Display:
You underestimate the role of deliberate malice.  For those running the scam, it has all been very lucrative.  

The collapse of a Ponzi scheme is really not such a problem, for those who have already cashed out.  

What Ponzi scheme?  Since 1980 we have seen the progressive elimination of restrictions on finanicial creativity specifically designed to keep fraud and ensuing economic collapse from happening.  This was not an accident, but perhaps I am taking too abstract a way of looking at it.  How about a low-level techie's-eye view (from Cryptogon) . . .

First, the background;    

Second, how our low level techie got to be in the belly of this beast;  

Third, by way of example, some outer-world  . . . uh, . . . ramifications;  

And finally, my comment, specifically, that:  I have never heard of an economics designed specifically to model and predict the behavior of crime families, but if you want an economics for the 21st century, that is what it is going to have to do.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Tue Dec 25th, 2007 at 09:32:18 PM EST
Never assume malice when you can assume incompetence.

Though when you see things like Goldman Sachs advising the British Government on what to do about Northern Rock, it is definitely a case of foxes guarding the henhouse.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Dec 26th, 2007 at 05:20:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
knew exactly what it was doing, took precautions to disguise its activities and made preparations to cash out of the scam before it exploded.   (This cannot be done by accident, and it certainly wasn't incompetence.)

I know, not malice, just business.  Same thing.  

And your economics does not model it.  

The Fates are kind.

by Gaianne on Wed Dec 26th, 2007 at 07:33:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series