The Crash of 2008 and What it Means: The New Paradigm for Financial Markets
- ISBN13: 9781586486990
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product DescriptionIn middle of one of the most serious financial upheaval since the Great Depression, George Soros, the legendary financier and philanthropist, writes about the origins of the crisis and proposes a series of steps to be taken to confront it. Soros, whose breadth of experience in the financial markets is unrivaled, places the crisis in the context of his decades of study of how individuals and institutions handle the boom and bust cycles that now dominate global economic activity. In a concise essay that combines practical insight into the philosophical depth, Soros makes an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the great credit crisis and its implications for our country and the world. . . . More>>
The Crash of 2008 and What it Means: The New Paradigm for Financial Markets
Saturday, 20. March 2010 20:58
I read this book at a local bookstore, because I want to know my enemy, but do not support him financially. Most of what he said was less an explanation of our economic condition, but more of a last chance to bash Bush and all Republicans and a golden opportunity to own their own advertising. How this man ever had so much money and power is for me obegripligt.I his expose, he claims that he had a meeting with a top ranking Bush administration official and with suggestions that it was Karl Rove. He believes that this person (which he did not name) told me point blank that we are an empire and an empire, we must take control (I quoted). Yeah, right. You had a meeting with ROVE. Sure you did, George. And I’m sure he just happened to use that language. If this is true, why did you not mention him? Why play sly? Can anyone spell slander and libel? I wonder if Soros’ good friend Peter Lewis can be a progressive plan in the big white heavenly reservoir of his that would cover George’s statements in its pure form? I think that Mr. Soros is the problem, not the solution for our ekonomi.Så, to express my opinion, I think Mr. Soros is much less interested in explaining the crash ‘08 and much more interested in selling their freshman college students, his uncontested ideology. Rating: 1 / 5
Saturday, 20. March 2010 21:35
You do not agree with everything he says – but he makes a convincing perspective. Rating: 5 / 5
Saturday, 20. March 2010 21:37
The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and what it means full respect for what Mr. Soros met playing against the GBP and the BoE, but his new paradigm is “a bit” disappointing. Another attempt to develop a theory without looking at the biggest player in all markets – a man and his psyche. The book reminds me of an attempt to get into a story. I would strongly advise better controlling Elliot Wave guys on the market substances or Austrian economists of more fundamental economic issues. Rating: 1 / 5
Saturday, 20. March 2010 23:17
Mr. Soros is a genious investors, but a very poor written. His ideas are good but difficult to följa.Jag read a lot about banking and economics and will continue to read Mr. Soros has statusatt be worth hearing. Think about how many of note came from Hungry. Popper, Tesla, Andy Grove and Soros. It must be the water. Rating: 4 / 5
Sunday, 21. March 2010 0:10
This book was our book group selection for 10 May 2009 and resulted in a rousing discussion especially when matched against Wolff “Capitalism Hits the Fan”. This book begins in the first instance discuss the GS-concept “Reflexivity”, as he describes it strikes me as very Hegelian in nature. I think GS descriptions of philosophers following closely with the major philosopher, he continues to use as a source of much of his thoughts – Karl Popper. Much of what GS says about other philosophers as Popper seems rather than an independent interpretation of other philosophers. It leaves out especially Hegel and German Idealism, which would be the main source of the framework we use to think about the question of “Reflexivity” (after Lakoff that GS also briefly mentions but does not follow in his own work). In short, to begin with, GS, proclaimed its own failed philosopher, describes the new paradigm in the form of an old paradigm, which he seems unfamiliar with since Vico and Hegel. We call this historicism. But most of the time this book appears to be a happy “I said.” Perhaps this can be regarded as a social right that whenever something happens, there will be someone there who thought it would happen and they would recall that they did. Rating: 3 / 5