NationStates Jolt Archive

At least one gentleman at AIG-FP has decided that he can do better than give his retention payment back to the Congress. He's being a little more generous than I would have been with the after tax portions. But the sentiment is the same -- "Screw you Congress". Way to go, Jake.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090325/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_resignation_letter_5
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion

Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president at AIG's Financial Products division, said Wednesday he's leaving the company and will donate his entire bonus to charity. The letter, addressed to AIG's CEO, Edward Liddy, criticized Liddy for, among other things, agreeing to the payments but then calling the bonuses "distateful" as he testified before disapproving members of Congress.


I suspect this resignation is only the start. And if we see this witch hunt carried over to salary caps, restrictions on incentives, etc, I bet most of our financial wizards will be working for someone that will pay them better -- China?

All well and good riddance you might say, but do you think the Secretary for Tax Evasion and his pal at the Fed have the ability to run the whole financial industry?

A lot of them are just jumping ship and working for other companies instead. The great sucking sound of US financial sector jobs to overseas firms is going to pick up steam if they keep up this petty populist drive. I mean, giving out $142 million in bonuses in these conditions is bad form, but it's nothing compared to the tens of billions of dollars being handed out under TARP...it's something like a whopping 0.2% of AIG's bailout funds. Remember, these people were heroes back in 1992-2000 and 2002-2006 when the stock and housing markets (respectively for each period) were booming and bringing in billions of dollars of revenue...

The cost of going after these handful of people will harm our financial services sector...and truth be told, it's one of the few sectors that the US is still resoundingly dominant in. We can't afford to destroy billions worth of GDP for two hundred million in bonuses.

I suspect this resignation is only the start. And if we see this witch hunt carried over to salary caps, restrictions on incentives, etc, I bet most of our financial wizards will be working for someone that will pay them better -- China?

All well and good riddance you might say, but do you think the Secretary for Tax Evasion and his pal at the Fed have the ability to run the whole financial industry?

Financial wizards, ha. These people are in the department that was directly responsible for their company's collapse. I can be a "financial wizard" too if the qualifications are "run your company into the ground."

So...the jerk offs that ran AIG into the ground and are responsible for this whole fucking mess are resigning...and you expect me to be...upset?

"Im leavin because Im not getting a bonus for shoddy work. AIG wont have the 'benefit' of my leadership and intellectz anymore. That'll learn 'em!"

Financial wizards, ha. These people are in the department that was directly responsible for their company's collapse. I can be a "financial wizard" too if the qualifications are "run your company into the ground."
It's easy. If they have done something illegal or unethical -- fire their asses, to borrow from Hilliary... If not, we should keep them on to engineer a recovery.

No one at the White House or anywhere else in government is smart enough to do that.

good luck to the fool who hires him next.

It's easy. If they have done something illegal or unethical -- fire their asses, to borrow from Hilliary... If not, we should keep them on to engineer a recovery.

No one at the White House or anywhere else in government is smart enough to do that.

You call keeping people who fucked this up around "smart"?


Id hate to see what you call "dumb".

You call keeping people who fucked this up around "smart"?


Id hate to see what you call "dumb".
I'd say "take a look in the mirror", but that would be childish... While you're looking in the mirror, think about who SHOULD be responsible for running these institutions. You're probably not looking at him.

This seems a touch like the guy at the end of the plank saying, "Oh yeah? Well, I'll just jump in the water...that'll show you guys!"
It's easy. If they have done something illegal or unethical -- fire their asses, to borrow from Hilliary... If not, we should keep them on to engineer a recovery.

No one at the White House or anywhere else in government is smart enough to do that.
If I do my job badly they don't keep me on to hope I suddenly get it right and fix all the problems I just caused, they find someone else. I didn't do anything illegal, but stupid and ultimately destructive.

Somehow I find it hard to believe that the handful of people that were the architects of AIG's problems are the only people available to fill the job. There are plenty of people waiting in the wings more than happy to come in and take their place.

I'd say "take a look in the mirror", but that would be childish...

And a flame. This, as it stands, is baiting. Good job!

While you're looking in the mirror, think about who SHOULD be responsible for running these institutions.

Ok, sure. *looks in the mirror and thinks*

You know who should run these institutions? Not the guys who caused this mess in the first place!

You're probably not looking at him.
Oh, I know Im not. The difference is, I didnt run the company into the ground then cry when Congress took away my tax-payer bonus. Talk about a sense of entitlement.

You call keeping people who fucked this up around "smart"?

In a perverse way, they were very smart.

I do not believe for a second that they were "fooled" or "duped" in to this predicament; they knew for a fact that the bubble was unsustainable and would burst, but they also knew bailouts were guaranteed once things went under. As a result, they made these risky investments because while the bubble was inflating they could produce stellar returns that would result not only in their company's success but their own in the form of massive bonuses and lavish business expenditures. Just remember, you can't cheat an honest man.

Just like Bernie Madoff, their calculated greed was a genius move that took advantage of everyone.

It's easy. If they have done something illegal or unethical -- fire their asses, to borrow from Hilliary... If not, we should keep them on to engineer a recovery.

No one at the White House or anywhere else in government is smart enough to do that.

Why should we entrust them to engineer a recovery when they are directly responsible for the bad situation we are in in the first place? What about their performance record says to you that they are in any way qualified to help fix the problems they themselves created?

I know you love to rant about how inept the government is, but let's be honest.

I'd say "take a look in the mirror", but that would be childish... While you're looking in the mirror, think about who SHOULD be responsible for running these institutions. You're probably not looking at him.

Well, gosh...that showed him...some guy on the internet who doesn't happen to be (or might not happen to be) a financial professional can't take the job, the people at AIG must be the only ones, why, it's the only other option available!!! Brilliant.

In a perverse way, they were very smart.

I do not believe for a second that they were "fooled" or "duped" in to this predicament; they knew for a fact that the bubble was unsustainable and would burst, but they also knew bailouts were guaranteed once things went under. As a result, they made these risky investments because while the bubble was inflating they could produce stellar returns that would result not only in their company's success but their own in the form of massive bonuses and lavish business expenditures.

Just like Bernie Madoff, their calculated greed was a genius move that took advantage of everyone.

And this is why they shouldnt be kept around and getting bonuses. And this is why Im not yelling "OH NOES HE SHOWED ME!" when the jerk off quits. Instead, Im doing a fucking jig.

I'd say "take a look in the mirror", but that would be childish... While you're looking in the mirror, think about who SHOULD be responsible for running these institutions. You're probably not looking at him.

I'm not sure I saw the post where KoL said he should be an AIG executive.

We may not know who SHOULD be responsible for running these institutions, but we know who SHOULDN'T be responsible. Do you know who that is? The people who caused the gigantic mess in the first place.

And this is why they shouldnt be kept around and getting bonuses. And this is why Im not yelling "OH NOES HE SHOWED ME!" when the jerk off quits. Instead, Im doing a fucking jig.

The only reason I'd give them the bonuses is to get rid of them and wind this shit down once and for all. The last thing we need is either a bunch of lawsuits or a stupidly conceived law that ends up accidentally driving competent employees away from US firms. Just write the checks and be done with it.

The government effectively spends more $142 million every 30 minutes.

In a perverse way, they were very smart.

I do not believe for a second that they were "fooled" or "duped" in to this predicament; they knew for a fact that the bubble was unsustainable and would burst, but they also knew bailouts were guaranteed once things went under. As a result, they made these risky investments because while the bubble was inflating they could produce stellar returns that would result not only in their company's success but their own in the form of massive bonuses and lavish business expenditures. Just remember, you can't cheat an honest man.

Just like Bernie Madoff, their calculated greed was a genius move that took advantage of everyone.
i think the question is whether or not they can turn an HONEST buck better than other people who have not yet held as highly placed a job as they have.

with any luck the strategies t hat they used to make fortunes in financial products at AIG are no longer available to them. can they adapt to a new reality where money isnt hanging off the low branches of the tree to be plucked by anyone sitting in their chairs?

i think the whole crowd needs to be let go and new people brought in who can be trained to make money the old fashioned way. by hard work and non-bubble investments.

Financial wizards, ha. These people are in the department that was directly responsible for their company's collapse. I can be a "financial wizard" too if the qualifications are "run your company into the ground."

Apparently, the ones responsible for the collapse left AIG a while back. The ones leaving now could have really helped (especially those recently hired).

The cost of going after these handful of people will harm our financial services sector...and truth be told, it's one of the few sectors that the US is still resoundingly dominant in. We can't afford to destroy billions worth of GDP for two hundred million in bonuses.

^This^

Its a shame and all, them taking so much money, etc. etc. But really we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot over something that is in the end just petty.

Apparently, the ones responsible for the collapse left AIG a while back.

This never happened.

Same old DK.

i think the question is whether or not they can turn an HONEST buck better than other people who have not yet held as highly placed a job as they have.

with any luck the strategies t hat they used to make fortunes in financial products at AIG are no longer available to them. can they adapt to a new reality where money isnt hanging off the low branches of the tree to be plucked by anyone sitting in their chairs?

i think the whole crowd needs to be let go and new people brought in who can be trained to make money the old fashioned way. by hard work and non-bubble investments.

Easier said than done. Its hard to trail your rivals in growth and then justify your actions to your own boss or your shareholders by claiming that everyone else is making the wrong decisions and if you just wait a few years they'll see you're right. Especially if there's no bubble - then you're the idiot who missed out on the great opportunity that everyone else cashed in on.

At least one gentleman at AIG-FP has decided that he can do better than give his retention payment back to the Congress. He's being a little more generous than I would have been with the after tax portions. But the sentiment is the same -- "Screw you Congress". Way to go, Jake.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090325/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_resignation_letter_5
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion


I suspect this resignation is only the start. And if we see this witch hunt carried over to salary caps, restrictions on incentives, etc, I bet most of our financial wizards will be working for someone that will pay them better -- China?

All well and good riddance you might say, but do you think the Secretary for Tax Evasion and his pal at the Fed have the ability to run the whole financial industry?

Hmmm... I don't know... sure he says he'll give his bonus to charity, but will he? add to that charity contributions can be written off of taxes... and the fact that the donated money came from the taxpayers...

there may be more to this than simple 'charity'.

OMFG!!!!!!! WTF !!!!!!! NOT THE DJAIGCI, TELL ME IT'S NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!!WE IS DOOMED

Seriously, who gives a fuck whether he quits or not. It's not like there aren't a million like him who'll take his place these days.

All these idle threats about going overseas, same thing.

You can't put toothpaste back in the tube. These jobs are gone and not coming back. They were an artifact of a massive credit bubble, that is now collapsing.

Further, in the event that there is a sudden increase in demand, 4-6 years from now, then it is easier to just get people out of school to do the shit (see the mid nineties, and the aftermath of the junk bond scandals).

The reality is that his 'skills' aren't needed, because economic recovery won't be found in trying to make it like it was. Moreover there is nothing to 'fix'.

Hmmm... I don't know... sure he says he'll give his bonus to charity, but will he? add to that charity contributions can be written off of taxes... and the fact that the donated money came from the taxpayers...

Good point. We paid his fucking bonus, so how about after he donates it to charity, he doesnt get the tax write off, but we do?

Good point. We paid his fucking bonus, so how about after he donates it to charity, he doesnt get the tax write off, but we do?

I would rather, if he didn't return that bonus, in it's entirety, to the government, then he should be arrested for Theft... one count for each registered 2008 taxpayer.

And I'd have more respect if he told the truth about what the fuck was really going on at the AIG-FP wind up.

Fucking looting operation is what it is.

And if you spend all day hanging out with criminals, don't be surprised if that is how people start to view you. Just ask that Bruce Cutler.

I would rather, if he didn't return that bonus, in it's entirety, to the government, then he should be arrested for Theft... one count for each registered 2008 taxpayer.

Doesn't theft usually involve taking property without consent?

Easier said than done. Its hard to trail your rivals in growth and then justify your actions to your own boss or your shareholders by claiming that everyone else is making the wrong decisions and if you just wait a few years they'll see you're right. Especially if there's no bubble - then you're the idiot who missed out on the great opportunity that everyone else cashed in on.
no one is going to be making money the way these guys did. its not going to be legal anymore.

when (please god) we have a new reality if a heavily regulated derivatives market we will need new talent to run it. people who have not been ruined by extreme gambling with other people's money.

Doesn't theft usually involve taking property without consent?

True... fraud maybe?

At least one gentleman at AIG-FP has decided that he can do better than give his retention payment back to the Congress. He's being a little more generous than I would have been with the after tax portions. But the sentiment is the same -- "Screw you Congress". Way to go, Jake.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090325/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_resignation_letter_5
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion


I suspect this resignation is only the start. And if we see this witch hunt carried over to salary caps, restrictions on incentives, etc, I bet most of our financial wizards will be working for someone that will pay them better -- China?

All well and good riddance you might say, but do you think the Secretary for Tax Evasion and his pal at the Fed have the ability to run the whole financial industry?

He took the retention bonus, then quit.

You don't see any conflict.

Enough said.

He took the retention bonus, then quit.

You don't see any conflict.

Enough said.

He sure showed us. I wish I had been more supportive of the bastards who ran AIG into the ground. Why, oh why, couldnt I have had faith in their competence and integrity after they contributed so much to the financial meltdown?

no one is going to be making money the way these guys did. its not going to be legal anymore.

when (please god) we have a new reality if a heavily regulated derivatives market we will need new talent to run it. people who have not been ruined by extreme gambling with other people's money.

People were suffering from herd mentality before derivatives trading took off and they will do it again even if the market is well regulated.

As they say in the south:

"Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya."

True... fraud maybe?

Well, fraud is still theft. The problem is that when you give stuff away no strings attached (or with the wrong strings attached) its kind of hard to turn around months later telling them that you didn't want them to use your free hand out like that. This conflict of interest was plain to see the minute that the bail out changed from a targeted approach at hewing off the worst parts of the banks to pouring money all over them.

He sure showed us. I wish I had been more supportive of the bastards who ran AIG into the ground. Why, oh why, couldnt I have had faith in their competence and integrity after they contributed so much to the financial meltdown?

Forgive the metaphor - it isn't this 'only rapists can stop rape' argument of Myrmi's that bugs me most, although it DOES really bug me...

...it's the fundamental dishonesty of the position. If the Democrats spend the next four years anal-raping the US into a hole in the ground, I would bet you pretty much any odds you'd care to name, that Myrmi wouldn't be arguing they should stay in charge 'to get the country back on track'.

Myrmi doesn't believe in accountability, except when it suits him.

Forgive the metaphor - it isn't this 'only rapists can stop rape' argument of Myrmi's that bugs me most, although it DOES really bug me...

...it's the fundamental dishonesty of the position. If the Democrats spend the next four years anal-raping the US into a hole in the ground, I would bet you pretty much any odds you'd care to name, that Myrmi wouldn't be arguing they should stay in charge 'to get the country back on track'.

Myrmi doesn't believe in accountability, except when it suits him.

His entire posting history shows this.

The cost of going after these handful of people will harm our financial services sector...and truth be told, it's one of the few sectors that the US is still resoundingly dominant in. We can't afford to destroy billions worth of GDP for two hundred million in bonuses.
It is entirely parasitic. It creates nothing.

So...the jerk offs that ran AIG into the ground and are responsible for this whole fucking mess are resigning...and you expect me to be...upset?

"Im leavin because Im not getting a bonus for shoddy work. AIG wont have the 'benefit' of my leadership and intellectz anymore. That'll learn 'em!"
I have been questioning the golden parachutes for failures for years and these people laughed in my face and told me it was needed to get and keep "good" CEOs. It is no surprise that one of those logic challenged cheerleaders is still here with their pompoms.

He took the retention bonus, then quit.

You don't see any conflict.

Enough said.

Haha, good point.

But these asshats only like contracts and obligations when it works in their favor.

I have been questioning the golden parachutes for failures for years and these people laughed in my face and told me it was needed to get and keep "good" CEOs. It is no surprise that one of those logic challenged cheerleaders is still here with their pompoms.

Golden parachutes are about discouraging takeovers. How are they relevant to the current situation?

It is entirely parasitic. It creates nothing.

Except millions of jobs and trillions of dollars of capital that are spread throughout the rest of the economy. Do you seriously think new businesses start with their own capital or that existing ones finance major expansions through the cash they have on hand? How do you think pensions and other retirement plans are funded? Even the Communist countries had a financial sector because there is no other way to generate capital (besides extortion, of course).

Finance has been a core part of the backbone of economic growth and development for as far back as money has existed. Without it it society as we know it would not exist.

I am not saying the sector should cease to exist, but that it does not actually create any goods. However much the workers in the financial sector consume, there is that much less for everyone else, because they do not create anything, but simply live parasitically. It is absurd for them to be paid better than steelworkers.

I am not saying the sector should cease to exist, but that it does not actually create any goods. However much the workers in the financial sector consume, there is that much less for everyone else, because they do not create anything, but simply live parasitically. It is absurd for them to be paid better than steelworkers.

They do create goods. Do you know how much it costs to build a steel plant? It can run in to the billions of dollars, and the machines and equipment within add millions more (to say nothing of the mines and smelters that process the iron ore, or the rolling mills or the plants that turn that steel in to useful products). I can tell you that companies don't leave billions of dollars sitting around but always try to find ways to invest it to produce more money...if they don't, their competitors will outpace them and put them out of business. Return on investment is integral to the nature of business, and should be...the reality of a zero-growth economy is a lot more frightening than people seem to realize.

Every single transaction and every single investment is enabled in one form or another by financial services. They generate far, far more wealth than any other sector because they are the ones responsible for making those sectors exist. Without finance we would be scratching out a bare-bones living on subsistence farms, bartering for whatever pittance of goods and services our neighbors could provide.

And the reason they're paid more is because their skills are difficult to duplicate, difficult to learn and difficult to supply. A steelworker might work hard, but they don't generate anywhere as much value and their skills are nowhere as difficult to duplicate. As a result, they're paid less.

Golden parachutes are about discouraging takeovers. How are they relevant to the current situation?

A 'golden parachute' is the gift you give someone when they are dropped from employment, for some reason. The City Administrator who gets caught embezzling, and is forced out, but receives a $2 million handshake as he leaves, for example.

They do create goods. Do you know how much it costs to build a steel plant? It can run in to the billions of dollars, and the machines and equipment within (to say nothing of the mines and smelters that process the iron ore, or the rolling mills or the plants that turn that steel in to useful products. I can tell you that companies don't leave billions of dollars sitting around but always try to find ways to invest it to produce more money.

Every single transaction and every single investment is enabled in one form or another by financial services. They generate far, far more wealth than any other sector because they are the ones responsible for making those sectors exist.


In opposite land.


Without finance we would be scratching out a bare-bones living on subsistence farms, bartering for whatever pittance of goods and services our neighbors could provide.


Or... not.


And the reason they're paid more is because their skills are difficult to duplicate, difficult to learn and difficult to supply. A steelworker might work hard, but they don't generate anywhere as much value and their skills are nowhere as difficult to duplicate. As a result, they're paid less.

And this is pure horseshit.

Adding two columns of numbers, or filling out the paperwork for a loan... neither is any 'harder to duplicate' than the skills involved in steelworking.

In opposite land.

Show me a major company that has no debt, no investments and no equity and which has never earned any money from any source whose income was derived from financial activities. The problem is, they don't exist.

Or... not.

Show me an example of a successful, developed economy without some form of finance sector. The problem is, they've never existed.

And this is pure horseshit.

Adding two columns of numbers, or filling out the paperwork for a loan... neither is any 'harder to duplicate' than the skills involved in steelworking.

Have you ever done any work in finance or accounting? I would really like to see you calculate the internal rate of return, analyze financial statements, determine long-term estimates for economic and market performance or understand the technical and psychological aspects of trading on the stock market. Finance and accounting are intellectually and physically demanding work that may require 70-80 hour weeks in order to just keep up with the workload. The professional examinations for these fields are some of the most difficult on Earth...compare that to an assembly-line worker who needs little more than a GED to do their job. Even the trades are far more demanding intellectually and physically than any assembly-line work...and just like finance, plumbers and HVAC installers receive a lot more money for their work.

Put together a comprehensive statement of cash flows or audit a company's books, or even just try your hand at basic journal entries and then we'll talk about how difficult these professions are.

Adding two columns of numbers, or filling out the paperwork for a loan... neither is any 'harder to duplicate' than the skills involved in steelworking.

err... sorry, but it's much more than that. to crunch accounting to just adding two columns of numbers etc... would be to say construction is just hammering nails and sawing wood.

and to show I'm not arguing for Vetalia, all those nice offices that accountants work in were build by who?

A 'golden parachute' is the gift you give someone when they are dropped from employment, for some reason. The City Administrator who gets caught embezzling, and is forced out, but receives a $2 million handshake as he leaves, for example.

In business severance packages serve several purposes.
In businesses where mergers and take overs are common executives are often at the most risk. going from one factory to two factories for instance you might only need 1.8X the workers to run the machines, 1.5X times the management and and 1.1X if any extra executives.
So most Executives expect a large severance package because the risk of displacement is higher for them.
Standard Risk assessment procedures really.

They also ensure executives can remain objective during take over bids. Otherwise they may be more focused looking for other jobs, or fighting the take over bid tooth and nail even if it is in the best interest of the company.

Lastly, they make take overs more expensive as the company doing the taking over has to pay the severance packages of workers they release.

and to show I'm not arguing for Vetalia, all those nice offices that accountants work in were build by who?

Skilled trades workers who had to work hard to learn their trade, financed by money provided by financial workers. Construction workers don't just work hard, they have to work smart...again, they get paid more because their skills justify higher wages.

Skilled trades workers who had to work hard to learn their trade, financed by money provided by financial workers. Construction workers don't just work hard, they have to work smart...again, they get paid more because their skills justify higher wages.

sorry, but apprenticships and Journeymen don't rely on Financial workers.

Show me a major company that has no debt, no investments and no equity and which has never earned any money from any source whose income was derived from financial activities. The problem is, they don't exist.


Your original bullshit statement talked about how every other enterprise requires the 'finance industry' to exist. Clearly, it's the other way around.


Show me an example of a successful, developed economy without some form of finance sector. The problem is, they've never existed.


You made a bullshit statement. Rather than admit that when called on it, you're attempting to shift the burden of proof. I understand why - it's because it's OBVIOUS bullshit, and you know you couldn't possibly support it.


Have you ever done any work in finance or accounting?


Yes.


I would really like to see you calculate the internal rate of return, analyze financial statements, determine long-term estimates for economic and market performance or understand the technical and psychological aspects of trading on the stock market. Finance and accounting are intellectually and physically demanding work


Physically demanding? You're a fucking comedian.

Calculator cramp? Pen-pushing Elbow?


...that may require 70-80 hour weeks in order to just keep up with the workload.


The same is true of every field of endeavour.


The professional examinations for these fields are some of the most difficult on Earth


You wouldn't believe how many people I've heard say that about the qualification requirements in THEIR particular field...


...compare that to an assembly-line worker who needs little more than a GED to do their job.


'A GED' says nothing to the skill of the job, or how easy it is to duplicate.

One of my friends is a contortionist. She's got a GED, and no other higher qualification. By your logic, anyone can do what she does.


Put together a comprehensive statement of cash flows or audit a company's books, or even just try your hand at basic journal entries and then we'll talk about how difficult these professions are.

Then we can start having this conversation something like a decade and a half ago.

Meanwhile, in the interests of fairness, how much experience have you actually had working steel?

err... sorry, but it's much more than that. to crunch accounting to just adding two columns of numbers etc... would be to say construction is just hammering nails and sawing wood.


I know.

Vetalia is effectively dismissing construction as hammering nails. See where I'm going?

I know.

Vetalia is effectively dismissing construction as hammering nails. See where I'm going?

sorry. my mistake. I HATED accounting. :mad: :p

In business severance packages serve several purposes.


Which doesn't conflict in any way, with what I said - or even add to it in any meaningful fashion.


They also ensure executives can remain objective during take over bids.


They do no such thing. Some execs might remain objective, or some might immediately agree to whatever the hand that feeds dictates.


Lastly, they make take overs more expensive as the company doing the taking over has to pay the severance packages of workers they release.

Which would only be relevent in the case of takeovers, which isn't the sum and substance of golden parachutes.

sorry. my mistake. I HATED accounting. :mad: :p

I've never minded it. It's just numbers.

Which doesn't conflict in any way, with what I said - or even add to it in any meaningful fashion.



They do no such thing. Some execs might remain objective, or some might immediately agree to whatever the hand that feeds dictates.

Its the difference between theory and practice. The idea being in a take over bid most of the execs losing their jobs(in the company took over) should not have to worry about income for the year afterward. Can you list me an incident where an excutive with a good severance package was not objective ?


Which would only be relevent in the case of takeovers, which isn't the sum and substance of golden parachutes.
Actually as I read events this was a take over, just by the government.
AIG is now 80% owned by the government, pay your bills or do not take over the company Uncle Sam.

Which would only be relevent in the case of takeovers, which isn't the sum and substance of golden parachutes.

Its the very purpose for their existence. They were invented at Trans World Airlines to prevent a takeover and have been exercised as such since. Thats why the golden parachute clause of a contract normally only 'crystallises' when a takeover takes place.

Your original bullshit statement talked about how every other enterprise requires the 'finance industry' to exist. Clearly, it's the other way around.

Can you suggest a workable means for a business to raise capital that would not involve the finance industry?

They do create goods.
No. They may facilitate other people to do so, but they do not create anything, anything whatsoever.
Do you know how much it costs to build a steel plant? It can run in to the billions of dollars, and the machines and equipment within add millions more (to say nothing of the mines and smelters that process the iron ore, or the rolling mills or the plants that turn that steel in to useful products).
The bankers do not create any of the machines or the equipment, or the mines, or the smelters, or the iron ore, or the rolling mills.
A steelworker might work hard, but they don't generate anywhere as much value
The steelworker DOES create steel. The banker does not.

No. They may facilitate other people to do so, but they do not create anything, anything whatsoever.

The bankers do not create any of the machines or the equipment, or the mines, or the smelters, or the iron ore, or the rolling mills.

The steelworker DOES create steel. The banker does not.

Do you consider a waiter or a truck driver to live parasitically? They don't create a tangible product, they simply move tangible products from one place to the other.

Do you consider a waiter or a truck driver to live parasitically? They don't create a tangible product, they simply move tangible products from one place to the other.

To get purely technical, no one has ever created anything ever.

We simply take some stuff and craft into other stuff. It's a conversion, not a creation.

To get purely technical, no one has ever created anything ever.

We simply take some stuff and craft into other stuff. It's a conversion, not a creation.

That is antoher way of looking at it, but the same point remains.

That is antoher way of looking at it, but the same point remains.

The only ones who can break this rule are politicians and corporate executives, actually.

They create more BS than ever thought imaginable.

Can you suggest a workable means for a business to raise capital that would not involve the finance industry?

'Raising capital' is a red herring.

Vetalia and I could have been arguing about the benefits of snozzwangers, and I'm telling him that his assertion that snozzwangers eat Knids is OBVIOUS bullshit, because Knids are well known for their snozzwanger-consuming tendencies.

Thus, your question about whether snozzwangers are better than bandersnatches (actually, I understand the correct plurality of bandersnatch is 'bandersnatchi', but I'm letting it slide) is simply adding irrelevence to the multitude of sins.

Its the very purpose for their existence. They were invented at Trans World Airlines to prevent a takeover and have been exercised as such since. Thats why the golden parachute clause of a contract normally only 'crystallises' when a takeover takes place.

First - the TWA thing is probably an urban legend. That's what I've heard, at least. Show me a source.

Second - I've no reason to believe the TWA story, since I've been hearing about 'golden parachutes' that stretch further than the influence of American slang.

Third - I don't believe you, anyway - the term 'golden parachute' seems relatively common in other forms of loss, also - not just loss via takeover. You're going to have to back that up, if you're going to make that singular a claim.

A lot of them are just jumping ship and working for other companies instead. The great sucking sound of US financial sector jobs to overseas firms is going to pick up steam if they keep up this petty populist drive. I mean, giving out $142 million in bonuses in these conditions is bad form, but it's nothing compared to the tens of billions of dollars being handed out under TARP...it's something like a whopping 0.2% of AIG's bailout funds. Remember, these people were heroes back in 1992-2000 and 2002-2006 when the stock and housing markets (respectively for each period) were booming and bringing in billions of dollars of revenue...

The cost of going after these handful of people will harm our financial services sector...and truth be told, it's one of the few sectors that the US is still resoundingly dominant in. We can't afford to destroy billions worth of GDP for two hundred million in bonuses.

This a fucking million billion times over. This. :hail:

First - the TWA thing is probably an urban legend. That's what I've heard, at least. Show me a source.

Second - I've no reason to believe the TWA story, since I've been hearing about 'golden parachutes' that stretch further than the influence of American slang.

What about Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1848501_1848500,00.html)? You're also welcome to show me some pre-1961 references to the term, or even some good examples of it occurring before this.

Third - I don't believe you, anyway - the term 'golden parachute' seems relatively common in other forms of loss, also - not just loss via takeover. You're going to have to back that up, if you're going to make that singular a claim.

I can't be held responsible for people's misuse of a management term.

'Raising capital' is a red herring.

Vetalia and I could have been arguing about the benefits of snozzwangers, and I'm telling him that his assertion that snozzwangers eat Knids is OBVIOUS bullshit, because Knids are well known for their snozzwanger-consuming tendencies.

Thus, your question about whether snozzwangers are better than bandersnatches (actually, I understand the correct plurality of bandersnatch is 'bandersnatchi', but I'm letting it slide) is simply adding irrelevence to the multitude of sins.

Very well then. You disagreed with Vetalia stating that businesses require the finance industry to exist. Can you describe how they would exist if the financial industry disappeared overnight?

In a perverse way, they were very smart.

I do not believe for a second that they were "fooled" or "duped" in to this predicament; they knew for a fact that the bubble was unsustainable and would burst, but they also knew bailouts were guaranteed once things went under. As a result, they made these risky investments because while the bubble was inflating they could produce stellar returns that would result not only in their company's success but their own in the form of massive bonuses and lavish business expenditures. Just remember, you can't cheat an honest man.

Just like Bernie Madoff, their calculated greed was a genius move that took advantage of everyone.

Very true indeed Sir. I do not however think they should be rewarded now at the expense of the very same public they F'd over in the first place.

In opposite land.



Or... not.


Ah, the usual tactic of not actually making any argument whatsoever, and making assertions that pretty much any historian, economist, or any academic whatsoever, would think is fucking insane. I can equally make no arguments, it's quite fun actually, I'm doing it right now.

Lets get rid of all bonuses/severance packages from companies with that have received government money. But don't forget to include Chevy and GM, and don't forget to include the factory workers in those companies. Because if you do not then your issue isn't the existence of these bonuses and severance packages, your just mad about the amount.

Ah, the usual tactic of not actually making any argument whatsoever, and making assertions that pretty much any historian, economist, or any academic whatsoever, would think is fucking insane. I can equally make no arguments, it's quite fun actually, I'm doing it right now.

You're apparently under the illusion that that's somehow different to what went before it?

Interesting.

As an academic, a practical economist, and a historian, I call bullshit on your assertion.

The claim was made that every other industry requires this certain 'finance' industry, just for them to exist. I'm surprised you're arguing that denying that assertion is insane, since that assertion is entirely unfounded, and relies on an absolute circularity to maintain it.

You're apparently under the illusion that that's somehow different to what went before it?


At least he elaborates, explains and tries to demonstrate his point. You just say 'bullshit' or 'horseshit', and leave it at that. It's such an annoying thing to do, I understand now why it led Andulacie to report it, even though it's not actionable, it's fucking annoying.

Lets get rid of all bonuses/severance packages from companies with that have received government money. But don't forget to include Chevy and GM, and don't forget to include the factory workers in those companies. Because if you do not then your issue isn't the existence of these bonuses and severance packages, your just mad about the amount.

Factory workers are not the ones making the decisions bankrupting GM. Executives are. Just like bank tellers are not the ones making the decisions bankrupting Bank of America, and should not be treated as such.

Very well then. You disagreed with Vetalia stating that businesses require the finance industry to exist. Can you describe how they would exist if the financial industry disappeared overnight?

I haven't seen the claim supported yet, so why would I pre-suppose that any kind of evidence or argument was required against it?

Industry would have existed on this planet with or without the invention of 'finance'.

Ah, the usual tactic of not actually making any argument whatsoever, and making assertions that pretty much any historian, economist, or any academic whatsoever, would think is fucking insane. I can equally make no arguments, it's quite fun actually, I'm doing it right now.


You know, your posts complaining about other people having no substance would be a lot easier to take seriously, and a lot less irritating, if you didnt do it so much yourself. Like here. Your first post in this thread is just you bitching about how GnI isnt living up to your standards.

You contribute less to threads then anyone you accuse of not contributing.

At least he elaborates, explains and tries to demonstrate his point. You just say 'bullshit' or 'horseshit', and leave it at that. It's such an annoying thing to do, I understand now why it led Andulacie to report it, even though it's not actionable, it's fucking annoying.

He didn't 'elaborate' 'explain' or 'try to demonstrate'. He made the economist equivalent of saying 'of course all niggers are stupid', and you've joined him in demanding that I produce IQ scores.

At least be honest.

He didn't 'elaborate' 'explain' or 'try to demonstrate'. He made the economist equivalent of saying 'of course all niggers are stupid', and you've joined him in demanding that I produce IQ scores.

At least be honest.

Pretty much. Hes just went on and on about how the finance industry is the most important industry ever, and all who work in it are intellectuals super plus good.

You know, your posts complaining about other people having no substance would be a lot easier to take seriously, and a lot less irritating, if you didnt do it so much yourself. Like here. Your first post in this thread is just you bitching about how GnI isnt living up to your standards.


The fact that it had no substance was the whole point of the post!


You contribute less to threads then anyone you accuse of not contributing.

I never talk about people 'contributing to threads', they can contribute as much or as little as they like, I don't give a shit about that. What I do call people on is if their posts are bullshit, or just bad form.

This is all an interesting aside. But, frankly, both GnI's curt dismissals and Hydesland's scoldings are annoying. However, only one is off topic.

Factory workers are not the ones making the decisions bankrupting GM. Executives are. Just like bank tellers are not the ones making the decisions bankrupting Bank of America, and should not be treated as such.

GM factory workers had a part in it with excessive compensation gained through unions.
Other factors such as the spike in oil prices.
The collapse of credit market.
And yes executive decisions all had a hand in forcing GM into the position it is in.

If your going to change the law, break contracts, and retroactively tax, then do so in the spirit of equality all around the board.

He didn't 'elaborate' 'explain' or 'try to demonstrate'. He made the economist equivalent of saying 'of course all niggers are stupid', and you've joined him in demanding that I produce IQ scores.


Wtf? If you noticed my first post, I didn't even quote you on your response about the intelligence of financial workers, I don't care about that.

Lets get rid of all bonuses/severance packages from companies with that have received government money. But don't forget to include Chevy and GM, and don't forget to include the factory workers in those companies. Because if you do not then your issue isn't the existence of these bonuses and severance packages, your just mad about the amount.

And there's the rub...you see, when the auto companies got their money they had to, it was a must, renegotiate those dastardly contracts with the workers. But the contracts with the AIG execs...no, no, those are sacred...

Forgive the metaphor - it isn't this 'only rapists can stop rape' argument of Myrmi's that bugs me most, although it DOES really bug me...

...it's the fundamental dishonesty of the position. If the Democrats spend the next four years anal-raping the US into a hole in the ground, I would bet you pretty much any odds you'd care to name, that Myrmi wouldn't be arguing they should stay in charge 'to get the country back on track'.

Myrmi doesn't believe in accountability, except when it suits him.
This.^^ And not just about Myrmi. He does it on the internet, but nothing is real on the webs. Annoying and dumbass, maybe, but not real. It's the bastards making these same kinds of arguments in front of Congressional hearings that piss me off.

GM factory workers had a part in it with excessive compensation gained through unions.

I love when capitalists bitch about unions. Seriously, what excessive compensations?

Which is more excessive? Safe working conditions, a living wage, and maybe some sort of health insurance...

Or hundreds of millions of dollars in fucking bonuses.

You know whose contracts need to be renegotiated? The CEOs. Not the workers. The workers didnt drive the company into the ground, and no amount of yelling about labor union boogeymen will change that.

, renegotiate those dastardly contracts with the workers.

You can renegotiate with the executives, Just realize if they don't like it they will just take their severance package and leave. Auto workers were free to do the same.

You can renegotiate with the executives, Just realize if they don't like it they will just take their severance package and leave. Auto workers were free to do the same.

Yes, and the situations are exactly the same! They are both just as free to be unemployed and live off a "severence package" (do auto workers even get one?)!


What is this world you live in where a assembly line worker has as much freedom to walk away from a job as an exec. Im not talking about freedom freedom, Im talking about realistic freedom, where consequences are taken into account.

In opposite land.



Or... not.
What? You don't remember 100 years ago when we were all living in caves and fighting mice for food because we didn't have "financing" for every fucking little thing?

And this is pure horseshit.

Adding two columns of numbers, or filling out the paperwork for a loan... neither is any 'harder to duplicate' than the skills involved in steelworking.
This is another part of this whole debate that pisses me off to no end -- the utterly unfounded conceit that some people have that, because they shower before work instead of after (as one union president recently put it), their work is somehow the product of a rare and rarified intellectual skill set.

This is especially galling to me because I have spent years working in the white collar sectors, and I know for a fact that easily 50% of high ranking executives are drooling morons who, if it were not for the network of privileged frat boys who keep them in their cushy jobs, would be otherwise completely unemployable. Seriously, too stupid to be a fry cook trainee.

Bloat and fat dominate the corporate world, and it needs to go. One big government liposuction. Now. We need to be rid of these worthess parasites who have somehow managed to con people that they actually do anything at all.

Also, it takes a damn fucking lot of skill and intelligence to work in steel, construction, and ton of other "labor" jobs. Remarks like V's just support my belief that everyone, no matter what they want to do with their lives, should be forced to spend at least two years working as a waitress, cab driver, bricklayer, etc., just so they get at least a taste of reality.

Oh, and outlaw the MBA while we're at it. Nobody should reach executive/management level without having worked in the lower levels of an industry first. Enough of this "I learned it in a book" bullshit.

Also, KoL are you going to keep complaining about how I apparently attack posts for lack of substance, every time you think I'm doing the same? Haven't you at least heard the term "do as I say, not as I do"?

Wtf? If you noticed my first post, I didn't even quote you on your response about the intelligence of financial workers, I don't care about that.

Might want to read what you're responding to.

The 'IQ scores' are part of the illustration.

Vetalia has made a gross assertion, that I've seen a hundred times before. It's based on the assumption itself, and is actually counter-intuitive to observation.

Thus - dismissing that assumption as useless without backing, is not unreasonable.

What is ridiculous, is that others who buy that assertion then attempt to shift the burden of proof onto ME, for dismissing it.


Is it possible that - in a world in which no monetary mechanism ever evolved, nothing we'd recognise as organised 'economics', per se, no pretence at 'finance' - such a society could engineer a productive society with industry?

Could some mechanism of pragmatism, or altruism, arrive at this 'non-economist' society collecting resources to produce something?

Lets get rid of all bonuses/severance packages from companies with that have received government money. But don't forget to include Chevy and GM, and don't forget to include the factory workers in those companies. Because if you do not then your issue isn't the existence of these bonuses and severance packages, your just mad about the amount.
its my understanding that no one at GM got a bonus this year.

Show me an example of a successful, developed economy without some form of finance sector. The problem is, they've never existed.

So...Rome had investment banks to go along with their running water and central heating?

What? You don't remember 100 years ago when we were all living in caves and fighting mice for food because we didn't have "financing" for every fucking little thing?


This is another part of this whole debate that pisses me off to no end -- the utterly unfounded conceit that some people have that, because they shower before work instead of after (as one union president recently put it), their work is somehow the product of a rare and rarified intellectual skill set.

This is especially galling to me because I have spent years working in the white collar sectors, and I know for a fact that easily 50% of high ranking executives are drooling morons who, if it were not for the network of privileged frat boys who keep them in their cushy jobs, would be otherwise completely unemployable. Seriously, too stupid to be a fry cook trainee.

Bloat and fat dominate the corporate world, and it needs to go. One big government liposuction. Now. We need to be rid of these worthess parasites who have somehow managed to con people that they actually do anything at all.

Also, it takes a damn fucking lot of skill and intelligence to work in steel, construction, and ton of other "labor" jobs. Remarks like V's just support my belief that everyone, no matter what they want to do with their lives, should be forced to spend at least two years working as a waitress, cab driver, bricklayer, etc., just so they get at least a taste of reality.

Oh, and outlaw the MBA while we're at it. Nobody should reach executive/management level without having worked in the lower levels of an industry first. Enough of this "I learned it in a book" bullshit.


Didnt you see V's post about the intellectual and physical (lulz) demands of the financing industry?!? You have to be an Übermensch to do it!

Also, KoL are you going to keep complaining about how I apparently attack posts for lack of substance, every time you think I'm doing the same? Haven't you at least heard the term "do as I say, not as I do"?

Ive heard it, but Ive never put much stock in it. I find it hard to take hypocrits seriously.

What? You don't remember 100 years ago when we were all living in caves and fighting mice for food because we didn't have "financing" for every fucking little thing?


I know shes ignoring me, but for everyone elses benefit. We HAD a finance industry 100 years ago. We had one a hundred years before that. And before that. Etc... If you're only attacking the specific state of the American finance industry, then say so, otherwise when people start saying "you shouldn't have a finance industry", I'm going to treat it as "you shouldn't have a finance industry" and not "you shouldn't have the specific finance industry we have now, in the state that it's in now".

I love when capitalists bitch about unions. Seriously, what excessive compensations?

Which is more excessive? Safe working conditions, a living wage, and maybe some sort of health insurance...

Or hundreds of millions of dollars in fucking bonuses.

You know whose contracts need to be renegotiated? The CEOs. Not the workers. The workers didnt drive the company into the ground, and no amount of yelling about labor union boogeymen will change that.

As opposed to the liberals yelling about the corporate CEO boogeymen ?

For people in a job that does not require a high school education, they have been well above a living wage for quite some time.

So...Rome had investment banks to go along with their running water and central heating?

Actually they did in a way. They had their tribute system split in two. One area was for government function and they had another "private fund" that was used for private matters. This changed over the years however there was always some sort of a private investment fund which could be compared to an investment bank of today in my opinion.

So...Rome had investment banks to go along with their running water and central heating?
Yes.
http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Banking-Credits-And-Finance/The-Banks-Of-Ancient-Rome.html

Might want to read what you're responding to.

The 'IQ scores' are part of the illustration.


IQ and actual intelligence was not ever mentioned. Just because a skill is rarer and harder to duplicate, doesn't mean the person with that skill is more intelligent, anyway.


Vetalia has made a gross assertion, that I've seen a hundred times before. It's based on the assumption itself, and is actually counter-intuitive to observation.

Thus - dismissing that assumption as useless without backing, is not unreasonable.


Right, but I didn't quote your dismission about the intelligence of financial workers, so don't bother addressing me with it.


What is ridiculous, is that others who buy that assertion then attempt to shift the burden of proof onto ME, for dismissing it.


From what I saw, he attempted to say that you have the burden of proof that industries can exist without initial financial investment. Since, to say that seriously, overwhelmingly, monumentally put the burden of proof on you, as that is so massively counter-intuitive.


Is it possible that - in a world in which no monetary mechanism ever evolved, nothing we'd recognise as organised 'economics', per se, no pretence at 'finance' - such a society could engineer a productive society with industry?

And the 'engineering' mechanisms and planning that would allocate resources to the industries would pretty much by definition be a financial industry, even if it's radically different to the modern western one.

its my understanding that no one at GM got a bonus this year.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15751921_ITM

35,000 did get severance packages though. Or shall we called them golden parachutes?

Ive heard it, but Ive never put much stock in it. I find it hard to take hypocrits seriously.

You haven't even showed how I was hypocritical, as I never said that people MUST contribute to threads.

You haven't even showed how I was hypocritical, as I never said that people MUST contribute to threads.

I swear we need a boxing ring or something installed on NSG. That would be good times.

I swear we need a boxing ring or something installed on NSG. That would be good times.

Or we can just pie each other.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15751921_ITM

35,000 did get severance packages though. Or shall we called them golden parachutes?
you hate blue collar workers?

you hate blue collar workers?

Doesn't matter. Blue collar White collar if we are going to void contracts, and retroactively tax people lets tax everyone.

Very well then. You disagreed with Vetalia stating that businesses require the finance industry to exist. Can you describe how they would exist if the financial industry disappeared overnight?
How about the way they existed before the financial industry appeared? You know, it was industry that came first.

I haven't seen the claim supported yet, so why would I pre-suppose that any kind of evidence or argument was required against it?

Industry would have existed on this planet with or without the invention of 'finance'.
As, indeed, it did. It was the rise of real industry and trade that prompted the creation of what eventually became a finance "industry." Not the other way around.

Actually they did in a way. They had their tribute system split in two. One area was for government function and they had another "private fund" that was used for private matters. This changed over the years however there was always some sort of a private investment fund which could be compared to an investment bank of today in my opinion.
In your opinion. I have a different opinion. Although finance in some recognizable way has existed in at least limited forms (and among limited social strata) since the Renaissance (when the family lending institutions that are the direct ancestors of several major international banks of today were originally created (by lending money to the Vatican)), I think it is ridiculous to claim that before then there was anything even remotely like the kind of financial institutions and systems we have seen grow up since the 1700s. The ancient "finance" systems were little more than noblesse oblige. Hardly comparable.

And yet, hard work and vast trade carried on.

And even in the Industrial Age, which saw the concommitent rise of what we could call the Financial Age, industry still progressed on a largely cash pay-as-you-go basis for a good part of those centuries.

Really, it was not until the latter half of the 20th century that it became the common assumption that nothing can be done without "financing."

What Vetalia is attempting to do is lump banking with the whole "financial industry" as we know it today, and somehow claim a history, a pedigree, a degree of necessity, and a degree of usefulness and reliability for the whole shebang, which really only is applicable to commercial and private banking.

Didnt you see V's post about the intellectual and physical (lulz) demands of the financing industry?!? You have to be an Übermensch to do it!
They can join all the other ubermenschen in Galt's Gulch. The sooner the better.

Yes.
http://chestofbooks.com/finance/banking/Banking-Credits-And-Finance/The-Banks-Of-Ancient-Rome.html
See my comments to Marrakech about the difference between banking and the modern "financial industry."

How about the way they existed before the financial industry appeared? You know, it was industry that came first.

As, indeed, it did. It was the rise of real industry and trade that prompted the creation of what eventually became a finance "industry." Not the other way around.

.

What do you mean by industry ?

What do you mean by industry ?

Are you serious?

For someone who looks down on blue collar workers...

Doesn't matter. Blue collar White collar if we are going to void contracts, and retroactively tax people lets tax everyone.
no.

What? You don't remember 100 years ago when we were all living in caves and fighting mice for food because we didn't have "financing" for every fucking little thing?


Curse my memory.


This is another part of this whole debate that pisses me off to no end -- the utterly unfounded conceit that some people have that, because they shower before work instead of after (as one union president recently put it), their work is somehow the product of a rare and rarified intellectual skill set.

This is especially galling to me because I have spent years working in the white collar sectors, and I know for a fact that easily 50% of high ranking executives are drooling morons who, if it were not for the network of privileged frat boys who keep them in their cushy jobs, would be otherwise completely unemployable. Seriously, too stupid to be a fry cook trainee.

Bloat and fat dominate the corporate world, and it needs to go. One big government liposuction. Now. We need to be rid of these worthess parasites who have somehow managed to con people that they actually do anything at all.

Also, it takes a damn fucking lot of skill and intelligence to work in steel, construction, and ton of other "labor" jobs. Remarks like V's just support my belief that everyone, no matter what they want to do with their lives, should be forced to spend at least two years working as a waitress, cab driver, bricklayer, etc., just so they get at least a taste of reality.

Oh, and outlaw the MBA while we're at it. Nobody should reach executive/management level without having worked in the lower levels of an industry first. Enough of this "I learned it in a book" bullshit.

I'm an eclectic sort of guy. I'm a scientist by inclination, and I've worked in sciences, directly or indirectly, for quite some time. I've also run businesses, I've raised barns, worked on engines, repaired industrial machinery, been a date processor, taken calls on a call-centre, worked a bar, waited tables, trained under a Federation of Master Builders master artisan, done accounts, written official documents for some blue chip companies that would be recognised by name on the world stage. etc.

I've run the gamut, and I think Vetalia's argument is full of shit.

I've known some people that ran companies (one, on this very forum, I think is a pretty brilliant example), and some of them have been rare and intelligent creatures, and some of them have been thick as shit.

The idea that the CEOs, finance departments, etc are INTRINSICALLY skilled or smart, is laughable. Like any other demographic some are - most aren't.

no.

But..but..the CEOs work so much harder for their money then the workers they exploit!

Are you serious?

For someone who looks down on blue collar workers...

Industry can be a broad term, I want it defined for this conversation.
Agriculture and hunting can be considered industry.
In order to discuss modern industry versus say cottage industry we need definitions we can agree upon.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-15751921_ITM

35,000 did get severance packages though. Or shall we called them golden parachutes?
More like tin.

I'm an eclectic sort of guy. I'm a scientist by inclination, and I've worked in sciences, directly or indirectly, for quite some time. I've also run businesses, I've raised barns, worked on engines, repaired industrial machinery, been a date processor, taken calls on a call-centre, worked a bar, waited tables, trained under a Federation of Master Builders master artisan, done accounts, written official documents for some blue chip companies that would be recognised by name on the world stage. etc.

I've run the gamut, and I think Vetalia's argument is full of shit.

I've known some people that ran companies (one, on this very forum, I think is a pretty brilliant example), and some of them have been rare and intelligent creatures, and some of them have been thick as shit.

The idea that the CEOs, finance departments, etc are INTRINSICALLY skilled or smart, is laughable. Like any other demographic some are - most aren't.

If we're going by anecdotes, I can name a handful of people with good maths degrees, who literally found the work in finance in the city of London too difficult, and had to leave. Also, running a company =/= working in the financial industry.

And...

I understand your reluctance to concede the point, so I understand why you would try to weasel your way out of an answer you could be held to.

But, we both know that was a 'yes'.

What do you mean by industry ?
In the phrase "financial industry" I am using "industry" the same way everyone else uses it -- merely to connote a large group of related businesses and business models.

I do not mean it in the sense of manufacturing on a large volume commercial scale.

So, for instance, when I draw a distinction between "real industry" and "financial 'industry'", "real industry" would refer to things like building and running railroads, ships and shipping lines, mining, building contruction, print-related business, etc. "Financial 'industry'" would just refer to the whole panoply of financial services currently availble to everyone, including "real industry". The "whole panoply" would include truly necessary services, like commercial banking, currency trading, etc, as well as system-gaming bullshit like what brought down AIG.

If we're going by anecdotes, I can name a handful of people with good maths degrees, who literally found the work in finance in the city of London too difficult,


Nowhere did I claim that 'qualifications' are a good marker of ability.

Indeed, I usually argue the opposite. It seems unlikely I'd have staked a claim on that territory in this debate.


...and had to leave. Also, running a company =/= working in the financial industry.

I didn't say it did.

I understand there are a lot of posts to respond to, but if you're not going to actually read mine, or respond to the things I actually wrote, you can save us both time by just not clicking 'quote' on any boxes that are near my name.

I understand your reluctance to concede the point, so I understand why you would try to weasel your way out of an answer you could be held to.

But, we both know that was a 'yes'.

I don't understand what you're talking about. What you described is body that allocates resources (otherwise known as financing) to industry, so why is that not a financial sector?

*sings*
What do you do when you blow out a tire?
Trash it! Some holes you'll never patch.
And who do you save when your house is on fire?
Don't bring the guy who lit the match!

Thank you, Bat Boy The Musical.

I don't understand what you're talking about. What you described is body that allocates resources (otherwise known as financing) to industry, so why is that not a financial sector?

That isn't actually what I described, that's what YOU attributed to it. It's something of a habit of yours.

The salient point, however, is that you agreed that none of our framework is essential.

Nowhere did I claim that 'qualifications' are a good marker of ability.

Indeed, I usually argue the opposite. It seems unlikely I'd have staked a claim on that territory in this debate.


Are you saying that having a good maths degree does not require any skill?


I didn't say it did.


Then why even mention that you know people that have run companies? I know loads of people, and plenty of them are pretty stupid, that doesn't however support anything you say.

*sings*
What do you do when you blow out a tire?
Trash it! Some holes you'll never patch.
And who do you save when your house is on fire?
Don't bring the guy who lit the match!

Thank you, Bat Boy The Musical.
I don't know what's weirder -- that you could quote Bat Boy, the Musical, or that life has come to a place where an appropriate quote could be pulled from Bat Boy, the Musical.

In the phrase "financial industry" I am using "industry" the same way everyone else uses it -- merely to connote a large group of related businesses and business models.

I do not mean it in the sense of manufacturing on a large volume commercial scale.

So, for instance, when I draw a distinction between "real industry" and "financial 'industry'", "real industry" would refer to things like building and running railroads, ships and shipping lines, mining, building contruction, print-related business, etc. "Financial 'industry'" would just refer to the whole panoply of financial services currently availble to everyone, including "real industry". The "whole panoply" would include truly necessary services, like commercial banking, currency trading, etc, as well as system-gaming bullshit like what brought down AIG.

So for real industry your talking post industrial revolution? steel, coal and the like ?
And where do you rate modern commerce ?

All of these really lack a definitive starting point.

The salient point, however, is that you agreed that none of our framework is essential.

Of course not, nobody said that the absolute specific structure of our current financial industry is essential. But if you want industry to be financed, if you want resources to be allocated to it, then you're going to have to have an industry to do that, hence why A financial industry is essential. Our financial industry however is still USEFUL. Another person said that it didn't have a use, vetalia explained how it did because it quite obviously finances industry massively (that's very function of it). The other person then dismissed this as being not useful or not needed or whatever, and vetalia asked how companies could exist without being financed. You then interjected with 'horseshit'.

So for real industry your talking post industrial revolution? steel, coal and the like ?
And where do you rate modern commerce ?

All of these really lack a definitive starting point.
Read the thread, please. I already gave introductory points to my personal take on the history in comments I made in response to Marrakech.

I don't know what's weirder -- that you could quote Bat Boy, the Musical, or that life has come to a place where an appropriate quote could be pulled from Bat Boy, the Musical.

I'm as frightened as you.

I don't understand what you're talking about.
When that happens to me, I usually stop talking.

When that happens to me, I usually stop talking.

When you don't see the logic or relevance in what someone is saying, you stop talking? That must cause a lot of problems in life, since not everyone will always be logical and to the point.

I swear we need a boxing ring or something installed on NSG. That would be good times.

You know what, this is a good idea, i really need to let out some rage. First a load of bullshit at the pub. Then, I come back to see more bullshit on NSG but nothing to let my anger out onto. Capslock is not sufficient, and makes you look retarded.

Are you saying that having a good maths degree does not require any skill?


The 'skill' of writing answers, typing answers, or shading boxes on test papers... maybe.


Then why even mention that you know people that have run companies?


If you're not sure which ones are the cowboys? Just shooting randomly into the crowd, not a good idea.


I know loads of people, and plenty of them are pretty stupid, that doesn't however support anything you say.

What do these 'loads of people' you know... do?

Of course not...

You can stop talking, now.

That's all that was needed.

Read the thread, please. I already gave introductory points to my personal take on the history in comments I made in response to Marrakech.

I was setting up to argue those. But there are too many divergent view points on it.

The 'skill' of writing answers, typing answers, or shading boxes on test papers... maybe.


.... So there is no skill in working out the answers? Seriously?


If you're not sure which ones are the cowboys? Just shooting randomly into the crowd, not a good idea.


What?


What do these 'loads of people' you know... do?

Where are you trying to go with this? I can kind of guess already.

.... So there is no skill in working out the answers? Seriously?


Seriously.


What?


If you don't know what the targets are, stop shooting.

Don't assume that cacti, stagecoaches and crinolines must be cowboys, just because they're in the same town.


Where are you trying to go with this? I can kind of guess already.

Which is why you chose not to answer? A little disingenuous to answer ONLY the questions that you think will favour you?

Seriously.


You must have a very bizarre definition of skill, either that, or somehow believe that even a three year old can answer a degree level maths question, and that it doesn't take any learning.


If you don't know what the targets are, stop shooting.

Don't assume that cacti, stagecoaches and crinolines must be cowboys, just because they're in the same town.


Cool story bro


Which is why you chose not to answer? A little disingenuous to answer ONLY the questions that you think will favour you?

I don't want to spend time describing exactly what someone who manages a company does. If you have a point, make it. I'm not obliged play your games.

I was setting up to argue those. But there are too many divergent view points on it.
No there aren't, and I have faith in your ability to figure that out.

No there aren't, and I have faith in your ability to figure that out.

This we will have to differ on. Historians such as David L. Landes(The Unbound Prometheus) attest that most your economic from the 1650's was financed with borrowed money.
They tied this lending system to trade with the dutch(trade was in agricultural goods).
these were both being possible by agricultural revolution in England and the Dutch inventing a means to store crops (Then sell them when their neighbors went to war).
Other Historians such as Barry Eichengreen find something more akin to what you have stated.

These arguments always end up arguing over exactly what modern industry and what modern banking are. they tend to go around in circles for hours and get nowhere.

These arguments always end up arguing over exactly what modern industry and what modern banking are. they tend to go around in circles for hours and get nowhere.

Sounds like the epitome of NSG to me...

Sounds like the epitome of NSG to me...

I know but I don't have money for alcohol so I cant enjoy pointless arguing for hours.

This we will have to differ on. Historians such as David L. Landes(The Unbound Prometheus) attest that most your economic from the 1650's was financed with borrowed money.
They tied this lending system to trade with the dutch(trade was in agricultural goods).
these were both being possible by agricultural revolution in England and the Dutch inventing a means to store crops (Then sell them when their neighbors went to war).
Other Historians such as Barry Eichengreen find something more akin to what you have stated.

These arguments always end up arguing over exactly what modern industry and what modern banking are. they tend to go around in circles for hours and get nowhere.
Ah, so then my comments were not actually full of diverging points -- just points in keeping with historical theories that differ from the ones you prefer? See -- you did figure it out, and pretty easily, too.

Also, I would remind you that I opened my comments to Marrakech with the words "In your opinion. I have a different opinion."

Note: Opinion. Therefore, as you say, we can agree to disagree. I am satisfied with my statements. As they are based on the opinions of hitorians interpreting the meaning of facts -- as your statements are -- they can both be left in the thread for others to judge their relative worth. However, I stand by my preferred interpretations. I prefer them because they make sense to me.

Ah, so then my comments were not actually full of diverging points -- just points in keeping with historical theories that differ from the ones you prefer? See -- you did figure it out, and pretty easily, too.

Also, I would remind you that I opened my comments to Marrakech with the words "In your opinion. I have a different opinion."

Note: Opinion. Therefore, as you say, we can agree to disagree. I am satisfied with my statements. As they are based on the opinions of hitorians interpreting the meaning of facts -- as your statements are -- they can both be left in the thread for others to judge their relative worth. However, I stand by my preferred interpretations. I prefer them because they make sense to me.

Well, not so hard for me I am in an economic history course at current.
As for divergent views I saw two professors almost get into a fist fight over the matter.

I know but I don't have money for alcohol so I cant enjoy pointless arguing for hours.
And I just got a new job, which I only need because the fucktards Myrmi thinks are so brilliant destroyed the economy with their "briliance." So I can't stay up all night chasing in circles like I could have a month ago.

Well, not so hard for me I am in an economic history course at current.
As for divergent views I saw two professors almost get into a fist fight over the matter.
Heh -- I like it when fistfights break out over abstract academic points. :D It's as good as when poets used to provoke riots in coffeehouses.

EDIT: And I suspect now that you originally meant views divergent from yours. When you said my points had so many divergent views in them, I thought you meant divergent from each other, i.e. that my points were disjointed and self-contradictory.

Heh -- I like it when fistfights break out over abstract academic points. :D It's as good as when poets used to provoke riots in coffeehouses.

It was to be expected one is a Lassierz faire type and the other was a fabian.

And I just got a new job, which I only need because the fucktards Myrmi thinks are so brilliant destroyed the economy with their "briliance." So I can't stay up all night chasing in circles like I could have a month ago.

My GI benefits got cut 600 dollars a month, and financial aid office is being stingy.

Heh -- I like it when fistfights break out over abstract academic points.

You must love NSG, then.

It was to be expected one is a Lassierz faire type and the other was a fabian.
Oh, that would have been EPIC!! Pissy little slap-fight. :D You should have egged them on.

My GI benefits got cut 600 dollars a month, and financial aid office is being stingy.
And that fucking sucks. Majorly.

You must love NSG, then.
What do you think? *points to post count*

'Night, all. Gotta get my beauty sleep for another day as an underpaid cubicle monkey. :( *wants to kick the shit out of Myrmi, just on principle and because I suspect it would make me feel better*

Oh, that would have been EPIC!! Pissy little slap-fight. :D You should have egged them on.

Why do you think they almost got into a fist fight? I can say I single handedly ended the have professors with opposing views visit each other's classes and give debate program at my university.

And that fucking sucks. Majorly.




Strangely it happened in February. Must have been the change Obama was talking about.

Strangely it happened in February. Must have been the change Obama was talking about.
Are you going to blame him for it? Remember, it wasn't a Dem who thought up "trickle down." You got trickled on, friend.

Are you going to blame him for it? Remember, it wasn't a Dem who thought up "trickle down." You got trickled on, friend.

Yeah, but my Benefits got a raise of 300 a month under Bush just 6 months before. Also if you buy into the entire demand side theory cutting my money would be detrimental to the economy.

Strangely it happened in February. Must have been the change Obama was talking about.

You should call Fox. They seem to think Democrats like spending.

You should call Fox. They seem to think Democrats like spending.

Apparently on veterans they do not.

You must have a very bizarre definition of skill, either that, or somehow believe that even a three year old can answer a degree level maths question, and that it doesn't take any learning.


Is honesty a problem for you? Did I say math doesn't take any learning?

You can either add or you can't - it's not a 'skill' thing.


Cool story bro


You completely lost track, didn't you.

You created an argument you apparently wish I'd made.

You then went to war with it.


I don't want to spend time describing exactly what someone who manages a company does. If you have a point, make it. I'm not obliged play your games.

The point would rather depend on your answer, wouldn't it? Is it too much to ask that you give honest reponses?

Is honesty a problem for you?


The same applies ten fold to you. Anyway, I said EITHER. As in EITHER that is what you think (i.e. you still have the same definition of skill as me, but don't think it meets the parameters), OR you have a very different definition of skill. Apparently it's the latter.


You can either add or you can't - it's not a 'skill' thing.


What is your definition of skill? And why is math skills (oh wait, I can't use that, even though quantitative skills is literally on the title of one of my text book) being something you either have, or you don't, any different from any other skill, or in fact anything ever that one can posses, on the planet. You can either have skill x, or you can't, you can either engineer a computer, or you can't. Seriously that's a major captain obvious comment. A is either B, or not B, great, I don't remember denying the law of excluded middle.


You completely lost track, didn't you.

You created an argument you apparently wish I'd made.

You then went to war with it.


Can't you just say 'strawman' then.


The point would rather depend on your answer, wouldn't it? Is it too much to ask that you give honest reponses?

They make decisions on how the business is run.

Apparently on veterans they do not.

Odd. The new GI bill doesn't go into effect till August, I believe - which means you should have had an overall increase this year, according to national mandate.

Unless - you hadn't been paying enrollment, which they have since decided you owe (in which case, a $600 a month cut should only last February and March), or they've re-evaluated your service term and decided you qualify for less than three WHOLE years of service time.

Did you declare a change in housing? Not sure, but that might have an effect.

I'm not sure how you actually think you can blame your (alleged) cut on the new 'regime'. Indeed, the only move I've seen recently was a Democrat trying to pull out the exceptions for distance/remote students, that WOULD have cut their entitlements under the new August GI scheme.

You should call Fox. They seem to think Democrats like spending.

99% of U.S. politicians like spending, regardless of party membership.

Odd. The new GI bill doesn't go into effect till August, I believe - which means you should have had an overall increase this year, according to national mandate.


The WEB bill is for after august I will be done with undergradaute school by then
I like that bill.
Pays tuition at any university I get accepted to then has housing cost adjusted for the location of the university and a stipend for books and food.
I would be in a so much nicer university if I had that WEB bill.

I will be honest as much as I love blaming politicians( I blame whoever is in office) it is likely just VA just trying to save money to pay the new bill.

Though, I am hoping I can use the Web Bill for grad school. As I am not certain using Montgomery GI bill benefits removes its eligibility for the WEBB GI bill.

The same applies ten fold to you.


Come now - I'm not the one who has (fairly consistently, in this thread) been completely inventing things for the other to have said.

If you think I've been dishonest - you'll be able to show me where. I've tried to highlight your 'inventions' on each occassion, so we can do some comparison, if you like.


Anyway, I said EITHER. As in EITHER that is what you think (i.e. you still have the same definition of skill as me, but don't think it meets the parameters), OR you have a very different definition of skill. Apparently it's the latter.


Yes, you think math counts as a skill.


Can't you just say 'strawman' then.


I could. But, well, you've been inventing so many things you wish I'd said, or picking your own ways of applying what I did say... if you're going to invent targets, feel free to shoot at them, but don't think they impact anything I've said.


They make decisions on how the business is run.

Who? All these many stupid people you know?

100% of U.S. politicians like spending, regardless of party membership.

Fixed.

Fixed.

Say what you will about Ron Paul, and he has plenty of faults, but loving spending is not one of them. He is arguably the only member of Congress who actually favors cutting spending (and no, increasing spending by a smaller amount than that advocated by the other party does not count as "cutting").

The WEB bill is for after august I will be done with undergradaute school by then
I like that bill.
Pays tuition at any university I get accepted to then has housing cost adjusted for the location of the university and a stipend for books and food.
I would be in a so much nicer university if I had that WEB bill.

I will be honest as much as I love blaming politicians( I blame whoever is in office) it is likely just VA just trying to save money to pay the new bill.

Though, I am hoping I can use the Web Bill for grad school. As I am not certain using Montgomery GI bill benefits removes its eligibility for the WEBB GI bill.

I'm not 100% on it, but I believe the new bill only covers the same entitlement as the Monty bill. So - if you've used your 36 months, you've used them. I don't believe it's strictly limited to grad or undergrad - just to the term limit.

I'm not 100% on it, but I believe the new bill only covers the same entitlement as the Monty bill. So - if you've used your 36 months, you've used them. I don't believe it's strictly limited to grad or undergrad - just to the term limit.
I will only have a few months of grad school covered then.
The Va Q&A and all the summaries are silent on the issue.
Seems like it is a new entitlement altogether even if they only last the same amount of time. Or at least I hope. If I can use the WEBB bill I will likely go find and kiss Bobby Scott's ass. I would have to read the law itself and well that would take too long.

Another thing that gives me hope this is the case. Is that soldiers who did participate in Montgomery GI bill (have to contribute 1200 dollars) can still get the WEBB bill.

At least one gentleman at AIG-FP has decided that he can do better than give his retention payment back to the Congress. He's being a little more generous than I would have been with the after tax portions. But the sentiment is the same -- "Screw you Congress". Way to go, Jake.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090325/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_resignation_letter_5
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion


I suspect this resignation is only the start. And if we see this witch hunt carried over to salary caps, restrictions on incentives, etc, I bet most of our financial wizards will be working for someone that will pay them better -- China?

The Chinese government is not that stupid. They would never hand control of their finances over to these incompetent fuckwads.

Remember, these people were heroes back in 1992-2000 and 2002-2006 when the stock and housing markets (respectively for each period) were booming and bringing in billions of dollars of revenue.

Heroes to whom?

And I'd have more respect if he told the truth about what the fuck was really going on at the AIG-FP wind up.

Fucking looting operation is what it is.

Found this one today...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/26793903/the_big_takeover

And if you spend all day hanging out with criminals, don't be surprised if that is how people start to view you.

Siggable.

I will only have a few months of grad school covered then.
The Va Q&A and all the summaries are silent on the issue.
Seems like it is a new entitlement altogether even if they only last the same amount of time. Or at least I hope. If I can use the WEBB bill I will likely go find and kiss Bobby Scott's ass. I would have to read the law itself and well that would take too long.

Another thing that gives me hope this is the case. Is that soldiers who did participate in Montgomery GI bill (have to contribute 1200 dollars) can still get the WEBB bill.

First - apply anyway. The worst they can do is say no, right?

But... hate to be the bearer of bad news, I've just looked over (some of) the Bill, and it looks pretty certain the two 36 month terms are designed in such a way that time you've spent on Monty will count against your entitlement on Webb.

http://capwiz.com/military/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.22:

Specifically:



3301. (c) (4) CONTINUING EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE UNDER MONTGOMERY GI BILL-

(A) IN GENERAL- If the aggregate amount of entitlement to educational assistance under chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code (as so added), accumulated by an individual described in subparagraph (A)(i) or (A)(ii) of paragraph (1) who makes an election under that paragraph is less than 36 months, the individual shall retain, and may utilize, any unutilized entitlement of the individual to educational assistance under chapter 30 of title 38, United States Code, or chapter 107, 1606, or 1607 of title 10, United States Code, as applicable, for a number of months equal to the lesser of--

(i) 36 months minus the number of months of entitlement so accumulated by the individual; or

(ii) the number of months of such unutilized entitlement of the individual.

But also 3301 (c) (1) (A) - which sets eligibility - and, maybe 3322 (a) - which talks about choosing between entitlements.

First - apply anyway. The worst they can do is say no, right?

I have to apply and get turned down to get the hazelwood act anyways.

But... hate to be the bearer of bad news, I've just looked over (some of) the Bill, and it looks pretty certain the two 36 month terms are designed in such a way that time you've spent on Monty will count against your entitlement on Webb.

http://capwiz.com/military/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.22:

Specifically:



But also 3301 (c) (1) (A) - which sets eligibility - and, maybe 3322 (a) - which talks about choosing between entitlements.

seems like it.
though
Section 3322: Bar to duplication of educational assistance benefits. Veterans who receive educational benefits under this Act may not receive concurrent assistance under another similar program; instead, veterans must elect one program over another.

I have to apply and get turned down to get the hazelwood act anyways.


You should have some of your 36 months left anyway... right?


seems like it.
though
Section 3322: Bar to duplication of educational assistance benefits. Veterans who receive educational benefits under this Act may not receive concurrent assistance under another similar program; instead, veterans must elect one program over another.

So - can't be enrolled in two simultaneously, you have to pick one or t'other. And then the other clause limits your entitlement in the one, depending on what you had/have in the other.

You should have some of your 36 months left anyway... right?
A few maybe a semester. It is kinda hard to follow actually because sometimes they score a month as only half a month or less if classes take up less then a certain number of days.



So - can't be enrolled in two simultaneously, you have to pick one or t'other. And then the other clause limits your entitlement in the one, depending on what you had/have in the other.

I will defiantly apply under Webb when I go to graduate school. Get both at once would just be too much mooching even for me. Once I expend my federal benefits I will have my state benefits which gives me exemption form tuition. Though I hope the cross over from Montgomery to Webb isn't well maintained and I can benefits one right after the other.

How about the way they existed before the financial industry appeared? You know, it was industry that came first.

You mean the industry of the ancient Fertile Crescent, before finance originated in approximately 3000 BC? Why do you have a preference for that?

I haven't seen the claim supported yet, so why would I pre-suppose that any kind of evidence or argument was required against it?

Industry would have existed on this planet with or without the invention of 'finance'.

Would you care to address the practical issues of a lack of finance?

Would you care to address the practical issues of a lack of finance?

Shifting the burden. Again.

I'm still making this same point.

You mean the industry of the ancient Fertile Crescent, before finance originated in approximately 3000 BC? Why do you have a preference for that?

1) As I said to G&D, read the thread. I have already given further information as to what I meant. Kindly address the points I have made as I have made them, thanks.

2) In re the above request, did I express a preference for anything or any time? If so, kindly point out where. Perhaps you will find it (or not) in the course of bothering to address what I actually am talking about.

Strangely it happened in February. Must have been the change Obama was talking about.

:rolleyes:

Strangley enough, no bills have been passed that would cut your funding. So either youve been misinformed or are a liar.

Based on your past participation on NSG, I know which one IM picking.

Come now - I'm not the one who has (fairly consistently, in this thread) been completely inventing things for the other to have said.


Look, I don't deliberately lie about someone's position. I may deliberately attempt to extrapolate as to what your position must be if you were to hold such an assumption, showing why the initial assumption is absurd, but if I have got your position wrong, perhaps you need to present your ideas clearer.


Yes, you think math counts as a skill.


Why did you avoid defining what a skill is?


I could. But, well, you've been inventing so many things you wish I'd said, or picking your own ways of applying what I did say... if you're going to invent targets, feel free to shoot at them, but don't think they impact anything I've said.


This is getting silly, this all happened in a response to a QUESTION. I asked, WHY did you mention that you know managers? It doesn't presuppose any position, it was simply a question.


Who? All these many stupid people you know?

Many of them are stupid. Many of them aren't.

...perhaps you need to present your ideas clearer.


That seems logical. If I present something, and you make up some random (often entirely disconnected) response you apparently wish I'd made... the fault is mine for a lack of clarity?


Many of them are stupid. Many of them aren't.

Evasion.

You were talking about these 'many stupid people' you know, and I asked what they did. What do they do?

At least one gentleman at AIG-FP has decided that he can do better than give his retention payment back to the Congress. He's being a little more generous than I would have been with the after tax portions. But the sentiment is the same -- "Screw you Congress". Way to go, Jake.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090325/ap_on_bi_ge/aig_resignation_letter_5
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/opinion/25desantis.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=opinion


I suspect this resignation is only the start. And if we see this witch hunt carried over to salary caps, restrictions on incentives, etc, I bet most of our financial wizards will be working for someone that will pay them better -- China?

All well and good riddance you might say, but do you think the Secretary for Tax Evasion and his pal at the Fed have the ability to run the whole financial industry?

The whole AIG situation is a sham and a fraud intended to stampede the ignorant hordes of Obammunists in this country into supporting yet another power grab by the Dark Lord. Obama himself knew what was going on. His phony posturing to the contrary is nothing but lies. Tax Cheat Geithner and that Connecticut grafter Chris Dodd have already been exposed once again as liars. Congress knew damn well that the porkulus bill allowed AIG to pay those bonuses.

Jake, props to you for refusing to acquiesce in this travesty. God willing, you won't be the only one.

The whole AIG situation is a sham and a fraud intended to stampede the ignorant hordes of Obammunists...

You say "Obammunists", I say "majority"... :D

"Obammunists?" I'm not a fan of Obama by any means, but "Obammunist" sounds like quite a stretch, to say the least.

The whole AIG situation is a sham and a fraud intended to stampede the ignorant hordes of Obammunists in this country into supporting yet another power grab by the Dark Lord. Obama himself knew what was going on. His phony posturing to the contrary is nothing but lies. Tax Cheat Geithner and that Connecticut grafter Chris Dodd have already been exposed once again as liars. Congress knew damn well that the porkulus bill allowed AIG to pay those bonuses.

Jake, props to you for refusing to acquiesce in this travesty. God willing, you won't be the only one.

You got anything of substance to say, Rush?

The whole AIG situation is a sham and a fraud intended to stampede the ignorant hordes of Obammunists in this country into supporting yet another power grab by the Dark Lord.


Maybe.

A hell of a claim to back up, though - not that you will.

I assume you mean the current discussion about retention bonuses being awarded to top salary earners (many of whom had already left the company... some 'retention' bonus)... in the wake of AIG having to be bailed out?

Because - otherwise, it would seem you're arguing that AIG's horrible collapse was somehow engineered by Obama... during Bush's administration?

I notice you didn't refer to it as a 'power grab' when Republicans were insisting on union busting of autoworkers. Double standard?


Tax Cheat Geithner

Not being up to date on your taxes doesn't mean you're 'cheating'.

"Obammunists?" I'm not a fan of Obama by any means, but "Obammunist" sounds like quite a stretch, to say the least.
It's the new NM yoga. It primes mind, body and spirit to resist the Dark Lord. Stretch, baby, stretch!

Not being up to date on your taxes doesn't mean you're 'cheating'.

Technically he was a tax evader. Which is of course a huge no-no.

Otherwise he's a waste of space. He's basically henry paulson mk II. (With fewer brains). I put his appointment down to the fact Obama probably isn't all that knowledgeable about this sort of stuff and was influenced by the Summers/Rubin crowd (who are also vipers).

Hopefully when T cubed's plans come to naught he'll resign, and we'll get a proper Sec. Treas.

It's the new NM yoga. It primes mind, body and spirit to resist the Dark Lord. Stretch, baby, stretch!

Again, not an Obama fan, but calling him "the Dark Lord" is pretty silly.

Technically he was a tax evader. Which is of course a huge no-no.

Otherwise he's a waste of space. He's basically henry paulson mk II. (With fewer brains). I put his appointment down to the fact Obama probably isn't all that knowledgeable about this sort of stuff and was influenced by the Summers/Rubin crowd (who are also vipers).

Hopefully when T cubed's plans come to naught he'll resign, and we'll get a proper Sec. Treas.

I'm no fan of Geithner. I think he's part of the problem, turned part of the solution. At least, according to his own reckoning.

I understand why the Obama admin would pick someone like him - relevant experience, and a huge lack of choices - but that doesn't mean I like him.

There seems to be a lot of conflicting data about what he ahs or hasn't done, regarding taxes - and, maybe this is the new version of the 'deny everything' mantra we saw for the last 8 years... we're now in the era of 'admit everything... and I mean EVERYTHING'... relying on the fact that if a huge enough flood of information comes out, and half of it contradicts the other half, everyone will throw their hands up and go 'fuck it'. :)

The big contention seems to be tax unpaid. Yeah, it's a no-no... but is it 'cheating'... or is it just 'not paying'.



Oh - and I want everyone to remember, and give me credit for that 'admit everything' thing. :)

I understand why the Obama admin would pick someone like him - relevant experience, and a huge lack of choices - but that doesn't mean I like him.
Lack of choices? I'd just have picked Volcker.

Lack of choices? I'd just have picked Volcker.

Maybe. If he'd have taken it. And if he hadn't endorsed Obama, which might make it look like buying favours.

I'm sure conflicts could have been found in his various extra-curricular activities, too. Making him an advisor, of sorts, was probably pretty shrewd, politically.

But, what I was really referring to, is trying to make up a functioning team in the wake of eight years of no-hands-on experience. The admin had their hands tied, somewhat.

I'm no fan of Geithner. I think he's part of the problem, turned part of the solution. At least, according to his own reckoning.


Nah, he's neck deep in it and hasn't changed. He's already put Maiden Lane losses on the taxpayer's back (something that the cabal he was part of when it was set up promised wouldn't happen).

And his new plan is just essentially a looting operation. It's a way for the connected to get their money out and fuck everyone else.

FWIW, these are the type of people he's trying to save linky (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0413/096-sachs-semgroup-goldman-goose-oil.html). They aren't some type of super brained egghead, they are just grifters that have bought the police. The world would be better off without them*.

Plus he's a kissinger protege. I really can't think of a good thing about him.

Frankly, I think the country needs someone who hasn't been hands on for at least two decades. Or at least not an industry insider. Preferably someone without a westchester/greenwich co. club membership. This shit has gone on since the early nineties. Time for it to die.

*I am not advocating an end to the financial services industry. I still think you need that kind of thing. I am just advocating an end to the one we currently have. It's virtually criminal in its operation.

Nah, he's neck deep in it and hasn't changed. He's already put Maiden Lane losses on the taxpayer's back (something that the cabal he was part of when it was set up promised wouldn't happen).

And his new plan is just essentially a looting operation. It's a way for the connected to get their money out and fuck everyone else.

FWIW, these are the type of people he's trying to save linky (http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0413/096-sachs-semgroup-goldman-goose-oil.html). They aren't some type of super brained egghead, they are just grifters that have bought the police. The world would be better off without them*.

Plus he's a kissinger protege. I really can't think of a good thing about him.

Frankly, I think the country needs someone who hasn't been hands on for at least two decades. Or at least not an industry insider. Preferably someone without a westchester/greenwich co. club membership. This shit has gone on since the early nineties. Time for it to die.

*I am not advocating an end to the financial services industry. I still think you need that kind of thing. I am just advocating an end to the one we currently have. It's virtually criminal in its operation.
I have to agree. Geithner (however you spell that) strikes me as a king enabler of the corruption that got us into this mess. Whether he does it deliberately or just out of amazing incompetence or wimpiness is not so clear to me. But it doesn't matter. I think in the political bullshit storm that is raging around everything Obama does about the economy, we are losing -- or never had -- sight of what the fuck Geithner is actually doing, if anything. He's the invisible man -- it is impossible to tell if he is actually trying to carry out a workable policy, or if he is screwing things up -- or screwing around. I have no way of guessing what will be revealed when all finally is revealed much, much later.

But I agree we have been given no reason at all to put any trust in this guy, and plenty of reason definitely not to.

On the other hand, Obama, regardless of his constant grandstanding in the media, does not seem to be making policy by sound bite. The forms and directions of his policies are only coming to light slowly, and the next stage of direction is often hard to predict. I don't know where he is going with this Geithner guy -- it may turn out okay in the long run, but then, even uncertainty is typically not good for economies.

On the other hand, Obama, regardless of his constant grandstanding in the media, does not seem to be making policy by sound bite. The forms and directions of his policies are only coming to light slowly, and the next stage of direction is often hard to predict. I don't know where he is going with this Geithner guy -- it may turn out okay in the long run, but then, even uncertainty is typically not good for economies.

I think Obama has turned a lot of this over to the Summers/Rubin crew (the architects of much of the instant mess). In other words he articulates a view of how he would like the economy to run, but delegates the actual mechanics.

I understand why he feels he should do this. After all this gang has impressive credentials. But I don't think listening to the people who made the mess is going to help resolve it.

My concern is that by the time they are discredited the country is completely broke, and completely looted. FWIW, I think the stimulus package (none of which has been spent yet) was a bribe designed to get congress to go along with the financial 'bailout'. I suspect by the time it comes to implement much of it, it will be vastly scaled back.

I think Obama has turned a lot of this over to the Summers/Rubin crew (the architects of much of the instant mess). In other words he articulates a view of how he would like the economy to run, but delegates the actual mechanics.

I understand why he feels he should do this. After all this gang has impressive credentials. But I don't think listening to the people who made the mess is going to help resolve it.
That is certainly possible, but I have not quite figured out how Obama does things, so I'm not ready to make a pronouncement. I don't like what I'm seeing, but I also am aware that there is a shitload I am not seeing.

Anyway, I'm not that confident that any policy could have any effect on this juggernaut off the cliff anyway, at this point.

My concern is that by the time they are discredited the country is completely broke, and completely looted. FWIW, I think the stimulus package (none of which has been spent yet) was a bribe designed to get congress to go along with the financial 'bailout'. I suspect by the time it comes to implement much of it, it will be vastly scaled back.
Which will be vastly scaled back -- the stimulus or the bailout?

Anyway, I'm not that confident that any policy could have any effect on this juggernaut off the cliff anyway, at this point.

No, it can't be stopped. It's how the way down is managed. And what Geithner is doing probably will make things worse.

Which will be vastly scaled back -- the stimulus or the bailout?

The stimulus. Most of it is allocated to next year. Now there is a lot of talk about 'putting our grandchildren in debt', but that's just horseshit. The balls can't be kept in the air that long. The US government has to roll it's debt on a frequent and periodic basis - there are bond auctions every month which the treasury relies on to fund the government.

What Geithner's plan does is transfer trillions of dollars of credit risk - if all goes as planned - from the private sector to the federal government. As those asset's continue to sour - as they certainly will - the federal government's demand for increased month debt funding will increase while its credit rating simultaneously decays. This will make it harder and harder to raise the money needed to keep going: at least in the anticipated amounts.

So you'll end up with either: the federal reserve buying all the debt, and funding the government through 'printing', think zimbabwe; or failed debt auctions and an emergency 'austerity budget' where the federal government literally has to pay as it goes. No more borrowing, or at least borrowing at punitive interest rates. (In the latter case things only deteriorate as the debt continues to roll at ever higher interest rates meaning that debt service costs grow and grow, gobbling up almost the entirety of federal spending in the worst case scenario).

This is why I say the financial sector should be nationalized and the revenues captured and set aside to offset the losses in the toxic assets - or legacy loans as they now call them. It would somewhat protect the national credit, which will be sorely needed.

This public private partnership thing is just horseshit so connected people can get their money out now and stash it somewhere else.

Don't get me wrong. I really want Obama to succeed - whoever was in the Whitehouse I'd want to succeed because the alternative is terrible - but what's being planned right now won't work, and will most likely make things worse.

No, it can't be stopped. It's how the way down is managed. And what Geithner is doing probably will make things worse.
I was talking about the way down. We have gone off the cliff. We are falling, and as the ground rushes towards us, I feel like the people falling around me are arguing over how they should or should not flap their arms.

The stimulus. Most of it is allocated to next year. Now there is a lot of talk about 'putting our grandchildren in debt', but that's just horseshit. The balls can't be kept in the air that long. The US government has to roll it's debt on a frequent and periodic basis - there are bond auctions every month which the treasury relies on to fund the government.

What Geithner's plan does is transfer trillions of dollars of credit risk - if all goes as planned - from the private sector to the federal government. As those asset's continue to sour - as they certainly will - the federal government's demand for increased month debt funding will increase while its credit rating simultaneously decays. This will make it harder and harder to raise the money needed to keep going: at least in the anticipated amounts.

So you'll end up with either: the federal reserve buying all the debt, and funding the government through 'printing', think zimbabwe; or failed debt auctions and an emergency 'austerity budget' where the federal government literally has to pay as it goes. No more borrowing, or at least borrowing at punitive interest rates. (In the latter case things only deteriorate as the debt continues to roll at ever higher interest rates meaning that debt service costs grow and grow, gobbling up almost the entirety of federal spending in the worst case scenario).
Okay, but wouldn't it end up that way anyway, no matter what policies were followed?

When I listen to Obama's stimulus plans, I don't hear a plan for sustainable stability. I hear a plan to emergency launch a host of things we desperately need and which, if they get off the ground at all, will eventually form the foundation for rebuilding the economy. I get the feeling the emergency launch is exactly that -- sacrificing all the fueld of the economy in order to get these things up before the fuel runs out altogether, which it will do anyway. He acts all cool about this in front of cameras, but I think he is doing something quite radical and dangerous -- but it is something I support. It's a long shot to succeed, but then the nation left drifting with a totally bankrupt and paralyzed government is the odds-on favorite, and there's no way I'm betting on that.



This is why I say the financial sector should be nationalized and the revenues captured and set aside to offset the losses in the toxic assets - or legacy loans as they now call them. It would somewhat protect the national credit, which will be sorely needed.

This public private partnership thing is just horseshit so connected people can get their money out now and stash it somewhere else.

Don't get me wrong. I really want Obama to succeed - whoever was in the Whitehouse I'd want to succeed because the alternative is terrible - but what's being planned right now won't work, and will most likely make things worse.
Well, I agree with the part about needing to temporarily nationalize the financial sector, and I also agree about the corruption at the heart of a most of it. But I don't know enough about the mechanics of high finance to form an opinion about your predictions of how this will go otherwise.

I still think the collapse has its own momentum now, and I hope I'm 100% wrong about this, but I suspect that we could put some of our favorite NSG Net Trolls in charge of Treasure and it wouldn't make a difference at the moment. I really believe that the next economy is going to be built by people who are not players in the economy that just died, and that's why I, like many, many other people, am going ahead with my own plans without any regard for what the government does or doesn't do.

That's kind of why I'm emotionally torn about this. On the one hand, I am angry and sick of hearing about saving the financial sector, when not only did those people get us into this mess, but they are also completely irrelevant to our future. Saving them is a waste of time and resources. But because they are irrelevant, in my opinion, I'm not getting all that mad about it. I am too busy putting my energies into a different vision of the future.

It's the new NM yoga. It primes mind, body and spirit to resist the Dark Lord. Stretch, baby, stretch!

When did this happen? I figured he still had pegged anyone not a frothy mouthed McCain /Palin supporter as axe wielding Uruk Hai.

When did this happen? I figured he still had pegged anyone not a frothy mouthed McCain /Palin supporter as axe wielding Uruk Hai.
Who knows when anything happens in his head? *shrugs*

Okay, but wouldn't it end up that way anyway, no matter what policies were followed?

No. There are a variety of things that can be done to avoid that sort of outcome. Exactly what is done depends upon where you want to allocate the economic pain. I'd prefer to stick it to the fuckers who caused this mess.

One of the main problems with Geithner's plan is that even if it does make the banks whole again, they aren't going to start lending. Everyone has bought into the mantra that 'we have to get the banks lending again', at least in DC. But if every bank was cured tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. American incomes do not justify lending at the levels we saw, so if there is any kind of proper underwriting it is impossible to get back to the type of economic model we had 1993-2006. (Specifically the 98-06 period).

The entire edifice is built upon the household balance sheet, which is fucked. It's a waste of time giving money to the banks, it doesn't do anything. Better that the government takes control of the banks and actually directly renegotiate the loan terms to something sustainable as the problems roll in. At the same time bankruptcy laws should be liberalized. The cost of this is offset by the revenue the banks continue to generate.

This would go a long way to fixing the household balance sheet, and would significantly reduce the economic pain at the so-called 'main-street' level. It would free up household cash to go directly back into the general economy and therefore stem unemployment, and it would also reliquify the tangible assets these loans were written against.

(There's a potential problem with primary dealers, but I don't think it would be a big deal provided so it's not worth going into).

Of course by doing this there are still going to be losses. Insurance companies &c and pension funds which have invested in this. But they should be dealt with on a case by case systemic basis.

Anyway, the point is fix the household balance sheet first, banks second. We're doing it backwards so it won't work. I'm not saying that everything is going to be okay if we do something like that, but it will be a hell of a lot better than what's currently sketched out. Fixing the banks first only doubles the strain on the household and makes the problem far worse.

(Hell, even just nationalizing the fucking lot of them (the government already has that power), then splitting the good from the bad and selling off the good to offset the bad would be a massive improvement. The bad could then be managed more easily).

When I listen to Obama's stimulus plans, I don't hear a plan for sustainable stability. I hear a plan to emergency launch a host of things we desperately need and which, if they get off the ground at all, will eventually form the foundation for rebuilding the economy. I get the feeling the emergency launch is exactly that -- sacrificing all the fueld of the economy in order to get these things up before the fuel runs out altogether, which it will do anyway. He acts all cool about this in front of cameras, but I think he is doing something quite radical and dangerous -- but it is something I support. It's a long shot to succeed, but then the nation left drifting with a totally bankrupt and paralyzed government is the odds-on favorite, and there's no way I'm betting on that.

Whatever anyone's opinion about the stimulus package, my point is I don't think most of it is ever going to materialize. I agree that we are down to the last of a economic fuel, and I fear what little remains is going to go entirely to the banks.

(Look, I've heard rumors that Obama's giving this crowd the rope to hang themselves, and once this fails - because they are only going to get one shot, the public won't stand for it after that - he's going to bring in more sensible people. But I hear a lot of rumors - some of them I even start myself :tongue: - so I wouldn't put too much stock in it.)


I still think the collapse has its own momentum now, and I hope I'm 100% wrong about this, but I suspect that we could put some of our favorite NSG Net Trolls in charge of Treasure and it wouldn't make a difference at the moment. I really believe that the next economy is going to be built by people who are not players in the economy that just died, and that's why I, like many, many other people, am going ahead with my own plans without any regard for what the government does or doesn't do.

Well... you can always make things worse. The government under bush basically took a bad situation and pushed us over the cliff. Bush, I think, was just too fucking clueless to know what's going on and let Paulson &co run amuck. Though his family really is part of the wall street crowd through Grandad, so who the fuck knows who was really pulling what strings. Zero points to congress also for holding Baseball hearings in the fall of '07.

I agree with you though that the next economic cycle won't look like the last. I tell people this all the time, just let it go. It's not going to be the same as we've known for most of our lives. The recovery will have to be production, not speculation, based.

That's kind of why I'm emotionally torn about this. On the one hand, I am angry and sick of hearing about saving the financial sector, when not only did those people get us into this mess, but they are also completely irrelevant to our future. Saving them is a waste of time and resources. But because they are irrelevant, in my opinion, I'm not getting all that mad about it. I am too busy putting my energies into a different vision of the future.

I can see the attraction of just not giving a fuck either way. Eventually -one way or another - this will come to an end. What I would say though is continued mismanagement could make the transition more painful than it has to be. Right now we sort of have a third world oligarchy thing going, where the government is protecting the people it failed to regulate/supervise from the failure to regulate/supervise them, while punishing the people the regulations were supposed to protect in the first place. Crony capitalism/managerial socialism - call it what you will. Keep doing that and things may well become extremely unstable. I'm not suggesting that there will be a revolution, but it's the sort of thing that leads to all sorts of unpleasant political radicalism &c.

At the very least they could start punishing the guilty. I wish the media/political parties would stop pretending that this was just one of those things and nobody saw it coming, it was no-one's fault &c.

That would go a long way to restoring confidence.

(Maybe it will take a third party, who knows).