction. It's my personal opinion is that we need to do away with centralized strong authority wherever possible.

When discussing about what is possible though, it's expected to be accused of being too naive. Bitcoin is a good example to this. So I think it's crucial not to be too dismissive about these ideas.

Basically all the issues the libertards will list with government agencies also exist with indepedent ones, but with the added downside of no accountability.

Maybe the difference in opinion here is caused by difference in experience in these matters. I don't come from a western background, so it's probable that the State I had to deal with was a lot shittier than yours.

I haven't actually witnessed, and don't even know how government agencies can be held accountable in a useful sense. What will happen at most is civil servants being shuffled around; they can't even be fired easily. There isn't much you can do as a citizen to threaten a State agency's existence or change its operating principles. Granted, you can put pressure on the politicians, but then as a preventive measure these agencies get too cautious and too political. For instance, you can't invent something that the public would react irrationally against and expect not to be regulated. Or abolish a regulation that causes inefficiency but the public feels safe with. They are famous for putting regulations that only big companies can comply with, since no one can actually measure the expense of this; and as a consequence, the State gets more and more dependent on these companies, which come to share the sovereign power with the State. And they instill fear into the public if they want to regulate something, again Bitcoin comes to mind.

I'm not saying that the choice is obvious, there is always a trade-off. I believe though, that independent agencies can be held practically accountable, and be punished by simply ignoring them.
AyeYo
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile
August 18, 2011, 12:30:18 PM
 #31

I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong).

The entire reason you started whining about independent rating agencies is because I said "Businesses would brag about how their products are rated A+ by 'Really Trustworthy Rating Agency'." which is what Consumer Reports does. Now you're talking about investments, which is completely irrelevant. In other words, you're an idiot.

Familarize yourself...

http://www.standardandpoors.com/home/en/us

http://www.moodys.com/

http://www.fitchratings.com/index_fitchratings.cfm


They rate investments.  People that sell financial instruments brag about how their products are rated AAA by S&P.

In other words, you're an idiot.

You're not even trying anymore. Good day sir.


Nice cop out.  I was hoping you'd come back for more.  Your willingless to get perpetually slapped around this board for your blatantly incorrect statements and keep coming back to make more stupid statements amazes me.

Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!