DISQUS

Topcat · 1 year ago

Empty analysis again. You don't even answer your own rhetorical questions. You defend the short seller for 'taking great risk', but don't explain why short sellers nonetheless failed to curb this series of bubbles (stock market (1996-2000),
subprime market (2001-2007), oil commodities (2007-2008). The idea that any of this has been caused by a WHOLE INDUSTRY thinking that the government will step in once their investment has gone to pennies-on-the-dollar is absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The Sarbanes-Oxley rant is a joke too. All of Wall Street has whined about what a waste of money it has been, but they STILL cannot deliver a free-market mechanism for curbing the instability they create. There would be no need for intervention if they were capable of self-regulation. And they have proved over and over, they cannot do it. And each time it has happened, they try to put the blame elsewhere. Frauds.

Artificial · 11 months ago

investors would have profited or at least been able to hedge their risks. More importantly, the bubble would not likely have accelerated as fast as it did, because of the check shorts provide on irrational exuberence