Lehman Brothers and Complicity of the NY Fed

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

You and I simply disagree on what makes for a stable society. We have a "community organizer" in charge. The job of a community organizer is to "rub raw the sores of discontent."

I'd actually be interested to know how the things you generally advocate contribute to a stable society. You know, things like an economic divide that allows a 2000:1 pay ratio to exist, that allow execs to ship jobs overseas for whatever short term personal gain that suits their whim, that offers very little in the form of a safety net for the average person yet allows execs to be ejected from a company for gross incompetence but still be paid many times more than they will make in a lifetime...

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

I'd actually be interested to know how the things you generally advocate contribute to a stable society. You know, things like an economic divide that allows a 2000:1 pay ratio to exist, that allow execs to ship jobs overseas for whatever short term personal gain that suits their whim, that offers very little in the form of a safety net for the average person yet allows execs to be ejected from a company for gross incompetence but still be paid many times more than they will make in a lifetime...

You ***** and moan about the unequal distribution of wealth. This is how the globalists see it:

You, my friend, are receiving and enjoying way more wealth and prosperity than it your due. So, while you are complaining about the wealthy in the US enjoying too much, the rest of the world sees you at the top 1% of the wealthy, enjoying too much.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2906.html

Bouchaud and Mézard formulated a set of equations that could follow wealth as it shifts from person to person, as each person receives random gains or losses from his investments, and as those who accumulate more wealth invest relatively more. Equations in hand for a network of 1,000 people, the two physicists set to work with a computer to create an economic model. Not knowing precisely how to link people together into a network of transactions, they tried various alternatives. Unsure of how precisely to set the balance between interpersonal transactions and investment returns, they tried shifting it first one way and then the other. But no matter what they did, the model always produced the same basic shape of wealth distribution—precisely the same shape as Pareto's distribution. This happened even when every person in the model started out with exactly the same amount of money. And it happened when every person was endowed with identical money-making skills. The finding suggests that the basic inequality in wealth distribution seen in most societies may have little to do with differences in the backgrounds and talents of their citizens. Rather, the disparity appears to be something akin to a law of economic life that emerges naturally as an organizational feature of a network.
Shades of inequality
Bouchaud and Mézard's discovery suggests that the temptation to find complex explanations behind the distribution of wealth may be seriously misguided. What makes wealth fall into the pockets of a few appears to be quite simple. On the one hand, transactions between people tend to spread wealth around. If one person becomes dramatically wealthy, she may start a business, build a house, and consume more products, and in each case wealth will tend to flow out to others in the network. Conversely, if a person becomes terribly poor, he will tend to purchase fewer products, and less wealth will flow through links going away from him. Overall, the flow of funds along links in the network should act to wash away wealth disparities.
But it seems that this washing out effect never manages to gain the upper hand, for the random returns on investment drive a counterbalancing rich-get-richer phenomenon. Even if everyone starts out equal, differences in investment luck will cause some people to start to accumulate more wealth than others. Those who are lucky will tend to invest more and so have a chance to make greater gains still. Hence, a string of positive returns builds a person's wealth not merely by addition but by multiplication, as each subsequent gain grows ever bigger. This is enough, even in a world of equals where returns on investment are entirely random, to stir up huge wealth disparities in the population.

Disparities in wealth "happen." However, simply put, the poorest in the US are immesurably better off that the wealthy in many parts of the world, and astoundingly better off than people were 200 years ago. George Washington, one of the wealthiest folks in the US, had dentures that were far worse than what a poor person gets at a free clinic. Nobody has to empty chamber pots anymore because the wealth that has been created has been distributed all the way down the chain.

Attempts to force equality, such as specific pay ratios or limits on golden parachutes will simply cause the most talented, the most productive, and those with the greatest luck, to take themselves, their businesses (and the jobs associated with them), their wealth, and their ideas in search of locations that offer greater freedom. People rebel when you take away their freedom and they vote with their feet.

Take a good look at Detroit. That is the result of the government's attempt to make everyone equal (along with some corrupt government leaders). It represents the triumph of central planning.

Simply put, Detroit cannot attract any businesses back to the city.

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

You ***** and moan about the unequal distribution of wealth. This is how the globalists see it:

You, my friend, are receiving and enjoying way more wealth and prosperity than it your due. So, while you are complaining about the wealthy in the US enjoying too much, the rest of the world sees you at the top 1% of the wealthy, enjoying too much.

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/2906.html


Disparities in wealth "happen." However, simply put, the poorest in the US are immesurably better off that the wealthy in many parts of the world, and astoundingly better off than people were 200 years ago. George Washington, one of the wealthiest folks in the US, had dentures that were far worse than what a poor person gets at a free clinic. Nobody has to empty chamber pots anymore because the wealth that has been created has been distributed all the way down the chain.

Attempts to force equality, such as specific pay ratios or limits on golden parachutes will simply cause the most talented, the most productive, and those with the greatest luck, to take themselves, their businesses (and the jobs associated with them), their wealth, and their ideas in search of locations that offer greater freedom. People rebel when you take away their freedom and they vote with their feet.

Take a good look at Detroit. That is the result of the government's attempt to make everyone equal (along with some corrupt government leaders). It represents the triumph of central planning.

Simply put, Detroit cannot attract any businesses back to the city.

I notice that Western Europe is also on your map of the most fortunate but many of your ilk wouldn't be caught dead lving there.

And as for the comment about the most talented, etc. Holy crap dude, where do I start. Yeah, maybe for about 1% of these people that might be true. For the rest, it's sheer, clawing greed mixed with a liberal dose of cronyism that propels them.

Yeah, you're a real advocate of socio-economic stability.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

I notice that Western Europe is also on your map of the most fortunate but many of your ilk wouldn't be caught dead lving there.

And as for the comment about the most talented, etc. Holy crap dude, where do I start. Yeah, maybe for about 1% of these people that might be true. For the rest, it's sheer, clawing greed mixed with a liberal dose of cronyism that propels them.

Yeah, you're a real advocate of socio-economic stability.

Many of my ilk wouldn't want to live in Western Europe for the same reason that we don't want to have our freedoms here in the US further eroded. Western Europe is full of places where people are subjects, not citizens. Subjects in the UK are, of course, effectively forbidden the right to keep and bear arms; as a result, the violent crime rate is 4 times higher than it is in the US. There is a move there to restrict edged weapons, making them even more helpless against the criminal class who ignore such silly laws. There are many areas of the EU where freedom of speech is limited (better not offend Islam). How many people have escaped from the UK because of their high taxes there? I'll bet you can name a few "artists" who have left and stated that the reasons that they left.

Are there greedy people who take advantage of the system here? Of course. I am simply arguing that the cure you propose is actually worse than the disease. The US is the "land of opportunity" or at least it used to be. Did you see the photo of the styrofoam boat that arrived from the people's land of equality? I have given you a number of examples of people who have "made it" here because of talent, hard work, and determination. I work with a guy who's grandfather came here from East Germany, leaving everything behind. They couldn't take any of their savings because a withdrawal from the bank would tip off the secret police that they might be planning on leaving. He was 50 years old, didn't speak a word of english, and no one would hire him in the plating industry because of his age and lack of language skills.

So he swept floors at Kingsbury Hall and started electroplating in his basement in a two gallon fish tank. Fifty plus years later, that business provides employment for 20-30 people and provides a comfortable living for the owners (who happen to work longer hours than anyone else at the business).

It used to be that people here would look at the wealthy and say "yeah; I could be there, too." But you try and convince them "there is no way from here to there for you." That is what is feeding social instability; coveting by those who see the wealth of others, and want to take a short cut to getting part of that wealth. You know that going to a rich guy and demanding his wallet is both immoral and illegal, but doing the same thing having the government acting as your proxy is what you are promoting.

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

Many of my ilk wouldn't want to live in Western Europe for the same reason that we don't want to have our freedoms here in the US further eroded. Western Europe is full of places where people are subjects, not citizens. Subjects in the UK are, of course, effectively forbidden the right to keep and bear arms; as a result, the violent crime rate is 4 times higher than it is in the US. There is a move there to restrict edged weapons, making them even more helpless against the criminal class who ignore such silly laws. There are many areas of the EU where freedom of speech is limited (better not offend Islam). How many people have escaped from the UK because of their high taxes there? I'll bet you can name a few "artists" who have left and stated that the reasons that they left.

Are there greedy people who take advantage of the system here? Of course. I am simply arguing that the cure you propose is actually worse than the disease. The US is the "land of opportunity" or at least it used to be. Did you see the photo of the styrofoam boat that arrived from the people's land of equality? I have given you a number of examples of people who have "made it" here because of talent, hard work, and determination. I work with a guy who's grandfather came here from East Germany, leaving everything behind. They couldn't take any of their savings because a withdrawal from the bank would tip off the secret police that they might be planning on leaving. He was 50 years old, didn't speak a word of english, and no one would hire him in the plating industry because of his age and lack of language skills.

So he swept floors at Kingsbury Hall and started electroplating in his basement in a two gallon fish tank. Fifty plus years later, that business provides employment for 20-30 people and provides a comfortable living for the owners (who happen to work longer hours than anyone else at the business).

It used to be that people here would look at the wealthy and say "yeah; I could be there, too." But you try and convince them "there is no way from here to there for you." That is what is feeding social instability; coveting by those who see the wealth of others, and want to take a short cut to getting part of that wealth. You know that going to a rich guy and demanding his wallet is both immoral and illegal, but doing the same thing having the government acting as your proxy is what you are promoting.

Your impressions of Europe are laughable but since you'll probably never visit there in person, they'll no doubt persist.

My point is and always has been that the people at the top need to stop shutting out the people who actually keep things running. They seem wont to do that of their own accord so I think that people need to wake up to what's happening. I think it's funny that you see no immorality in the games that are played here.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

Your impressions of Europe are laughable but since you'll probably never visit there in person, they'll no doubt persist.

I lived in Finland for two years. I've visited London. My wife lived in Scotland (and Japan). I'm not exactly the hayseed you take me for.

My point is and always has been that the people at the top need to stop shutting out the people who actually keep things running. They seem wont to do that of their own accord so I think that people need to wake up to what's happening. I think it's funny that you see no immorality in the games that are played here.

Of course it is immoral. Do you remember the phrase "you can't legislate morality?" It is still true; you can't legislate morality.

Successful businesses are run by management that appreciate and listen to those who actually run things. They are the businesses that don't have a bunch of high priced drones on their payrolls. Look at Ford Motor Company, versus General Motors. Who had more high priced drones on their staffs? Who ignored those who actually run things and actually made a difference?

Who went out of business? Who, today, doesn't have enough business sense to get rid of those who lead the company down the road of failure?

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

Of course it is immoral. Do you remember the phrase "you can't legislate morality?" It is still true; you can't legislate morality.

Successful businesses are run by management that appreciate and listen to those who actually run things. They are the businesses that don't have a bunch of high priced drones on their payrolls. Look at Ford Motor Company, versus General Motors. Who had more high priced drones on their staffs? Who ignored those who actually run things and actually made a difference?

Who went out of business? Who, today, doesn't have enough business sense to get rid of those who lead the company down the road of failure?

I think where you lose me is in your belief that the system will somehow right itself. The guys who get the golden parachutes for their incompetence don't care if the company goes under. They've got theirs. You seem to think that the large corporations that are treated like important 'persons' will feel the pain of failure. They don't. It's the people in the trenches that do.

And as far as legislating morality goes, crimes of various forms and their punishment are an expression of that goal.

[JWeeks]

Originally Posted by JoeNormal

I think where you lose me is in your belief that the system will somehow right itself. The guys who get the golden parachutes for their incompetence don't care if the company goes under. They've got theirs. You seem to think that the large corporations that are treated like important 'persons' will feel the pain of failure. They don't. It's the people in the trenches that do.

John Adams stated:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


We have really two alternatives. We can try and make the citizens a "moral and religious" people, or we can try and pass enough regulations to compensate for the fact that many aren't (in other words, attempt to regulate morality).

Your big issue is greed. I understand that. One can envision all sorts of regulation to try and keep people from being greedy (or letting their greed get out of control). I've tried to point out the downsides of that.

Let's take another moral issue; sloth. In any society, there will be a significant percentage of people who simply don't want to work, and the bigger the government safety net that you are so fond of, the greater this net. These people will push for a shorter work week, for lower ages for retirement, etc., living off the work of others. In that great workers' paradise, they passed laws mandating that everyone works. Of course, they can't mandate that people work efficiently, thus widespread hunger, shortages and misery. In the "moral people" view, you aren't forced to work, and those who can't work are voluntarily taken care of by those who can, but ultimately it is up to your mom to decide that you are simply a free-loader and kick you out of the basement.

Another very important moral issue is "immorality," aka, adultery, fornication, etc. As you know, 40% of children currently are born to single mothers. Single parenthood is directly related to poverty, crime, educational difficulties, more single parenthood, etc. We would be doing our kids an enormous favor to decrease the number of single parents.

The big government approach to stopping immorality would consist of huge intrusions into your privacy as well as your right to freely associate with others. But it would certainly be "for the public good."

So, the only ways to right our society is with converting them back to being a "moral and religious" people, or by big brother coming in and compensating for the fact that we have strayed from being a religious and moral people. The problem with the big brother approach is that big brother never knows when to stop. It isn't enough to try and stamp out greed. We have seen that the government is more than happy to control what you eat and drink (the government is certainly trying to stop you from smoking). There is likewise no limit on how much of your income big brother is willing to take (and just because you don't fit the current target group of those making more than 250k per year, don't think that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts won't affect your bottom line. Obama's committee will report in December that you, too, will need to pay more taxes...maybe a VAT tax).

I'm pushing for the conversion to a moral and religious alternative (with the understanding that you can still just say no and close the door).

Now, as to your question, will the wall street fat cats or other execs feel the pain of failure? Of course not. Life isn't fair. It isn't just. Mitt Romney will likely never have to worry about where his next McDonald's quarter pounder meal is coming from. I'm not 6'10" with great moves and can't dunk a ball, either. Kids die of cancer every year.

All attempts to make life fair simply result in shared misery. North Korea has a society that, from what I understand, is all pretty equal (except for the leaders).

And as far as legislating morality goes, crimes of various forms and their punishment are an expression of that goal.

Just between us, we should have laws that concern infringing on the rights of others. If an act doesn't infringe on the rights of others, then it probably shouldn't be against the law, and certainly not against federal law. I'm willing to let states regulate much more of my life than I am the federal government, since that was the intent of our founders and because I can vote with my feet.

[JoeNormal]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

John Adams stated:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”


We have really two alternatives. We can try and make the citizens a "moral and religious" people, or we can try and pass enough regulations to compensate for the fact that many aren't (in other words, attempt to regulate morality).

Your big issue is greed. I understand that. One can envision all sorts of regulation to try and keep people from being greedy (or letting their greed get out of control). I've tried to point out the downsides of that.

Let's take another moral issue; sloth. In any society, there will be a significant percentage of people who simply don't want to work, and the bigger the government safety net that you are so fond of, the greater this net. These people will push for a shorter work week, for lower ages for retirement, etc., living off the work of others. In that great workers' paradise, they passed laws mandating that everyone works. Of course, they can't mandate that people work efficiently, thus widespread hunger, shortages and misery. In the "moral people" view, you aren't forced to work, and those who can't work are voluntarily taken care of by those who can, but ultimately it is up to your mom to decide that you are simply a free-loader and kick you out of the basement.

Another very important moral issue is "immorality," aka, adultery, fornication, etc. As you know, 40% of children currently are born to single mothers. Single parenthood is directly related to poverty, crime, educational difficulties, more single parenthood, etc. We would be doing our kids an enormous favor to decrease the number of single parents.

The big government approach to stopping immorality would consist of huge intrusions into your privacy as well as your right to freely associate with others. But it would certainly be "for the public good."

So, the only ways to right our society is with converting them back to being a "moral and religious" people, or by big brother coming in and compensating for the fact that we have strayed from being a religious and moral people. The problem with the big brother approach is that big brother never knows when to stop. It isn't enough to try and stamp out greed. We have seen that the government is more than happy to control what you eat and drink (the government is certainly trying to stop you from smoking). There is likewise no limit on how much of your income big brother is willing to take (and just because you don't fit the current target group of those making more than 250k per year, don't think that the expiration of the Bush tax cuts won't affect your bottom line. Obama's committee will report in December that you, too, will need to pay more taxes...maybe a VAT tax).

I'm pushing for the conversion to a moral and religious alternative (with the understanding that you can still just say no and close the door).

Now, as to your question, will the wall street fat cats or other execs feel the pain of failure? Of course not. Life isn't fair. It isn't just. Mitt Romney will likely never have to worry about where his next McDonald's quarter pounder meal is coming from. I'm not 6'10" with great moves and can't dunk a ball, either. Kids die of cancer every year.

All attempts to make life fair simply result in shared misery. North Korea has a society that, from what I understand, is all pretty equal (except for the leaders).



Just between us, we should have laws that concern infringing on the rights of others. If an act doesn't infringe on the rights of others, then it probably shouldn't be against the law, and certainly not against federal law. I'm willing to let states regulate much more of my life than I am the federal government, since that was the intent of our founders and because I can vote with my feet.

If the constitution is inadequate for immoral people, we'd better just chuck it. The pooch has already been screwed.

Your fears of sloth and immorality being fostered by a more egalitarian approach however are unfounded. I think you probably already know this and just want to frame yet another argument in terms of black and white but here are some issues to cogitate on.

Industrial output is larger in the EU
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...or_composition


Education System is better in EU than USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program...ssment#Results


Homicides in the USA are more frequent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States


EU has a greater buying power than the USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._GDP_%28PPP%29


Somehow, their efforts to provide greater equality have given them tangible benefits.

[nowar]

Originally Posted by JWeeks

Now we find out where some of the cash went to from Goldman Sachs.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...out-cash_N.htm
Goldman reveals where bailout cash went

By Karen Mracek and Thomas Beaumont, Des Moines Register
[url="http://content.usatoday.com/topics/topic/Organizations/Companies/Banking,+Financial,+Insurance,+Law/Goldman+Sachs"]




"At his "discretion," this tax cheat stole $85 billion of our money and passed it out among his friends both here and abroad.


Our country is ruled by criminals who are systematically looting it into bankruptcy. When the economy inevitably collapses, their cronies in the media will blame it all on the capitalist system that made America rich, but that progressives have corrupted beyond recognition."

And we are attacking people in Afghanistan...?
WTF???