06-04-2014, 12:15 PM
I do find authors like this intensely annoying.
On the one hand they make a case for having completed extensive research of the subject sufficient to work with the CIA and then write a book on it, but sits there stony faced when the interviewer gets close to the nub of the matter by revealing that he heard from Cantor Fitzgerald (who lost two thirds of its NY employees in the World Trade centre on 9/11) that a few days prior to 9/11 they, Cantor, were buying these airline puts based on rumours that were coming out of Alex Brown.
Keiser continues by making the case that, based on what he heard from Cantor, it was CIA insiders who chose to make money rather than "blow the whistle: and do their job (unless insider trading was their job?) - but this observation is brushed aside by the awful Rickards with the comment that he didn't "have an evidence for that, Max".
Well fool, get the evidence. It's sitting there in those 2000 initial shares that were transacted that you previously indicated you had looked at earlier in your presentation.
Keiser shreds the guy with his closing cynical observations, I think.
But of course, as always, the key evidence isn't discussed in any detail. That would be counter productive wouldn't it.
<span style="font-family: Helvetica">
On the one hand they make a case for having completed extensive research of the subject sufficient to work with the CIA and then write a book on it, but sits there stony faced when the interviewer gets close to the nub of the matter by revealing that he heard from Cantor Fitzgerald (who lost two thirds of its NY employees in the World Trade centre on 9/11) that a few days prior to 9/11 they, Cantor, were buying these airline puts based on rumours that were coming out of Alex Brown.
Keiser continues by making the case that, based on what he heard from Cantor, it was CIA insiders who chose to make money rather than "blow the whistle: and do their job (unless insider trading was their job?) - but this observation is brushed aside by the awful Rickards with the comment that he didn't "have an evidence for that, Max".
Well fool, get the evidence. It's sitting there in those 2000 initial shares that were transacted that you previously indicated you had looked at earlier in your presentation.
Keiser shreds the guy with his closing cynical observations, I think.
But of course, as always, the key evidence isn't discussed in any detail. That would be counter productive wouldn't it.
<span style="font-family: Helvetica">
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14