NationStates Jolt Archive

Gramm attracted the attention when he told the Times: "You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession." He noted that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet."

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners," Gramm said. "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25628205/

So, when i heard this on the news, they were very critical of what he said, and I don't see why. Technically there is no recession without two quarters of negative GDP growth. But instead they brought up the increase in gas prices, foreclosures and unemployment. It seems to me that people shouldn't be offended at all by his comments since he was only talking about the economy as a whole, and not the specific problems of a few people who splurged on a costly house or lost their job.

So, do you agree with Gramm's statement? I do.

yeah if we just stopped WHINING the economy would be fine.

yeah if we just stopped WHINING the economy would be fine.

Maybe. If people are pessimistic enough there could be an effect economically. Besides the economy is fine, otherwise there'd be negative growth. The vast majority of people who want to be employed are.

Most polls show people are optimistic about their own chances, but pessimistic about the country as a whole- this to me indicates that they and their family are doing well, however they are scared because there is a lot in the news about things going downhill.

well ya know there is good reason for it

the price of gas is driving up the price of everything. the closer you are to the edge, the more it hurts.

the housing crisis is very scary. the rising unemployment is very scary. the rising federal budget deficit is very scary.

the president doesnt seem to be aware of these problems and doesnt seem to have any plan for fixing them. it feels like we are in presidential limbo until the new guy takes office next january and gets to work.

people have every reason to whine and to feel pessimistic.

Well, there does seem to be a sort of whining attitude when it comes to outsourcing and immigrants. Traditionally, the "left" whines about the former, and the "right" whines about the latter. In both cases there is demand for government intervention so that Americans come out on top, instead of any confidence in a free market or non-interventionist economic policy. So I attribute both these situations to nationalism, a feeling of entitlement based solely on place of birth: 'Americans are entitled. Immigrants and foreigners are not.'

Well, there does seem to be a sort of whining attitude when it comes to outsourcing and immigrants. Traditionally, the "left" whines about the former, and the "right" whines about the latter. In both cases there is demand for government intervention so that Americans come out on top, instead of any confidence in a free market or non-interventionist economic policy. So I attribute both these situations to nationalism, a feeling of entitlement based solely on place of birth: 'Americans are entitled. Immigrants and foreigners are not.'

How do you have confidence in a free market when the markets are entirely different? When poor people in another country will work for a fraction of what people in the US are paid?

We're not in a recession...yet. It is very possible that we could hit one soon.

Gramm is also right about the "whiners" bit. It's been a while since society as a whole has really suffered or come face to face with a serious threat or evil like Nazism or Communism or a depression. Without something like that to put shit in perspective it can get real easy to lose focus and mistake one thing for something much worse. And because it's the popular thing to do, everyone is going to blame Bush as if he had some magic economy remote controle in his office and was just toying with everyone because he's some kind of evil mastermind. You know, when he's not being an incompetent puppet of Dick.

well ya know there is good reason for it

the price of gas is driving up the price of everything. the closer you are to the edge, the more it hurts.

the housing crisis is very scary. the rising unemployment is very scary. the rising federal budget deficit is very scary.

the president doesnt seem to be aware of these problems and doesnt seem to have any plan for fixing them. it feels like we are in presidential limbo until the new guy takes office next january and gets to work.

people have every reason to whine and to feel pessimistic.


So, you do agree, that there is no recession?

The scary part, for me, was when the Fed kept lowering interest rates, meanwhile there hadn't been any losses in the stock market or a downturn in growth or employment. THAT was scary as hell. Now, its pretty much taking it's course. Housing crisis isn't scary its predictable, when you have a housing bubble. Besides, unemployment is good for you if you still have a job (or work in a recession proof business), that means you probably made the cut.

Besides, none of that is the president's business, if you want something done about that stuff talk to congress, they pass laws. IMO, an economic slowdown is necessary after such a long period of growth.

How do you have confidence in a free market when the markets are entirely different? When poor people in another country will work for a fraction of what people in the US are paid?

Because gas is going up so it costs more to ship it in? and the dollar is weak. We have skills that the "poor people in another country" don't have. Besides, some jobs you just can't export- like garbage man or any number of things.

How do you have confidence in a free market when the markets are entirely different? When poor people in another country will work for a fraction of what people in the US are paid?

It's fairly simple, I just say to myself, "So someone else will work for less than me. Darn. Oh well, moving on now."

So, you do agree, that there is no recession?


no i think that we are in a recession and that its going to get worse before it gets better.

no i think that we are in a recession and that its going to get worse before it gets better.

Based on what? How would you define a recession such that we are currently in one?

yeah if we just stopped WHINING the economy would be fine.
People are making it seem worse then it is. That's all. That may not have been what HE is saying, but it's the truth. We're whining "ZOMG! Foreigners haz jobs!!1!1!!!!" When nearly everyone is benefiting.

It's pretty interesting that now that capitalism is starting to decay the bourgeois will naturally blame the people for it, they are truly getting desperate.

wtf

All recessions are mental: the economy is run by people! If people think there is a problem, there is a problem.

It's pretty interesting that now that capitalism is starting to decay the bourgeois will naturally blame the people for it, they are truly getting desperate.

A few small depressions is better then the permanent recession known as "Communism" Andaras.:)

People are making it seem worse then it is. That's all. That may not have been what HE is saying, but it's the truth. We're whining "ZOMG! Foreigners haz jobs!!1!1!!!!" When nearly everyone is benefiting.

thats not what he was saying

he said we are whining are way into recession and if we would just suck it up and take what crumbs are left to us, everything would be fine.

thats not what he was saying

he said we are whining are way into recession and if we would just suck it up and take what crumbs are left to us, everything would be fine.
I know. I SAID:
That may not have been what HE is saying

A few small depressions is better then the permanent recession known as "Communism" Andaras.:)

Without planned economy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system will not be destroyed. America is preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. The credit anarchy and the use of hording and credit merely postpone the decay and losses incurred by capital upon the workers, and but only for a short time forestall the decline of capital.

Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum. But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labor market, to ensure a supply of cheap labor. Here you have one of the rents in the "planned economy" of bourgeois society.

Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion of production under capitalism takes place for entirely different motives, that capital flows into those branches of economy in which the rate of profit is highest. You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.

A few small depressions is better then the permanent recession known as "Communism" Andaras.:)

Technically, it was almost impossible to have recessions in CPEs; since the business cycle was planned, there was little flexibility in investment or other economic decisions and so the kind of fluctuations in capitalist systems did not exist. This allowed them to achieve some remarkable progress in difficult economic times as well as low unemployment, but that same inflexibility doomed the systems to stagnation and collapse in the end. They were simply not suited to the complex needs of planning an entire economy.

In regard to the topic, I agree with Senator Graham to a point. This kind of recession is primarily mental extrapolation of existing economic difficulties, with the actual physical effects following from the loss of consumer confidence. That doesn't make it any less minor of course...a job lost or wages eroded due to a mental recession is still a job lost or wages eroded. A true physical recession would probably require real, actual destruction of the country's economic base and we here in the US have been shielded from such events since the Civil War.

Without planned economy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system will not be destroyed.
I'm fine with that.
America is preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production.
Who says anarchy is inefficient?
The credit anarchy and the use of hording and credit merely postpone the decay and losses incurred by capital upon the workers, and but only for a short time forestall the decline of capital.

I'm sorry, but this system has been WORKING for years. It's not declining. If you'll notice, Industrialized Capitalist countries have MUCH better working conditions then say... North Korea. Or China (Which is, admittedly, slipping towards capitalism).

Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum.
Impossible. But let's pretend, eh?
But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labor market, to ensure a supply of cheap labor.
It is. But not always cheap labor. People who are unemployed don't STAY unemployed, unless for some extreme debilitation. There ARE exceptions, but for the most part, unemployment is NOT permanent in Industrialized capitalist society.
Here you have one of the rents in the "planned economy" of bourgeois society.

Rents?
Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion of production under capitalism takes place for entirely different motives, that capital flows into those branches of economy in which the rate of profit is highest.
Ah, but people will only pay for what they need, or what they want. Therefore, Capitalism pinpoints this want or need, and adjusts accordingly, competing with other companies trying to do the same thing in quality and cost. Therefore, with some experimentation, in a capitalist system, you get the best quality, at the best price. Something might cost more, but it's much better then the cheaper brand. Or they might be the same, and you go for the cheap one, saving some money. *relaxes in the joys of the free market system*
You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people.
Of course you can't. But you can convince him that investing in say... A small farm, would not only feed hungry children(Apply to the humanity in him), but also net him a larger profit then investing in toy miniatures. Therefore, the capitalist makes money, the workers make money, and the people get food. Everyone wins.:)
Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.
*Reminds self not to get rid of Capitalists or private property*

Indications are that the US is most likely in a real recession now. However, even if there technically is not a recession, the weak dollar, oil prices, the housing market, the subprime loan crisis, the stockmarket, etc., etc., are not signs of a healthy economy.

If history is a reliable guide, the recession of 2008 is now unavoidable.

The dismal jobs report released Friday showed overall employment to be lower than it was three months ago. Every time such a slump has occurred since the early 1970s, a recession has followed — or already been under way.

And if the good times have really ended, they were never that good to begin with. Most American households are still not earning as much annually as they did in 1999, once inflation is taken into account. Since the Census Bureau began keeping records in the 1960s, a prolonged expansion has never ended without household income having set a new record.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/business/08recession.html?_r=1&bl&ex=1205125200&en=bff38e35cdd49324&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

The feared recession in the US economy has already arrived, according to a report from Merrill Lynch.

It said that Friday's employment report, which sent shares tumbling worldwide, confirmed that the US is in the first month of a recession.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7176255.stm

Indications are that the US is most likely in a real recession now. However, even if there technically is not a recession, the weak dollar, oil prices, the housing market, the subprime loan crisis, the stockmarket, etc., etc., are not signs of a healthy economy.

Thanks to higher productivity growth, it's pretty rare for the economy to see negative growth, let alone the two consecutive quarters used under the classic definition of a recession (the NBER no longer uses it, preferring a more general and accurate "severe interruption of growth" definition instead). Rather interestingly, I wonder whether or not this has played a role in the relatively poor performance of income and wages during the last expansion when combined with the longer term decline in manufacturing employment since the 1970's.

So, I'd say given the profoundly negative economic data across the board, it's hard to argue that we are not in some form of economic decline. Perhaps stagflation would be a more accurate term, although given continued declines the economy would have to bottom out first before it could truly stagnate.

He's a vice chairman of UBS. That's all you really need to know.

I suppose it's mental in the sense that the credit markets are still locked up - more or less - because everyone is scared to end up holding a shit sandwich, which is really what started all this.

On the other hand, the losses are real, and the valuations were unsustainable.

Going forward, I think we are about to find out that the natural rate of unemployment is a bit higher than everyone thought it was and the credit boom just papered over that inconvenient fact for a bit. I guess we could have a really big army or something, that should help. Cutting back on education should help too.

the bourgeois will naturally blame the people for it, they are truly getting desperate.Same way the U.S. somehow, bafflingly lost their in their military issues with Vietnam because of what some longhaired peacelovin' hippie thought. Maybe flower power really is stronger than gunpowder, eh?

He's a vice chairman of UBS. That's all you really need to know.

Not all.
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/07/08/irs-ubs-taxes-biz-beltway-cz_jn_0709beltway.html
When former UBS private banker Bradley Birkenfeld pleaded guilty in June to helping Forbes 400 member Igor M. Olenicoff hide $200 million offshore, he asserted the bank held about $20 billion in "undeclared" accounts belonging to up to 20,000 U.S. customers. The IRS would be hard-pressed to immediately audit, let alone prosecute, so many wealthy individuals, most, no doubt, with highly paid lawyers and accountants representing them. In fiscal 2007, the IRS' Criminal Investigation unit recommended just 2,800 criminal prosecutions.
Yeah, stop whining!

20,000 Americans have been told to 'fess up about their UBS holdings. It's all a bit dodgy.

I wouldn't worry though. Alaska will have its independence soon I am thinking.

Not all.
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/07/08/irs-ubs-taxes-biz-beltway-cz_jn_0709beltway.html

Yeah, stop whining!

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything? 20 billion is chump change in an economy this size. (not to mention that it probably took these people years to build up that much cash)

also you conveniently left out this part by a guy who might know what hes talking about as opposed to the conjecture of whoever was writing the article:
Still, Edward M. Robbins Jr., a former tax prosecutor who now represents California real estate developer Olenicoff, points out that an undeclared foreign account is an easy criminal case to prove compared to tax evasion

I'm not sure what this has to do with anythingSo you don't mean the term "all" when you're talking about what motivations people from UBS might have, with their actions?

Alaska will have its independence soon I am thinking.Well, there's a whole lotta Ron Paul fans here, if that's any indication
<.<
>.>
If he's not our saviour, i guess we'll just have to put up with the insane oil prices coming into our state govt and economy and the fact that this many military strongholds aren't important in a war against Iran. :p

also you conveniently left out this part by a guy who might know what hes talking about as opposed to the conjecture of whoever was writing the article:I didn't "inconveniently leave out" any fucking thing at all. I only posted one paragraph of many, which makes it good that the rest of the link is there for remedial appreciation :rolleyes:
You were right in your first approach about not understanding the significance of the post. Do you think i should consider your post as a character assassination some kind of significance as well?

So you don't mean the term "all" when you're talking about what motivations people from UBS might have, with their actions?

Not really sure where i used "all" or even mentioned UBS...

I didn't "inconveniently leave out" any fucking thing at all. I only posted one paragraph of many, which makes it good that the rest of the link is there for remedial appreciation :rolleyes:
You were right in your first approach about not understanding the significance of the post. Do you think i should consider your post as a character assassination some kind of significance as well?

lol, thats your opinion of "character assassination"? Grow a skin. Pointing out that you left out the part saying that these people (if they do exist and it wasn't just a ploy by Birkenfeld to get off a little easier) would be easy to prosecute.

my point being that you left out the part that prosecuting these people would be quite easily accomplished, while leaving the conjecture (based on what its not stated) that we couldn't possibly try and get the money form these people. Seems a little biased is all.

And its not really relevant to the issue because its a discussion on the economy, and the state of mind of Americans and how the media presents the economy to the public. not why he said it- I wouldn't care if he said it because some terrorists were going to kill his mom if he didn't.

Not really sure where i used "all"YOU didn't. You merely jumped in on a response to someone else. You'll understand how these kinds of issues come up, in that regard, right? I can clarify further, here, by pointing out that when someone says to you (for example) "Is that all?", and you, in knowing it really isn't "all", you would say "Erm, no, that's not all, really.", someone would think there would be some more to substantiate that pov?

or even mentioned UBS...Circumstance pointed out above. It seems you really aren't talking about the same things i posted, even though you ran with it.

lol, thats your opinion of "character assassination"? Is it, or did i ask you a question, as i'm doing now, as emphasized with a question mark?
Pointing out that you left outHere's where the problem seems to be. You appear to think the part you deem important is at all related to what i deemed important about what i posted. Not a matter of "leaving out" so much as "not including for no particular reason".
You know, two different conversations. To leave room for more investigation, i indeed included the link so you could come to your own conclusions. I'll summarize with the idea that perhaps, you might've worded it a smidge different, like ... "Did you mean to exclude anything specific in that article, like perhaps this *snip*?"

Seems a little biased is all.Sounds like you see more conspiracy than there really is. If i needed to express a lot of bias, i probably would have. I usually do if such a case arises.

And its not really relevant to the issue because its a discussion on the economy, and the state of mind of Americans and how the media presents the economy to the public.There's a lot of "media presentation" as far as the economy is concerned. Again, the first paragraph deals with it. If people think that UBS isn't entirely trustworthy for some reason or another, perhaps that will factor in to what they think about larger aspects of economic circumstance and involvement of groups like or such as UBS. In that regard, perhaps, relevant.

YOU didn't. You merely jumped in on a response to someone else. You'll understand how these kinds of issues come up, in that regard, right? I can clarify further, here, by pointing out that when someone says to you (for example) "Is that all?", and you, in knowing it really isn't "all", you would say "Erm, no, that's not all, really.", someone would think there would be some more to substantiate that pov?
Circumstance pointed out above. It seems you really aren't talking about the same things i posted, even though you ran with it.
Is it, or did i ask you a question, as i'm doing now, as emphasized with a question mark?
Here's where the problem seems to be. You appear to think the part you deem important is at all related to what i deemed important about what i posted. Not a matter of "leaving out" so much as "not including for no particular reason".
You know, two different conversations. To leave room for more investigation, i indeed included the link so you could come to your own conclusions. I'll summarize with the idea that perhaps, you might've worded it a smidge different, like ... "Did you mean to exclude anything specific in that article, like perhaps this *snip*?"
Sounds like you see more conspiracy than there really is. If i needed to express a lot of bias, i probably would have. I usually do if such a case arises.

I see, so if you quote me and then say "So you don't mean the term "all" when you're talking about what motivations people from UBS might have, with their actions?" I shouldn't assume that the "you" there is directed towards me, ok. If you have a problem with people "jumping" into the middle of your conversation you should email him or some such instead of posting it on a forum for all to see.

Its not my fault that you took it the wrong way your suggested rewording would have made it sound far more like I was accusing you of purposefully leaving something out on purpose imo. I understood that you were trying to back up the claim that UBS was full of shady people, but I fail to see how him saying the economy is doing fine would have any effect on the economy especially in the torrent of negativity that pervades the media. Besides, unless you can give some proof that Bramm actually has encouraged or performed some sort of fiddling with the economy, then you don't stand on very firm ground, in fact you don't have shit.

There's a lot of "media presentation" as far as the economy is concerned. Again, the first paragraph deals with it. If people think that UBS isn't entirely trustworthy for some reason or another, perhaps that will factor in to what they think about larger aspects of economic circumstance and involvement of groups like or such as UBS. In that regard, perhaps, relevant.

heh, most people wouldn't even know what UBS does, and if they think an economic downturn is going to happen because of UBS playing games with the economy, why hasn't anyone mentioned that- your article refers more to tax evasion than the economy. The only things even mentioned in connection to an eocnomic downturn are "OMGZ the GAS" and "The housing market is crashing!! the sky is falling AAHH!!" (slightly exaggerated, but not by much), if people or the media is concerned with UBS why don't they mention it?

I see, so if you quote me and then say "So you don't mean the term "all" when you're talking about what motivations people from UBS might have, with their actions?" I shouldn't assume that the "you" there is directed towards me, ok.That's what the example is for, yes.
If you have a problem with people "jumping" into the middle of your conversation you should email him or some such instead of posting it on a forum for all to see.In a forum ... hmmm. Perhaps not.

in fact you don't have shit. Seeing as how a *different* poster brought up UBS, not myself, and another poster followed up, being myself, about the impressions already having been made with, perhaps, the media's help, it would appear you don't know much about "shit" . Enough said. You're belabouring something a bit too much, and perhaps *you* might consider taking it to an email or something.

"OMGZ the GAS" and "The housing market is crashing!! the sky is falling AAHH!!" (slightly exaggerated, but not by much), if people or the media is concerned with UBS why don't they mention it?Depends on where you look ... like, perhaps, at the link. Or another.
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_digest/
UBS_probe_targets_tax_evaders_not_secrecy.html?siteSect=104&sid=9322402&cKey
=1215793479000&ty=st
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_digest/Foreign_ministry_presses_for_UBS_cooperation.html
?siteSect=104&sid=9323918&cKey=1215810677000&ty=nd
Not everyone absorbs "media" influence the same way, in fact many people here are somewhat wise to the problem you appear to be making. There is a bigger problem with your statement here, though, in thinking that "the media" is all one bunch of people with the same intent. That's where the real exaggeration lay.

if people or the media is concerned with UBS why don't they mention it?In closing, and mild annoyance, i'll point out a last time that someone else, here, DID point bring up the UBS.

In closing, and mild annoyance, i'll point out a last time that someone else, here, DID point bring up the UBS.

People just don't want to accept that Senators can also be criminals. Mind you it's both sides of the isle.

1. We are in a bear market, but technically not a depression or recession (yet)

2. We have out-of-control inflation problems, a major trade deficit, and massive regulatory mismanagement that makes a recession very probable.

3. A very noisy minority does have a bad habit of whining about everything as being a problem teh gummint needs to solve for them because they don't want to take the necessary actions for themselves.

So the statement was half right, but no more than that. Our problems stem from our fiat currency being debased to less than 5% of its value a century ago (thanks, socialists) and our increasing entanglements in foreign affairs (thanks all you congresscritters of both parties) along with the debacle of the Bush administration (thanks, neocons) leading to a real mess that cannot be solved through legislation or regulation. We're screwed, and neither McCain or Obama will take any substantive steps to reverse this debacle.

People just don't want to accept that Senators can also be criminals. Mind you it's both sides of the isle.
Agreed. Too bad you may have to email me this as not to derail the thread :rolleyes:

Agreed. Too bad you may have to email me this as not to derail the thread :rolleyes:

Ha. I spelled it wrong. I'm such a moron. I blame the fact that another thread has me listening to Lilly Allen.

Ha. I spelled it wrong. I'm such a moron. I blame the fact that another thread has me listening to Lilly Allen.
Yeah, i just left my skidmark there too :p

In closing, and mild annoyance, i'll point out a last time that someone else, here, DID point bring up the UBS.

Yes, they did, and they brought it up to attack the character of Bramm, or if they did try to point out that UBS is in anyway trying to mess around with the economy, then they failed miserably. I suppose I should have been more precise with my last comment what I meant was the media wasn't concerned with UBS when it came to the economy- fraud perhaps but not the economy.


BTW I've read and reread your example and it still doesn't make any sense in the context. If you quote someone and the next pronoun used is "you" then the person you're quoting is going to expect you to be talking about them, not some other poster, who could have been referred to by name to clear things up a little.

Yes, they did, and they brought it up to attack the character of Bramm, or if they did try to point out that UBS is in anyway trying to mess around with the economy, then they failed miserably. I suppose I should have been more precise with my last comment what I meant was the media wasn't concerned with UBS when it came to the economy- fraud perhaps but not the economy.


I have no idea who Bramm is. But anyone at the decision making level of UBS is a moron. See Switzerland. Also probably a criminal. See the IRS.

People just don't want to accept that Senators can also be criminals. Mind you it's both sides of the isle.

"people"? I certainly don't trust government officials very far, mostly based on them being criminals. Yea, hes a vice-chairman or something, theres about 6 people who could easily override any decisions he might be making. such as:

Executive Vice Chairman: Joseph Scoby
Group CEO: Marcel Rohner
Chairman and CEO Global Wealth Management & Business Banking: Peter Abrament
Chairman and CEO Global Asset Management: John A. Fraser
Chairman and CEO Investment Bank: Jerker Johansson
Group General Counsel: Peter Kurer
Group Chief Financial Officer: Marco Suter
Group Chief Risk Officer: Jonathan Abrament
Chairman & CEO Americas: Robert Wolf (UBS)
Chairman and CEO Asia Pacific: Rory Tapner

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBS_AG#Management

on that note, I'd gladly throw him to the lions so to speak if it was found he had done something illegal.

Look, whatever. UBS is a very stupid and bad bank. I guarantee you 24 months from now, you won't even care when there are no more loans for anyone ever.

Gramm fucking knows what's coming down the pike. He and UBS were part of it, so fuck him.

Horrible politics. You cant convince the public with just one comment. Run a campaign, be seen with businesses going well, give a tax cut and other things to stimulate the economy.

He is partially right. The more that people talk about a recession will just make the recession worse. There is a recession coming and all this crying over it will not help.

Confidence will but people are mostly realists. It takes an effort to create false confidence

Hmm.. just now I posted my belief that, in autism, the brain has fewer "social skills" cells and more "geeky skills" cells. So let's make three assumptions:

(1) It could go the other way -- some people are dumber than average but have more social skills than average.
(2) Social skills are more likely to lead to marriage and children than intelligence (Right, Joey Tribbiani?).

We know that IQ is at least partly hereditary, so if the assumptions are correct, then (assuming everything else is equal) yes, we'd be headed towards a world of slowly decreasing IQ.

I have no idea who Bramm is. But anyone at the decision making level of UBS is a moron. See Switzerland.
And we could both name dozens of other institutions to whom the same thing applies. The whole thing about a financial crisis is that it requires a lot of people to be morons to set it off.

Also probably a criminal. See the IRS.
I don't know, I really have a hard time feeling offended by the...less conventional services apparently offered by high net worth wealth management firms like UBS. Governments try to milk someone, and use whatever tricks they can to do so. Given how competitive the wealth management business is, it's not surprising that just as many tricks of the trade, legal or otherwise, form part of par for the course of the other side.

The real problem is that people are forced to get their bankers to transport diamonds sown into luggage just to escape from the taxman, not that the bankers are happy to do it. No one can really use millions of dollars worth of government services in a financial year, but plenty of people are taxed that much. As far as I'm concerned, I don't blame those people for trying to avoid it.

http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/marchandslides.bak/PCD0663/images/IMG0084.jpg

Relevant.

http://historyproject.ucdavis.edu/marchandslides.bak/PCD0663/images/IMG0084.jpg

Relevant.
:D < made with a Smilette

Knowing what little I do about Phil Gramm, I do believe this may have been what he had in mind when he made that idiotic comment. This actual cartoon.

Btw, I'd love know what book that's in, to add to my collection.