上一頁下一頁
發新話題
打印

26女 - 想試下係度識個冇性冇愛(即普通朋友)既男仔有幾難 - #9

 
收藏  |  訂閱
743  7.7k

引用:
原帖由 macy18 於 2008-10-15 08:19 AM 發表 查看引用來源



If everyone in the world works towards a steady growth yes... but everyone is greedy...

you lives in US and you know the property market couple of years ago

it's a collective failure... an ...
Not yet a commie return; just a comeback of Keynes 啫~

Actually we have to congratulate ourselves that this shit turns up now rather than later...if this laissez faire/deregulation fancy lasts longer, look out for a 1789/1917 redux - probably an even more bloody and destructive one.

von Hayek and Friedman had had their time, but that time had gone long long ago. From 90's onwards, it's just laissez faire gone trainwreck all along - for all their soundness as economic theories at a certain time, certain of those Chicagoan assumptions are not without flaws - in fact, fatal ones if applied without qualifications - like homo economicus, ceteris paribus, etc. When economic theories are transformed into PHILOSPHICAL/POLITICAL THEORIES and POLICY GUIDANCE and pursued with a religious zeal, you can just imagine what would happen.

I would stop short of calling for the libertarians to own up the mess; but isn't it time to think over again their zeal a little bit? They should show some gratitude that there aren't angry mobs killing and looting on the streets - yet.

引用:
原帖由 Alydar78 於 2008-10-15 12:20 PM 發表


Not yet a commie return; just a comeback of Keynes 鎹~

Actually we have to congratulate ourselves that this shit turns up now rather than later...if this laissez faire/deregulation fancy lasts  ...
.............LOL
I am too dumb to understand this.
Could you explain more or make it simpler?

引用:
原帖由 chefung 於 2008-10-15 12:49 PM 發表 查看引用來源


.............LOL
I am too dumb to understand this.
Could you explain more or make it simpler?
簡單講,即係班成日開口埋口講「自由經濟」「減少規管」嘅友仔今次終於撞板,好在未至又搞出共產革命咁解...再畀班友「自由放任」落去,割喉式叢林法則嘅經濟越玩越大,過度投資/生產泡沫爆破加貧富懸殊急速惡化,到時唔止黃巢李自成重視江湖,世界大戰都有份。

海耶克、費利民班友講嗰套,當年係啱使,但後來已經係畀啲徒子徒孫盲目崇拜兼極端化,所以闖禍 - 佢哋啲經濟理論,以社會科學嚟講有唔少前提假設都係非常牽強兼/或不切實際,例如將人類行為模式單一化嘅「經濟動物」、ceteris paribus (假設其他條件不變),用嚟解釋人類社會行為失準多過乜,啲人仲用埋嚟做施政/行為嘅哲學基礎,當係聖經教條咁「神聖不可侵犯」,就更加死過臘肉。

冇將呢啲人叫做「無政府主義者」(anarchists) 或「虛無主義者」(nihilists),已經好留情面...

[ 本帖最後由 Alydar78 於 2008-10-15 03:01 PM 編輯 ]

Just got back from career fair...
Even the market is that bad, there are still quite a few trading companies recruiting, no ibanks though.

引用:
原帖由 chefung 於 2008-10-16 05:47 AM 發表 查看引用來源
Just got back from career fair...
Even the market is that bad, there are still quite a few trading companies recruiting, no ibanks though.
Of course no i-banks 啦...either dead, swallowed up by others, or at best, chopping down the payroll...
:smile_13: :smile_13: :smile_13:

引用:
原帖由 Alydar78 於 2008-10-15 02:58 PM 發表 查看引用來源


簡單講,即係班成日開口埋口講「自由經濟」「減少規管」嘅友仔今次終於撞板,好在未至又搞出共產革命咁解...再畀班友「自由放任」落去,割喉式叢林法則嘅經濟越玩越大,過度投資/生產泡沫爆破加貧富懸殊急速惡化 ...
以為中文會明, 點知睇完仲更加唔明 .. 唔好講咁深得唔得, 比返 d 人間煙火睇下啦:smile_27: :smile_27:

樣樣野都講求平衡, 過尤不及. 純理論嚟講, 市場自由經濟緊係好過社會計劃經濟. 不過, 係人為既情況底下, 又是另一回事.
由美國 lee 次金融爆煲, 就睇得出人係唔管唔得. 利慾分心, 明天都唔一定係佢做 CEO, 有權唔用, 過期作癈. 大陸既官場現形記, 放諸四海皆通:smile_39:

係 lee 個現實社會裏面, 咩野係民主. 其實睇真d, 咩野都係商品. 兩個總統候選人既角逐, 幕後都係錢既宣傳 + 包裝. 駛咁多錢, 無非都係想有決策權.
將來揾番筆. 唔通你話後面班有錢佬, 同你推動民主, 等你嚟反佢壟斷咩.:smile_38:

所以 macy 講得岩架, 而+ 美國係步下緊 communism. 所有野收歸國有, 用既係納稅人既錢, 唔係變相共產咩.

相反, d 共產國家紛紛將 d 資產私有化, 變緊 capitalism. 所以, 咩野主義都係一個名詞, 好多野都係名存實亡.:smile_45:

引用:
原帖由 DSHK 於 2008-10-16 09:59 AM 發表 查看引用來源


以為中文會明, 點知睇完仲更加唔明 .. 唔好講咁深得唔得, 比返 d 人間煙火睇下啦:smile_27: :smile_27:

樣樣野都講求平衡, 過尤不及. 純理論嚟講, 市場自由經濟緊係好過社會計劃經濟. 不過, 係人為既情 ...
照直英文搬中文係咁上下喇 - 平日班「自由佬」講啲嘢,又曾幾何時叫人聽得明吖 (行唔行得通都已經次要...economics isn't called "dismal science" for nothing)。

市場經濟係相對符合人性,可惜一唔管就會走晒去人性黑暗面嗰邊。久唔久出下事,左返少少收緊下先玩得耐。今次大鑊歸大鑊,未至一棚人走出嚟殺人放火咪算執身彩囉。嗰啲成日舉住個海耶克費利民神主牌拜神嘅,宜家仲有命行得出街已經偷笑...如果仲唔知死,仲係繼續日日唸「自由神咒」嘅話,就真係祝全世界好運。

國有化銀行都唔算係左得好緊要,而且以美國計都只係 minority stake 又冇 board seat 又冇 voting power,係得 preference shares 優先收息咁大把,左度好低0架咋...以銀行發展史睇,最經典嘅 Bank of England 始創嗰陣,根本就係官辦嘅貨幣發行機構。RBS 又係打住個 Royal 朵(即係官家囉),就連匯豐以前初開都係官府打手 (以前清政府啲對英借款,多數咪又係佢哋經辦)...private ownership 之餘仲 genuine 兼 diverse 到好似今日咁,好近代嘅事嚟0架咋。共產喎,有排都未到...

上面係走資,不過都留咗好多手嘅...單係外匯管制已經係啦。試下冇外匯管制吖嗱,今次金融市場大爆煲佢哋死得仲大鑊 (本土資金過海,冧市跟住死;海外資金沽貨鬆人,本土市又係爆煲)。經過今次,環球政治經濟應該又會向左走一輪0架喇,係睇幾耐同個 extent 有幾勁啫 - 少則十年廿年玩 Keynesian,多則又一次 New Deal 咁耐兼且係戰時經濟/蘇聯 20 年代中後期 NEP 嗰隻,到時就真係 de facto 共產喇...

[ 本帖最後由 Alydar78 於 2008-10-16 10:30 AM 編輯 ]

引用:
原帖由 Alydar78 於 2008-10-16 10:26 AM 發表 查看引用來源


照直英文搬中文係咁上下喇 - 平日班「自由佬」講啲嘢,又曾幾何時叫人聽得明吖 (行唔行得通都已經次要...economics isn't called "dismal science" for nothing)。

市場經濟係相對符合人性,可惜一唔管就會走 ...
美國佬今次過唔過到都唔知 .. 琴晚果邊又傳 citi 唔多妥, 搞到個市又係咁跌 .. :smile_39:
GMAC 又話收緊貸款資格, D 人點借錢買車丫, 汽車工業又會受一大打擊.:smile_39:
仲有 .. 佢個 7000 億救市, D 錢點嚟 .. 咪又係要向大陸佬同中東佬埋手. 有排玩野 ... 最後 .. 又係政治籌碼:smile_45: :smile_45:

引用:
原帖由 DSHK 於 2008-10-16 11:02 AM 發表 查看引用來源


美國佬今次過唔過到都唔知 .. 琴晚果邊又傳 citi 唔多妥, 搞到個市又係咁跌 .. :smile_39:
GMAC 又話收緊貸款資格, D 人點借錢買車丫, 汽車工業又會受一大打擊.:smile_39:
仲有 .. 佢個 7000 億救市, D 錢點 ...
citi 就梗係啦...間嘢好地地本來係銀行,走去學人搞綜合金融企業,一齊「製毒」一齊賭,玩到飛砂走石;宜家放出去啲數就嚟到期,但都唔知收得返幾多,唔死就有鬼。
等佢仲咁招積吖嗱...冇錢仲想食嘢,收購 Wachovia...
:smile_30: :smile_30: :smile_30:

呢鋪係全部國家一齊發債掠水,救得幾多得幾多0架咋。不過阿爺同印俄巴呢幾個所謂 BRIC,都唔好旨意佢哋會幫到手頂到幾耐:一嚟大衰退,呢幾個國家都自身難保。玩出口兼過度借貸投資,一樣有佢哋份,自己嘅銀行體系遲早都要搵人救...

講開又講,呢排啲反彈,好似每次都係兩日,之後即刻大插...摸住條水玩 call/put 或期指應該有 so 噃。

[ 本帖最後由 Alydar78 於 2008-10-16 11:11 AM 編輯 ]

引用:
原帖由 Alydar78 於 2008-10-16 09:35 AM 發表


Of course no i-banks 啦...either dead, swallowed up by others, or at best, chopping down the payroll...
:smile_13: :smile_13: :smile_13:
hi all
i m tired today and couldn't come here

just a minor correction, literally, the investment bank sector - has already become extinct
traditionally, investment banks don't take public deposits and therefore WERE subject to fewer regulatory requirements
the last two former Wall Street banks - have been forced to change themselves to Bank Holding Companies and you'll see their branches in the States very soon...

Chef, no more i-banks, sorry, you graduate at a wrong time
j/k
it's a tough year... i wish you good luck

上一頁下一頁
發新話題
前往最後回覆