Sesame Street Explains the Madoff Scandal

Ja vi er jo nogen der undrer sig over hvad helvede der sker med vores pensions ordninger. saa er det da godt at vi har nogle kendte ansigter der vil hjaelpe os med at forstaa det hele

YouTube – Sesame Street Explains the Madoff Scandal
 

Advertisement

Galgen humor fra finansverdenen

You have two cows.

John Paulson borrows one cow so he can sell it for $100. He gives you $10 as collateral.

You buy your neighbors cow for $100, which you finance by taking out a $90 loan from the bank and use John’s $10 to make up the rest.

You brag to everyone about your financial health. You have assets–two cows you own, plus one Paulson owes you–worth $300, and liabilities of just $100.

A third of the country goes vegetarian.

You thought your two cows were worth $200 and now they are worth $140.

You express confidence in your financial health. Your assets are now worth only $200–your two cows plus the one John owes you–but your liabilities are still only $100. If necessary, you could sell the assets at this distressed price and pay off all your loans.

You hold onto your cows because you are sure the market is "dislocated." Some day someone will want to eat beef again.

The rest of the country goes vegetarian. Your two cows are now worth $2 each to guys who want to make dog food.

John Paulson buys a cow in the market for $2 and he gives it to you as repayment of the loan. You now have three cows worth six bucks.

John wants his $10 back.

The bank calls. It wants its $90 back.

You call the Federal Reserve and ask for a bailout.

USA naeste praesident: Barack Obama

Det er aergeligt ikke at have ret til at stemme i et saa vigtigt valg som USA’s praesidentvalg. Men heldigvis kunne maerikanerne godt finde ud af det selv (imodsaetning til de 2 sidste gange). Folket har talt; klart og tydeligt, Barack Obama er USAs naeste praesident.

 

Haabet er lysegroent!

Energipolitik er eddermame for syret

Jeg kan ikke påstå at jeg har stor politisk indsigt. Derfor kan jeg virkelig undre mig over nogen af de politisk slut-resultater man ser rundt omkring. Tak nu eksemplet fra vores lokal avis herovre: Saving rain: How much is too much?

Loven herovre stipulere at regn der falder på dit tag er ikke dit men statens. Og derfor kan de komme efter dig hvis du “tager for meget”. Er der nogen der kan fortælle mig fordelen af det?

Det minder mig lidt om den i mine øjne fuldstændige tåbelige danske regel om at folk der installere solcelle anlæg for at spare miljøet og naturen skal betale afgifter for at bringe omkostninger på niveau med de sædvanlige energi kilder. Det er simpelthen så uforståeligt for mig. Jeg kan kun se en effekt: Det fjerner det økonomiske incitament til at installere disse anlæg og dermed forhindrer det udbredelsen af alternative energi kilder. Hvem siger at politikkerne ikke er i lommerne på energiindustrien?