"Republican double-speak"

Politics International Politics
41

Sorry, didn’t see rest of your post when I first read it.

In other words - how much to buy of each. Where to make the big bets and the small ones. My point.

My point again. Was he really a canny investor or just a lucky speculator (the dumb luck argument). After all, there may be many others as gutsy as Soros, who didn’t have someone as smart as Jim Rogers picking the stocks… indeed, every bear market in Taiwan has some poor geezer selling his kidneys to pay back broker debt.

Doesn’t make sense. Because the relative size of that punt would also effect the overall risk of the whole portfolio and the distribution and kind of risk within it. Risk is also what you don’t buy as well as what you do buy. You can’t isolate one single decision in the portfolio and say that all the rest is risk management; this is not.

Sure.

I think we are talking past each other in this thread anyway.

As for Bush’s risk management, well it may be less risky for him if he were to expose all the faults of the CIA. It makes sense for him to diversifythe possible targets of voters’ anger. Why take all the hits himself? Why not take on the CIA himself? Champion its restructuring and reorganisation… get a few heads to roll… people falling on swords, etc…

42

It makes the point that there are two functions - what to buy and how much to buy.

Taking a huge punt on one thing does indeed mean taking a huge risk relative to the management of his other assets. If I put all my money in one stock, I am ignoring all the other possible assets. I am putting all my eggs into one basket.

I might suggest the same.

Cool.

43

IYBF,

What you say is not true because you are assuming he is putting all his eggs into one basket. I have never made that assumption. My point is that he makes a huge punt, but it is only part of his over all investment strategy. He may ameliorate the risk in any number of ways. So whilst in absoulute terms it appears as a huge punt, in relative terms it may not be. For example, he may have a cash cow business that produces the equivalent sum to his punt every month.

You make the point that it’s what to buy and when to buy. His research analysts tell him what and he decides when. Well if your trading currencies when is always more important than what.

44

Listen, this is getting Rascallian in its silliness. We are talking past each other. I think i know why.*

The question was is Soros a great investor?

I suggested that his public persona does not match the reality. Investment requires knowing what to buy and how much to buy.** He relied on others to tell him what to buy.

Then there is the how much to buy (Risk management - vary the relative quantities to diversify your risks***.)

Then i suggested that even here there is a question - was his decision to buy lots a smart one or a lucky one? looking back, because it worked, we might all say it was smart… but that is the affect of hindsight. He took huge risks and backed JR’s or SD’s judegment. So was it a canny risk management process or a huge punt? Without doubt, it was the latter.

Think about the risk return profiles that these guys face. If the punt goes wrong, what happens? They go bankrupt. But they live to fight another day. If it goes right? They become billionaires and spend their money propagating their own world view.

Who made the smart investment decision and who made the gamblers’ punt?

  • I think the difference between us may largely come down to the use of the phrase “huge punt.” To investors, this means a large AND risky position. For example, putting a lot of money into a single stock, when you are measured by your performance against the whole market. That’s a punt. Interestingly enough, if you are being measured by your performance against the S&P500, putting a large amount of money in a deposit account would be considered a huge punt, too. (because you would look like an arse if the market goes up). Given this fact - that it is all about the relative nature of the investment as to whether it is a punt or not, it makes no sense to claim

For that is precisely the meaning of the word 'punt."

Let me add that if someone had a large amount of money in one place but it was peanuts compared to what they were doing with the rest of their portfolio, it would not be considered a huge punt.

**Not, as Fox misrepresents it “What and When?” trying to sidestep the whole issue.

***Even Fox agrees with this after seeming to quibble at the start.

45

Cut and paste my reply onto a different thread… am I stepping on the moderators’ toes…???

46

IYBF,

Have you stooped to using fine print to make your arguments.

47

[color=blue]How Many Neocons Does It Take To Make A Chaingang?[/color]

"Federal law-enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President Dick Cheney’s office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer’s identity last year. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said.

According to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, were the two Cheney employees. “We believe that Hannah was the major player in this,” one federal law-enforcement officer said. Calls to the vice president’s office were not returned, nor did Hannah and Libby return calls.

The strategy of the FBI is to make clear to Hannah “that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time” as a way to pressure him to name superiors, one federal law-enforcement official said."

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/02/17/National/Cheneys.Staff.Focus.Of.Probe-598606.shtml

48

[quote=“Fox”]IYBF,

Have you stooped to using fine print to make your arguments.[/quote]

Well, yes. I used footnotes for those tired of my pedantry and to try and make my restatement (the bit in large print) a little clearer.

I apologise if you are short-sighted.

As for spook - yup, this story had gone a little bit quiet hadn’t it? Though people were suggesting it might be getting sensitive when Ashcroft recused himself.

But it sounds that it will stop well short of Cheney. If Hannah is indeed the “main player” and not Libby, it looks as though Cheney has kept himself out of reach.

One political point for the democrats. Regardless of the truth of any of these allegations, they have to be careful in this election. They have plenty of sticks to beat the administration with - WMD, IRAQ, this investigation. However, I feel that can be a danger. If democrats are perceived to be lashing out wildly in all directions or simply being shrill, they will lose. After all, it hurt Dean badly in Iowa.

That makes Kerry a fairly formidable choice. But he needs to distance himself from the sillier stuff - like Michael Moore’s “deserter” jibe. This he has not done convincingly.

Dean is still raising money hand-over-fist, which suggests his key support is rock-solid. But his numbers have come down in percentage terms because he won almost no independents.

Let’s be honest - a lot of the republican bashing is as absurd as the Clinton bashing was.

I think idependent minded people will react badly to any nonesense. And it is independents who will decide this election.

And there is the problem that many democrats are now accusing the administration of holding wrong beliefs before the war - but the same wrong beliefs that these democrats held, too.

Republican double-speak may be distasteful - but I doubt it can be beaten by using democrat double-speak.

49

[quote=“fred smith”]
True Paradise will only come when Bush is elected president in perpetuity, the Democrats disband, the Liberals stay in San Francisco QUIETLY raising their organic vegetables in verbal consultation with only their pet rocks and crystals, and Germany and France admit how wrong they were to be such selfish mindless international actors for opposing the US in Iraq. :smiling_imp: :wink:[/quote]

50

A word to the wise, Alien… if Kerry does eventually face Bush, beware of the new “Kerry Triple-Speak” thread. Plenty of fodder for cartoons there, too.

(As for my personal tastes, the Democrats are blowing themselves up again over the trade issue. I find it TOTALLY inconsistent if someone complains of an overbearing foreign policy and in the next breath talks about imposing trade restrictions on foreigners. Even if it is dressed up as workers’ rights/environmental standards.)

51

I agree, you could build a very good case for “Triple Speak” Kerry, or, as tigerman prefers, Sen. Flipflop.

But I don’t think you’ll see the Bushies use it.

That’s because Kerry is one of 100 senators and, as a titular member of the leg. branch, one of 536 US Federal legislators (100 Senate, 436 House). Although some on the Right assert that only one thing can explain Kerry’s flipflops–political expediency–I think they’re wrong in some cases. I mean, Congress is all about the Art of Compromise (however, some of Kerry’s votes, very important ones in fact, do appear to be shear flipflops, with only political expediency at their core).

But look at Bush. Flipflops about France’s vote in the UN, about WMDs in Iraq, projected costs of the new Medicare entitlement, Democracy in Iraq, (many, many others), and now this:

[quote=“abc NEWS”]White House Backs Off Job-Growth Forecast
White House Retreats From Predictions That Economy Will Add 2.6 Million New Jobs This Year

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Feb. 18

52

I thought (and still think) Bush was such a hypocrite when he imposed tariffs on steel, Chinese TVs and bras. However, he knew it would never come back to bite him. It seems that no democrat, no matter how correct it would be, will ever step to the right of a Republican presidential candidate on trade. What a pity. I’d really like to see Bush called to account for those tariffs.

53

[quote=“flike”]But look at Bush. Flipflops about France’s vote in the UN, about WMDs in Iraq, projected costs of the new Medicare entitlement, Democracy in Iraq, (many, many others), and now this:

[quote=“abc NEWS”]White House Backs Off Job-Growth Forecast
White House Retreats From Predictions That Economy Will Add 2.6 Million New Jobs This Year[/quote][/quote]

One more quick one, this one brand new:

[quote=“Scott McClellan (press briefing of Feb. 19, 2004)”]Q But you have said that you inherited a recession. What it would appear is that you inherited slower growth, but not a recession.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, as I said, that any way you want to look at it, the economy was weakening, the economy was declining well before the President took office, and that is the reason we were headed into a recession. This President acted to get us out of a recession. But the facts are pretty clear. There is no question that the economy was weakening well before the President took office. GDP peaked in the fourth quarter of 2000; the stock market declined sharply, starting in September 2000; business investment started declining in the fourth quarter of 2000; initial jobless claims started increasing the week of April 15, 2000.

[…]

Q I just want to be clear on one thing, though. I’m sorry for monopolizing your time here, but when you say, GDP peaked in the fourth quarter of 2000, that’s your declaration, no one else’s, correct?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I can get you all the sources for all this information. It’s well-known.

whitehouse.gov/news/releases … 219-3.html[/quote]

Except that the recession began in February of 2001 (according to 2004 Economic Report of the President, p. 31), not in Q4 of 2000 (although the Q4 real GDP figure is larger than either Q3 2000 or Q1 2001). 2004 Economic Report of the President bases its numbers on NBER, and states that monthly real GDP peaked in Feb. 2001. See here:

[quote=“2004 Economic Report of the President”]…Thus, the revised data show that the latest peak among the four
series was February 2001, with some series peaking considerably
earlier. Moreover, another data series, which the NBER has recently
announced it will incorporate into its business-cycle dating process,
also shows a peak before March 2001: monthly GDP reached a high
point in February 2001, according to the most recently available
estimates computed by a private economic consulting firm.

a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422 … 04_erp.pdf[/quote]

[quote=“NBER”]The trough marks the end of the recession that began in March 2001 and the beginning of an expansion. The recession lasted 8 months, which is slightly less than average for recessions since World War II.

nber.org/cycles/july2003.html[/quote]

Flip flop, flip flop, flip flop.

54

“I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed … managed to wangle slots in Reserve and National Guard units … Of the many tragedies of Vietnam, this raw class discrimination strikes me as the most damaging to the ideal that all Americans are created equal and owe equal allegiance to their country.” (Colin Powell, My American Journey, p. 148)

“Mr. Brown, let’s not go there. Really let’s just not go there,” Powell said. “Let’s not go there in this hearing. Do you want to have a political fight on this matter that is very controversial and I think is being dealt with by the White House? Fine, but let’s not go there.”
(Colin Powell to Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio who had asked if President Bush had actually fulfilled his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War.)

55

[quote=“NY Times”]
Taking Spin Out of Report That Made Bad Into Good Health

By ROBERT PEAR

Published: February 22, 2004

ASHINGTON, Feb. 21

56

Hi Fred - just read your ‘Rumsfeld’ post about the dinner. Sorry, as usual I haven’t been keeping up with what’s been going on in the discussions. It’s a good post and definitely kudos to Rumsfeld for having said those things.

However, it still doesn’t explain - at least in my uninformed view of things -why we were still supplying arms and equipment to this regime (along with France and other powers - I have no illusions about their culpability in this) in full knowledge of the fact that it was employing chemical weapons against Iran!

57

Playwright Jim Sherman wrote this the day after Hu Jintao was named chief
of the Communist Party in China.

HU’S ON FIRST (By James Sherman)

(We take you now to the Oval Office.)

George W. Bush: Condi! Nice to see you. What’s happening?
Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.
George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.
George: That’s what I want to know.
Condi: That’s what I’m telling you.

George: That’s what I’m asking you. Who is the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes.
George: I mean the fellow’s name.
Condi: Hu.
George: The guy in China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The new leader of China.
Condi: Hu.
George: The Chinaman!

Condi: Hu is leading China.
George: Now whaddya’ asking me for?
Condi: I’m telling you Hu is leading China.
George: Well, I’m asking you. Who is leading China?
Condi: That’s the man’s name.
George: That’s who’s name?
Condi: Yes.

George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle
East.
Condi: That’s correct.
George: Then who is in China?
Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China?
Condi: No, sir.
George: Then who is?
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Yassir?
Condi: No, sir.

George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China.
Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.
Condi: Kofi?
George: No, thanks.
Condi: You want Kofi?
George: No.
Condi: You don’t want Kofi.
George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk. And
then get me the U.N.
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?
George: Milk! Will you please make the call?
Condi: And call who?
George: Who is the guy at the U.N?
Condi: Hu is the guy in China.
George: Will you stay out of China?!
Condi: Yes, sir.
George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi.
George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.
Condi: Rice, here.
George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should
send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese
food in the Middle East?

58

Gosh Vay:

It was only one year and it was an attempt to get some influence and leverage with Saddam and we certainly did not want Iran marching across the oil fields now did we and who knew if that was going to happen or not. We certainly did not.

So it’s a bit like supporting Stalin against Hitler. It’s the same analogy and it’s reality. Might not make for an easy case with zealous sophomore political science majors who will no doubt rally to the cause and condemn America for not always being lily white but hey, what were the choices?

Those who criticize frequently are those least capable or willing to offer alternatives. Hate to bring him up again but Noam Chomsky. What are his alternatives? He never really says. He just condemns. That’s easy but no one who is doing the condemning really has any position of authority in either government or business or they would know the difficulties such realities present.

59

There is an element of fascism in such a view