Just like we were supposed to panic about this every single fucking year for the past decades. But this one is true! And if it isn't - the next one will be!
Said every climate denier ever! Site how could you!
This logic is the same as the global warming deniers site_rly_sux, they say that because we were warned before and some of the predictions haven't come true, that its proof its a hoax, which is essentially the argument you are making here regarding toxic derivatives. You should be ashamed of yourself for resorting to such tactics
Wait so your response to the accusation of panic-mongering is: we should also panic about the climate?
Is it to difficult to actually sit and wonder why this story is relevant in 2022 when the 2009-2021 versions went nowhere? Try and stay on topic.
It's easy to show how the climate is getting worse. But this story seems to have gone from 700 trillion in 2009 to only 80 trillion today. Isn't that the opposite to how the climate is deteriorating?
Wait so your response to the accusation of panic-mongering is: we should also panic about the climate?
No, I am saying if you don't accept the climate denial arguments that past alarmism that didn't pan out proves a hoax, then you ought not to be making a nearly identical argument to 'debunk' other claims, as you yourself clearly don't find this argument convincing in other contexts, yet are regurgitating climate denial talking points. It demonstrates that you argue in bad faith according to your predetermined biases rather than the quality of the argument, but I think everyone already knows this about you
if you don't accept the climate denial arguments that past alarmism that didn't pan out proves a hoax, then you ought not to be making a nearly identical argument to 'debunk' other claims
I have no idea what you're talking about. You bought up the climate. I didn't talk about the climate. All I said was that this story, whose histrionic headline you're echoing to saidit, gets told every year since 2009 and sometimes the number is bigger, sometimes it's smaller.
Now you can go off on a tangent about the climate or price of fish or world cup or whatever strikes you. But don't accuse me of being bad faith because I'm not walking down a garden path with you.
Why don't you deal with the content of what I wrote. Why don't you explain why it's a real story this time and not the last hundred times. You can't, so you have to invent new topics and accuse me for not joining you on them.
All I said was that this story, whose histrionic headline you're echoing to saidit, gets told every year since 2009 and sometimes the number is bigger, sometimes it's smaller.
Again, your arguments here apply to climate denialism as well. Are you a climate denier? (I think you are not)
Now you can go off on a tangent about the climate or price of fish or world cup or whatever strikes you. But don't accuse me of being bad faith because I'm not walking down a garden path with you.
The specifics aren't the issue, I'm accusatory because you are being inconsistent logically, not because you disagree. I would accept this argument from a climate denier, who consistently applied this logic
You said this:
Just like we were supposed to panic about this every single fucking year for the past decades. But this one is true! And if it isn't - the next one will be!
So can I expect that you would agree with your own logic here when I apply this EXACT same sentence to global warming predictions that haven't happened when they said they would?? And you would similarly conclude that we shouldnt worry about the climate because of the Crying Wolf principle you cite?
Because unless you are a climate denier as well, you are arguing in bad faith by using an argument you don't accept outside this context.
You cannot invoke the 'crying wolf' principle in one context, and then dismiss it in another while claiming that you argue consistently in good faith
First of all, I didn't make any predictions about global warming to you.
I cannot really call you "logically inconsistent" because you aren't aligning with some predictions about the price of fish which I'm imagining you made.
to global warming predictions that haven't happened when they said they would
What hasn't happened. Who said what would happen. What the hell are you talking about.
Yes I do think the climate is getting noticeably worse, and you can start a new post if you want to debate someone on that topic. But you "can" debate it if that's what you want to do, because the climate is gradual and cyclical and different people can have different interpretations.
What we cannot have any differing interpretations of though, is whether a 700 or 100 or 50 trillion dollar bubble has burst anytime since 2009. I don't think that happened. Do you think that happened? Do you want to start a debate that these stories are all relevant because really in secret there have been some 100 trillion bubbles bursting? Pfff.
So let's circle back to the actual content of what I wrote and you can try again.
Is this an important story this time that people ought to panic about?
Or is this just another lie like the last 100 iterations...which if anyone had bothered to panic over would have been a total waste of time and emotion?
Is this an important story this time that people ought to panic about?
It's posted in conspiracy rather than news, so it's plausible, but its speculative, however the speculation is coming from the BIS which is a pretty mainstream establishment.
My point about the climate stuff was that there were predictions the ice caps would be melted by now, which have not happened. I am sure you have seen the many climate denial arguments on saidit that are along these lines with respect to various predictions and models. I haven't seen you make those arguments with respect to the climate, and you toe the line of the liberal agenda so closely I can't imagine you take those arguments seriously. It surprises me that you think this disqualifies what is being said in the article, especially with it being analogous to climate denial logic. Just because a total collapse from these financial schemes hasnt happened yet does not mean this problem is not something to worry about, just like climate change is still concerning, even if every alarmist prediction hasn't come true as predicted when they said it would or the climate hasn't totally collapsed yet. Surely you are not so dense that you cannot see what I am getting at here wrt to your arguments, and why this is not good grounds to dismiss potentially serious problems. Buying stocks on margin was such a serious problem, and the crash that resulted from this did not happen right away, neither was the 2008 crash a problem that happened overnight. It would have been wrong to say alarmism wasn't warranted because no consequences or crash had happened yet, because eventually it did happen
My point was that this is potentially a catastrophic level problem, and analyzing further whether or not this a disaster in the making is maybe warranted out of abundance of caution - but I posted it in conspiracy rather than news for a reason, yet you accuse me of peddling lies
IF these guys are right, this would be an unmitigated disaster, and there is data that gives us reason to be concerned that this concern is not completely unwarranted. It seems like something that is worth looking into, especially if people have been expressing concern about this in the past ala climate change, regardless of whether the timelines for the predictions were perfect accurate. But if you would rather bury your head in the sand and hope for the best, be my guest
coming from the BIS which is a pretty mainstream establishment
No, that's a lie. You just purposefully or accidentally told a lie.
Look again at the express story. Remember that express are a fake news outlet. It takes us some time to learn that their source of information is BIS normal quarterly report. Here is the report
The express fake news engineers have quoted a phrase from the report - "blind spot". That's helpful because the phrase appears once in the 80 page report.
Here is how express use the term.
BIS described as the FX swap debt market as a "blind spot" that risks leaving policymakers in a total “fog"
Here is how it appears in the report, in the context of explaining, what the hell is an FX swap?
In an FX swap, for instance, a Dutch pension fund or Japanese insurer borrows dollars and lends euro or yen in the “spot leg”, and later repays the dollars and receives euro or yen in the “forward leg”. Thus, an FX swap, along with its close cousin, a currency swap, resembles a repurchase agreement, or repo, with a currency rather than a security as “collateral”.2 Unlike repo, the payment obligations from these instruments are recorded off-balance sheet, in a blind spot
The blind spot refers to a system of record keeping.
This is fake outrage news generated by the engineers at express.
And then picked up and spread by panic mongers who don't read and don't even care about the story enough to notice that it comes up every year.
You don't care about derivatives or FX swaps I'm guessing (sorry but I don't think I'm wrong)
You aren't talking about market regulation or which laws Congress should pass to better control the market
You don't care about why the system is set up this way, why this number came about, or why it's sometimes higher or lower
You don't care whether 80 trillion in bets means 40 trillion is on the line, or 80
You don't care whether assessing counterparty creditworthiness probably already means assuming that the 40 or 80 will certainly be discharged in bankruptcy and the risk is already priced in....
You just spread it here because you're a panic monger.
The express fake news engineers have quoted a phrase from the report - "blind spot". That's helpful because the phrase appears once in the 80 page report.
https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/global-markets-bis-urgent-2022-12-05/
Here, do you like the same information more if it comes from reuters? They used that quote too
The WSJ?
BIS is know as “the central banker’s banker”, an umbrella body for august institutions such as the Bank of England, US Federal Reserve and European Central Bank.
Its researchers can predict financial crises three years in advance using machine learning to aggregate predictions from different models.
Machine learning? AKA a bankster inside job.
Site_rly_sux |7 pointswritten 1 year ago ago
"Oh but this one is true!" Insists u/HongKongPhooey
Just like we were supposed to panic about this every single fucking year for the past decades. But this one is true! And if it isn't - the next one will be!
2008: The $600 Trillion Derivatives Market
2009: Derivatives a $700 trillion bubble waiting to burst
2011: $75 trillion in toxic obligations
2012: Bank Of America's $67 Trillion In Derivative Positions
2013: How 9 Banks Are Exposed To $200 Trillion Worth Of Derivatives
2016: Deutsche Bank’s $47 Trillion Derivatives
2018: $600 Trillion Market Remains Murky