After all, Ben has sacked the savers for several years now, letting people like the last man gain at the savers' expense.
Look who is at the Las Vegas meeting on 'hedge funding' this week, according to Market Watch. Yes, indeed. As a reminder to everyone, these things got their start to help those who have big pockets to grow them larger.
Ever heard that any of this type are after sustainable growth? On the contrary, we could probably gather a whole lot of support to show otherwise. The main theme seems that these people want special deals, such as opaque transactions, and a whole host of other questionable practices.
A commenter (WalterScott) has it right: The Danish theoretical physicist and mathematician Niels Bohr looked at the problem and concluded that only people with inside information to act upon can consistently make winning picks on the stock market. So what you need is a connected hedge fund manager, or a very lucky one. (bold added on 01/20/2013, see about Steven Cohen who was at the above-mentioned meeting)
I would add, a clever one who can skirt the edges of the legal without getting caught and prosecuted or of the ethical without worry or dilemma or of the moral without suffering any conscience pangs. Yes, there are these type; there are those with money; technology evolved to allow manipulations; politicos are mere mortals; hence, hedge funds exist.
The politicos are in this crowd, for good reason. Money. Notice the names (attendees) who are political.
Now all of that would be fine, if we had term limits and removed the career politician.
The way things are now, it pays for the politicos to belly up, how else to feed their hunger for money (the symptom? salivating when a buck is passed beneath the nose).
Mind you, the 'way things are now' include fiat money and a whole bunch of other systemic problembs (providing handles that allow the fat cats to exploit the working people). For instance, putting money into speculating on oil can cause the price of gas to go up. In essence, price being set by other than supply and demand. Pro: US Newspaper Con: Seeking Alpha Mixed: Davies at FT
As said in the prior post: hedge funds are for the rich; ponzis are for the poor. They both have smelly feet; the hedge funds are accepted since the money needs (or thinks that they need) their services.
Caveat: there may actually be some reasonable use for hedge funds. However, none are apparent at this time, to me. Yet, I'm willing to consider the possibility further. Such as this: wouldn't it be nice if a never-losing hedge fund kept Social Security in the black?
New attitude: Above are pointers to a Pro and a Con position on a subject. This will continue. Some have used the fact of no clear answer to exploit the system. How? By embedding what are systemic risks, essentially little hooks, that allow regular extractions to their pockets. Then, this has been done under the aura of intellectualism (flim-flam - even, to the Nobel level -- prize winner using rule-of-thumb when it counts, not his high-falutin' mathematics); the whole problem exacerbated by theory, and practice (namely, computational-ism), without mature rationality, and sense, ever getting its chance.
01/20/2013 -- It's been almost a year since any remark and almost two since the post. Of late, a post on busyness and silliness looked at some issues. The recent Business Week had something interesting article (Steven Cohen, of SAC Capital). Some employed in the business have misgivings about their ways of doing things. One talker, under questioning, was asked if he knew of any hedge fund that was clean, or above reproach using the old concept (as in, no shady dealings). No, he said. They could not survive, otherwise. It's like doping.
01/15/2012 -- It is or It is not. Jobs, labor, and disrespect.
06/15/2011 -- Said it before; we'll get into it again. Hedge funds are for the rich. Ponzis are for the poor (their hedge funds). How many characteristics match between these two (hedge fund, ponzi)?
05/29/2011 -- Fair dealing, can that be brought back? Was it ever?