University of Pittsburgh sees largest fall in assets in school's history

Old Cynic wrote:

And these are the people who train our young in the fine arts of finance and investment? Perhaps if they were required to make it on their own without the "government" they would be a bit smarter.

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
Good gawd, man! Did you miss the historic, world-wide and so very deep economic recession crafted by Da'Dubya Bush and the Republican majority over the past twelve years, six of which were on Bush's eight year watch? It was in all the newspapers.

Old Cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
I would have thought that the brilliant tenured minds in academia would have insulated their gifts and endowments from a little bit of the natural ups and downs in every economy. I only have an eighth grade education but realized early on what was happening and saved 80% of my nest egg. They, by their own credentials, should have been much smarter that me.

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
And if you'd read the article, old man, you'd have noted that Pitt's net assests only dropped by 17%, and the endowment by $22%. So they did no worse than you claim to have done; obviously you're smarter than you think. And credentials alone do not guarantee performance, something I would have thought a cynic would understand. Also, large universities, with their substantial and complexly varied portfolio of assets, must be managed by professionals. Unfortunately, the greedy fools on Wall Street were freed from needed regulation by the "free-market" Republicans that would have curbed their avarice and compelled a modicum of prudence, and so the world economy was brought down.

Old Cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
You do know, of course, that a "professional" stands on street corners and wears funny looking stockings and sells sex for money. If academia wants to deal with them, so be it. I just always thought they were much smarter than that. Question? What has the current administration changed as to investment criteria? Other than lip service, the actual "big" money is still very free with the rules and regs being put on the little investor (relatively speaking).

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
Go to a university commencement exercise and you'll see much odder costumes on some of the academics, so maybe that's why the "professionals" appeal to them. In a similar vein, do you know the definition of an "expert?" Someone who knows more and more about less and less, until they know absolutely everything about nothing! My point? They surely aren't smarter! And you're also right that not enough has been doen to restore an adequate and necessary amount of regulation of our financial institutions and markets. The conservatives fear what Obama might do something of what he promised, and the progressives are afraid he won't do any of what he promised. I guess he's succeeded in being a moderate in practice, so far!.

Old Cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a son who went through all those "societies" at University and the costumes, robes, and colors were, at best, interesting, impractical, and meaningful only to those who aspired to the various ranks, chairs and positions known mostly to themselves. Commencement is so very tame compared to some of the other rituals and excuses for self praise that I wonder why these learned folks need this crap at all.
As to Obama, he finds himself between a rock and a hard place. His promises overloaded his ability to deliver. His concepts made sense when he was outside throwing stones, but now that he owns the process, the real world is measuring him and he is very uncomfortable. His inexperience is showing, his circle of advisors were poorly chosen and the office, by it's very nature insulates him from the day to day pain of the real world. He is classic example of the "Peter Principle". You will rise to the level of your own incompetency fits Obama to a "T".

Krakus wrote:

<quoted text>
The Peter Principle fails, however, to explain the presidency of Da'Dubya Bush; he was fully incompetent serving as Governor of Texas, yet progressed to higher office. Perhaps his election was the Peter principle's application to the conservative electorate itself.

Judged:

1

1

1

Old Cynic wrote:

<quoted text>
Bush was elected as an antidote to Clinton and Obama was elected as an antidote to Bush.