Who IS Profiting From The Economic Fallout?

[Conan71]

John A. Paulson, who made between $3 to $4 billion in one day betting against the mortgage market is a large Democrat contributor, as is George Soros.  Big Dems profiting off little people's pain.  Sounds like a grand GOP scheme, doesn't it?

"Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama favor government support for people losing their homes because they can't repay their subprime mortgages. But what about the financial wheeler-dealers in the hedge fund industry who may stand to make billions of dollars from this terrible debacle? Foremost among them is billionaire hedge fund operator George Soros, who has committed his life and immense financial resources to bringing the Democrats to power in the White House.

Ties to the controversial and mysterious hedge fund industry could become a major problem for the Democratic Party. Hedge fund money "appears to be tilting toward the Democrats of late," the New York Times reported last year.

The connection is personal. Chelsea Clinton took a job in 2006 with Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund whose founder, Marc Lasry, has contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the national Democratic Party and many of its candidates. Federal Election Commission records show $5,000 from Lasry to HILLPAC, Hillary's political action committee, thousands more to Hillary's senate campaign, and thousands more to Hillary's presidential campaign.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards took some criticism when it became known that he had gone to work for a hedge fund. As noted by the Washington Post, "The hedge fund that employed John Edwards markedly expanded its subprime lending business while he worked there, becoming a major player in the high-risk mortgage sector Edwards has pilloried in his presidential campaign." Edwards claimed he didn't know anything about the firm's involvement in subprime lending.

It is interesting to note that the co-author of the Post article, John Solomon, has left the paper to become editor of the rival and conservative Washington Times. Solomon had come under savage attack by left-wingers for doing stories about corruption in the Democratic Party. They probably realized that Solomon was on to something when he uncovered Edwards' relationship with a hedge fund company. But Edwards is not alone. ....

..."The American people should be quickly educated by our media on how very rich people like Paulson and Soros make "bets" on the rise or fall of national currencies and economies. Paulson is now telling investors "it's still not too late" to bet on more economic problems. These are capitalists who seem to have a vested interest in the further decline of the U.S. economy.

We may not know much about Paulson, but we know a lot about Soros. He is a financial manipulator, convicted of illegal insider trading in France for playing financial games with a bank there.

We also know that he spent over $20 million trying to defeat George Bush for president in 2004 and has contributed to such groups as the Democratic National Committee, MoveOn.org, and candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Soros, in short, is a major financial backer of the Democratic Party and will be in a position to collect on these debts if Hillary or Obama wins in November. Their election may depend on further substantial erosion in the national economy. Is it possible that the financial activities of Soros could make it more likely that the economy will go into a complete tailspin?

Any economic problems will, of course, be blamed by the Democrats and the liberal media on President Bush and the Republicans. The Republicans may not be smart enough to recognize that hedge fund managers and their links to the Democratic Party could become a potent campaign issue. Perhaps they will regard the issue as too "populist" for their taste."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff199.htm

Edwards glib or a liar?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002277.html

What did Paulson do?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB120036645057290423.html

[swake]

Nice try, but hedge funds are not evil.

You are missing the concept that hedge funds are good for the markets, economy and the small investor. Hedge funds expose companies that may be attempting to hide poor fundamentals and increase overall confidence in the market. It may seem counter intuitive but hedge funds even though they profit off of the decline in price of particular shares or commodities actually help to bolster confidence and thus the overall health and value of the markets.

They also provide a positive counter balance to price speculators that might seek to drive up commodity prices beyond what is reasonable based on normal supply and demand. Semgroup was hedging on a decline on the price of oil. They were right (but too early) and other hedgers have made a ton of money in the recent decline in oil prices and hedge funds have really helped to bring oil back down to a reasonable price level.

[Hometown]

There is talk that the Bad Mortgage Buyout Trust will be similar to the Resolution Trust Whatever that was created to buy out Savings and Loan Assets to resolve the Savings and Loan Crisis.  I recall that those assets were eventually sold for something like 20 cents on the dollar.  If I recall correctly, the Bass Brothers bought up a large share of those assets.  I imagine they made money on the deal.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by swake

Nice try, but hedge funds are not evil.

You are missing the concept that hedge funds are good for the markets, economy and the small investor. Hedge funds expose companies that may be attempting to hide poor fundamentals and increase overall confidence in the market. It may seem counter intuitive but hedge funds even though they profit off of the decline in price of particular shares or commodities actually help to bolster confidence and thus the overall health and value of the markets.

They also provide a positive counter balance to price speculators that might seek to drive up commodity prices beyond what is reasonable based on normal supply and demand. Semgroup was hedging on a decline on the price of oil. They were right (but too early) and other hedgers have made a ton of money in the recent decline in oil prices and hedge funds have really helped to bring oil back down to a reasonable price level.

Ignore the money trail if you like and keep blaming the Republicans Swake.  That's perfectly fine w/ me, if you think it's cool that a handful of people are profiting by millions and billions while common folk are losing the dream of homeownership.  You are sounding far more like one of those callous Repiglicans to me.  

Swake is apologizing and affirming the repugnant actions of the big DNC backers.  Crickets from the rest of the peanut gallery.  That usually tells me I nicked a nerve or two.

[iplaw]

Other than the brain fart threads from FauxTurd, you can generally tell the effectiveness of an argument by lack of debate...

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by swake

Nice try, but hedge funds are not evil.

You are missing the concept that hedge funds are good for the markets, economy and the small investor. Hedge funds expose companies that may be attempting to hide poor fundamentals and increase overall confidence in the market. It may seem counter intuitive but hedge funds even though they profit off of the decline in price of particular shares or commodities actually help to bolster confidence and thus the overall health and value of the markets.

They also provide a positive counter balance to price speculators that might seek to drive up commodity prices beyond what is reasonable based on normal supply and demand. Semgroup was hedging on a decline on the price of oil. They were right (but too early) and other hedgers have made a ton of money in the recent decline in oil prices and hedge funds have really helped to bring oil back down to a reasonable price level.

Ignore the money trail if you like and keep blaming the Republicans Swake.  That's perfectly fine w/ me, if you think it's cool that a handful of people are profiting by millions and billions while common folk are losing the dream of homeownership.  You are sounding far more like one of those callous Repiglicans to me.  

Swake is apologizing and affirming the repugnant actions of the big DNC backers.  Crickets from the rest of the peanut gallery.  That usually tells me I nicked a nerve or two.

I would bet really big money that the majority of hedge fund managers and traders are Republican. So who am I really defending here?

[iplaw]

I think that's the point.  There's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the aisle.  It just happens that those who profited most handsomely lately happen to have Ds next to their names.

[Conan71]

Ohhh, say it ain't so St. Barack:

"In December, Mr. Obama visited the New York office of the billionaire investor George Soros to court a roomful of high-powered Democratic fund-raisers, hoping to lure some of them away from Mrs. Clinton. Not everyone was swayed, but Mr. Obama won over Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund executive from New Jersey, and Mr. Wolf, the UBS executive, both of whom are now among Mr. Obama's biggest fund-raisers."

"The number of bundlers ballooned quickly. The Obama campaign made important inroads among affluent people under age 45, including Silicon Valley engineers and hedge-fund analysts, many of whom had not been on the political radar screen."

"An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry.

The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James A. Torrey, a New York hedge-fund investor;..."

"Mr. Obama has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists or political action committees registered with the federal government. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge-fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Mr. Obama at a time when their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/us/politics/06bundlers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

"Money from Wall Street has long been a factor in Washington and has tended to flow, with a policy agenda, to the ascendant political party. Giving by people in hedge funds, on the other hand, tends to be more personal and ideological. Some of the most aggressive donors have been Democratic supporters like George Soros, David E. Shaw of D. E. Shaw and James H. Simons at Renaissance Technologies, as well as younger executives like Thomas F. Steyer at Farallon and Marc Lasry at Avenue Capital, all of whom gave generously during the 2006 election cycle. "

"The connections can take different shapes and forms. For John Edwards, the Democratic presidential candidate, the 14 months he spent as a paid senior adviser at Fortress Investment, a $29.7 billion hedge fund and private equity firm, helped him to bond with the fund's liberal-leaning executives, several of whom have given money to Mr. Edwards.

As to what Mr. Edwards, a trial lawyer with no previous financial markets experience, did at Fortress, an adviser to the candidate said that Mr. Edwards "advised on where there might be investment opportunities and where he saw the global economy going." Mr. Edwards resigned from Fortress last month before declaring his candidacy.

And Avenue Capital, a $12 billion fund run by Mr. Lasry, a prominent financial supporter of the Clintons, hired their daughter, Chelsea, last year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/business/25hedge.html

There's no doubt that GOP candidates have been graced with hedge fund largesse as well, but national trends show larger and larger amounts flowing to Democrat candidates.  It's simply fool-hardy to blame the GOP in entirety for this crisis when the Dems have their snout every bit as deep in the trough.  Follow the money...

[Conan71]

Here's more:

Hedge Funds, Buyout Firms Favor Democrats With Campaign Money

By Michael Forsythe

Aug. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats are collecting more than two-thirds of the campaign donations from employees of the biggest hedge funds and buyout firms, as the party taps into one of Wall Street's fastest-growing sources of wealth.

Of the $7.4 million contributed by employees of the 100 largest hedge funds and 50 biggest buyout firms in 2005-06, Democrats received $5 million, Federal Election Commission records show. The biggest checks went to congressional campaign committees led by New York Senator Charles Schumer and Illinois Representative Rahm Emanuel, which took in $2.8 million.

Donors say they're giving more to Democrats because of their dismay over President George W. Bush's performance on issues such as the war in Iraq and because they see a real chance for Democrats to win control of Congress for the first time in 12 years. They say they view Schumer and Emanuel -- who are courting Wall Street donors -- as key to that goal.

``Rahm and Senator Schumer are pretty charismatic guys -- they've been extremely aggressive in making sure they target the right people and talk to the right people,'' says Marc Lasry, managing partner at New York-based Avenue Capital Group, among the biggest hedge funds. ``Iraq has made it easier for Rahm and Senator Schumer to raise money.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=abPcaWGJlFwo

For those of you keeping track, Lasry hired Chelsea Clinton.

Pardon the skepticism, but hedge funds might appreciate a lack of oversight of the financial markets.  Why is it so important to them who is and isn't elected to the Senate, HOR, and POTUS?

[we vs us]

But what have you proved, Conan?  That Dodd, Obama, and some D's have taken contributions from the hedge fund industry?  Sure, absolutely.  And insurance, and real estate.  Just like Republicans have and will. But you're assuming that taking campaign donations somehow = malfeasance or law breaking or even an ethical lapse, and I'm not sure why (unless you're railing against the whole system).

Same thing with Soros and Paulson.  While they undoubtedly played positions against the falling market, proving that they were colluding to crash the economy is another thing entirely.  

If we're looking for beneficiaries of the last two weeks of bailouts, the answer seems pretty clear: major stockholders and the upper management of each of these companies.  

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

But what have you proved, Conan?  That Dodd, Obama, and some D's have taken contributions from the hedge fund industry?  Sure, absolutely.  And insurance, and real estate.  Just like Republicans have and will. But you're assuming that taking campaign donations somehow = malfeasance or law breaking or even an ethical lapse, and I'm not sure why (unless you're railing against the whole system).

Same thing with Soros and Paulson.  While they undoubtedly played positions against the falling market, proving that they were colluding to crash the economy is another thing entirely.  

If we're looking for beneficiaries of the last two weeks of bailouts, the answer seems pretty clear: major stockholders and the upper management of each of these companies.  

What is the point of campaign contributions?

A) To show support or solidarity for/with a candidate with whom one identifies.

B) To curry favor or have a seat at the table.

Large and bundled contributions represent point B.

Want to know how we wind up in large messes like this?  Follow the money.  This is what corruption looks and smells like.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

But what have you proved, Conan?  That Dodd, Obama, and some D's have taken contributions from the hedge fund industry?  Sure, absolutely.  And insurance, and real estate.  Just like Republicans have and will. But you're assuming that taking campaign donations somehow = malfeasance or law breaking or even an ethical lapse, and I'm not sure why (unless you're railing against the whole system).

Same thing with Soros and Paulson.  While they undoubtedly played positions against the falling market, proving that they were colluding to crash the economy is another thing entirely.  

If we're looking for beneficiaries of the last two weeks of bailouts, the answer seems pretty clear: major stockholders and the upper management of each of these companies.  

What is the point of campaign contributions?

A) To show support or solidarity for/with a candidate with whom one identifies.

B) To curry favor or have a seat at the table.

Large and bundled contributions represent point B.

Want to know how we wind up in large messes like this?  Follow the money.  This is what corruption looks and smells like.

Well I guess if this is on the take then everyone's on the take.  This is the system that the Supreme Court has given us (eg. political contributions as protected speech).  I agree it stinks, but it's the game that all of them play, and in the end -- as unsavory as it is -- it doesn't prove wrongdoing.

[rwarn17588]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

What is the point of campaign contributions?

A) To show support or solidarity for/with a candidate with whom one identifies.

B) To curry favor or have a seat at the table.

[/quote]

And C) To hedge bets in the political arena. It's not smart to throw all your corporation's money at one party or one candidate.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

But what have you proved, Conan?  That Dodd, Obama, and some D's have taken contributions from the hedge fund industry?  Sure, absolutely.  And insurance, and real estate.  Just like Republicans have and will. But you're assuming that taking campaign donations somehow = malfeasance or law breaking or even an ethical lapse, and I'm not sure why (unless you're railing against the whole system).

Same thing with Soros and Paulson.  While they undoubtedly played positions against the falling market, proving that they were colluding to crash the economy is another thing entirely.  

If we're looking for beneficiaries of the last two weeks of bailouts, the answer seems pretty clear: major stockholders and the upper management of each of these companies.  

What is the point of campaign contributions?

A) To show support or solidarity for/with a candidate with whom one identifies.

B) To curry favor or have a seat at the table.

Large and bundled contributions represent point B.

Want to know how we wind up in large messes like this?  Follow the money.  This is what corruption looks and smells like.

Well I guess if this is on the take then everyone's on the take.  

Ding...ding...ding...ding!

We have a winner!

[FOTD]

The Stock Market is Not the Economy

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=09&year=2008&base_name=the_stock_market_is_not_the_ec

"I don't know how much lower this will drive the stock market, but the economy will see a recession and quite likely a very bad one. This was all totally predictable. The tragedy is that those in a position of power did nothing to prevent this disaster (arguably they promoted it). It is especially unfortunate that the media are still covering up for the incompetence of those in government and business who are responsible. They should be held accountable."

A one day surge in stock prices means less than sh!t about the state of the economy, but you would never believe that listening to the rethugs and the corporate media.