Please be advised the US recession is over and we can all talk
about something else.

http://topnews.us/content/215341-25-...n-overall-2009
snip
As per the statistics, the 25 best-paid hedge fund managers
earned a record $25.3 billion overall last year – topping the
2007 all-time record high of $22.3 billion payouts; and marking a
two-fold increase in the payouts the managers received in 2008,
when most of the leading hedge funds reported heavy losses due to
the financial crisis.
snip
Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On 2010-04-04, F George McDuffee wrote:
Please be advised the US recession is over and we can all talk
about something else.

http://topnews.us/content/215341-25-...n-overall-2009
snip
As per the statistics, the 25 best-paid hedge fund managers
earned a record $25.3 billion overall last year ? topping the
2007 all-time record high of $22.3 billion payouts; and marking a
two-fold increase in the payouts the managers received in 2008,
when most of the leading hedge funds reported heavy losses due to
the financial crisis.

Not too surprising, considering that the stock market, bonds and
commodities all rallied in 2009, and the managers are paid 20% for all
gains (and 2% for losses). I personally would never invest on such
terms, but that is just me.

i

On 4/4/2010 10:08 AM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
Please be advised the US recession is over and we can all talk
about something else.

http://topnews.us/content/215341-25-...n-overall-2009
snip
As per the statistics, the 25 best-paid hedge fund managers
earned a record $25.3 billion overall last year – topping the
2007 all-time record high of $22.3 billion payouts; and marking a
two-fold increase in the payouts the managers received in 2008,
when most of the leading hedge funds reported heavy losses due to
the financial crisis.
snip
Unka George (George McDuffee)


After learning about the kind of money these people made I think there
is a real good argument for the reinstatement of the WWII era 90% tax
rate. I saw where one of these guys made 4 billion himself, for one
year. How bad would it be for him to have to get by on only 10% of that
after taxes? What is that, 400 million? Poor guy, how can he be expected
to get by on that?

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snip

After learning about the kind of money these people made I think there is
a real good argument for the reinstatement of the WWII era 90% tax rate. I
saw where one of these guys made 4 billion himself, for one year. How bad
would it be for him to have to get by on only 10% of that after taxes?
What is that, 400 million? Poor guy, how can he be expected to get by on
that?

Hawke

Nobody deserves more than you make!

On 4/4/2010 9:09 PM, Buerste wrote:
wrote in message
...
snip

After learning about the kind of money these people made I think there is
a real good argument for the reinstatement of the WWII era 90% tax rate. I
saw where one of these guys made 4 billion himself, for one year. How bad
would it be for him to have to get by on only 10% of that after taxes?
What is that, 400 million? Poor guy, how can he be expected to get by on
that?

Hawke

Nobody deserves more than you make!




Does anyone actually deserve 400 million dollars? What's the point of
having that kind of money in the first place? Once you have all the
necessities of life covered everything else is just for useless luxuries
and doesn't do anything for you. Might as well let the government take
that surplus and use it for the common good. I would be glad to give up
that money if I were in his shoes. That's better than having one person
just buy himself more houses, cars, jewelry, and other crap rich people
buy because they have nothing better to do with their time.

Hawke

Ignoramus31024 wrote:

Not too surprising, considering that the stock market, bonds and
commodities all rallied in 2009, and the managers are paid 20% for all
gains (and 2% for losses). I personally would never invest on such
terms, but that is just me.

2% on losses? That is insane. One could make good money on a big loss.

Wes

On 2010-04-05, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus31024 wrote:

Not too surprising, considering that the stock market, bonds and
commodities all rallied in 2009, and the managers are paid 20% for all
gains (and 2% for losses). I personally would never invest on such
terms, but that is just me.

2% on losses? That is insane. One could make good money on a big loss.


I agree with you completely.

I would never invest into a hedge fun on such terms.

i

On Apr 5, 2:34*pm, Hawke wrote:


Does anyone actually deserve 400 million dollars? What's the point of
having that kind of money in the first place? Once you have all the
necessities of life covered everything else is just for useless luxuries
and doesn't do anything for you. Might as well let the government take
that surplus and use it for the common good. I would be glad to give up
that money if I were in his shoes. That's better than having one person
just buy himself more houses, cars, jewelry, and other crap rich people
buy because they have nothing better to do with their time.

Hawke

So you want to take 400 million out of the economy and put out of work
all the carpenters, gardeners, architects, yacht builders, etc. And
then maybe have the government spend 400 million to stimulate the
economy.

Dan

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
snip
Does anyone actually deserve 400 million dollars? What's the point of
having that kind of money in the first place? Once you have all the
necessities of life covered everything else is just for useless luxuries
and doesn't do anything for you. Might as well let the government take
that surplus and use it for the common good. I would be glad to give up
that money if I were in his shoes. That's better than having one person
just buy himself more houses, cars, jewelry, and other crap rich people
buy because they have nothing better to do with their time.

Hawke

I've tried to explain it to you many times, you refuse to understand.
One-more-time:

People with money put that money to work! That money puts people to work!
You want to dump it into the Government pit where there is no
accountability, no efficiency, no progress. Oh, and did I mention, no
accountability?

All the rich people I know don't live lavishly, spend carefully and demand
value for each and every cent. I know a couple of people that are
billionaires, one co-signed bank loans for me when I needed it 12 years ago
and are long since paid off. They invest in companies that hire people, buy
materials and create MORE wealth. The cycle continues. Each payroll dollar
circulates seven times in a community. Also, the more wealth someone has,
the more philanthropy they do.

Never mind, I know this is beyond your Neo-Socialist talking points that you
limit your thoughts to.



You ways don't create, just consume.

On 4/5/2010 6:19 PM, wrote:
On Apr 5, 2:34 pm, wrote:


Does anyone actually deserve 400 million dollars? What's the point of
having that kind of money in the first place? Once you have all the
necessities of life covered everything else is just for useless luxuries
and doesn't do anything for you. Might as well let the government take
that surplus and use it for the common good. I would be glad to give up
that money if I were in his shoes. That's better than having one person
just buy himself more houses, cars, jewelry, and other crap rich people
buy because they have nothing better to do with their time.

Hawke

So you want to take 400 million out of the economy and put out of work
all the carpenters, gardeners, architects, yacht builders, etc. And
then maybe have the government spend 400 million to stimulate the
economy.

Dan


No that's not what I would want. I don't know about you, but I think I
could spend the money better so that it would stimulate the economy and
improve the lives of lots of regular people rather than to have the rich
put people to work building luxuries for them. For example, what you
suggest is that having someone like Saddam Hussein build a whole lot of
palaces and blowing money on gambling, living it up, and buying
extravagances for himself, his family, and his friends would be money
better spent than having a responsible government put that money to work
for the common good. Is that right? Because I think not only me but
almost anyone could put better use of surplus money for the good of the
country than a few insanely rich people could just spending lavishly on
their own whims. I mean, what's money for when you already have
everything you could want? Beyond that point why not give it up for the
good of your country?

Hawke

On 4/5/2010 7:42 PM, Buerste wrote:
wrote in message
...
snip
Does anyone actually deserve 400 million dollars? What's the point of
having that kind of money in the first place? Once you have all the
necessities of life covered everything else is just for useless luxuries
and doesn't do anything for you. Might as well let the government take
that surplus and use it for the common good. I would be glad to give up
that money if I were in his shoes. That's better than having one person
just buy himself more houses, cars, jewelry, and other crap rich people
buy because they have nothing better to do with their time.

Hawke

I've tried to explain it to you many times, you refuse to understand.
One-more-time:

People with money put that money to work! That money puts people to work!
You want to dump it into the Government pit where there is no
accountability, no efficiency, no progress. Oh, and did I mention, no
accountability?

All the rich people I know don't live lavishly, spend carefully and demand
value for each and every cent. I know a couple of people that are
billionaires, one co-signed bank loans for me when I needed it 12 years ago
and are long since paid off. They invest in companies that hire people, buy
materials and create MORE wealth. The cycle continues. Each payroll dollar
circulates seven times in a community. Also, the more wealth someone has,
the more philanthropy they do.

Never mind, I know this is beyond your Neo-Socialist talking points that you
limit your thoughts to.



You ways don't create, just consume.




Your problem is that your beliefs just don't comport with reality. To
you having the rich own most of the country's wealth is a good thing
because they put the money to work by investing it and by spending it.
That sounds good but the reality is the money is not well spent when
only a small portion of the population has most of it. Look anywhere
around the world you want and when a country's wealth is held by a small
fraction of the people you don't have a good country. It has always been
an American value that a strong and financially well off middle class is
what made the country better than any other country in the world. Yet
conservative policies have allowed that to get out of whack. The small
group that is controlling most of the country's wealth is not putting it
to it's highest and best use. They now invest in other countries, not
ours. Their money goes anywhere the rate of return is the highest. So
your old fashioned views are not valid in this century. It's just like
charity. The theory is that all you need to do is let people contribute
voluntarily when the need arises and it will be sufficient to deal with
a problem. But look at something like Katrina. No way could voluntary
giving by the wealthy be enough to handle the problem. So government has
to do the job. Besides, it's a well known fact that overall the wealthy
are cheapskates and don't contribute jack **** to charities. I seem to
remember that the average rate for charitable contributions by the rich
is about 1%. So maybe it's time for you to quit reciting fairy tales
from days of old and learn the facts for a change.

Hawke

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus31024 wrote:

Not too surprising, considering that the stock market, bonds and
commodities all rallied in 2009, and the managers are paid 20% for
all gains (and 2% for losses). I personally would never invest on
such terms, but that is just me.

2% on losses? That is insane. One could make good money on a big
loss.


Here is another gimmick.

An investor ( a big one like Citi ) wishes to purchase $1M in Mortgage Bonds
yielding 4.5%. This would provide $45,000 as an annual return. In order to
make the purchase, the investor puts up only 10% of $1M, or $100,000 in
cash - and borrows the other $900,000 at the Fed Funds Rate + 2%, for
example - which would be a borrowing cost of 2.25% or $20,250. This investor
receives a $45,000 return, but subtracts a $20,250 cost to borrow $900,000 -
leaving them with a net return of $24,750. Remember, the investor needed
only to invest 10% of the $1M purchase - or $100,000 in cash. This gives the
investor a whopping 24.75% return on their investment in a boring little old
Mortgage Bond. And of course, this "carry trade" can be used in other
securities as well.

--
John R. Carroll

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:16:55 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

Does anyone actually deserve 400 million dollars? What's the point of
having that kind of money in the first place? Once you have all the
necessities of life covered everything else is just for useless luxuries
and doesn't do anything for you. Might as well let the government take
that surplus and use it for the common good. I would be glad to give up
that money if I were in his shoes. That's better than having one person
just buy himself more houses, cars, jewelry, and other crap rich people
buy because they have nothing better to do with their time.

Hawke

So you want to take 400 million out of the economy and put out of work
all the carpenters, gardeners, architects, yacht builders, etc. And
then maybe have the government spend 400 million to stimulate the
economy.

Dan


No that's not what I would want. I don't know about you, but I think I
could spend the money better so that it would stimulate the economy and
improve the lives of lots of regular people rather than to have the rich
put people to work building luxuries for them. For example, what you
suggest is that having someone like Saddam Hussein build a whole lot of
palaces and blowing money on gambling, living it up, and buying
extravagances for himself, his family, and his friends would be money
better spent than having a responsible government put that money to work
for the common good. Is that right? Because I think not only me but
almost anyone could put better use of surplus money for the good of the
country than a few insanely rich people could just spending lavishly on
their own whims. I mean, what's money for when you already have
everything you could want? Beyond that point why not give it up for the
good of your country?

Hawke
===========
There are several reasons why a gross difference in the
distribution of wealth/income is not good.

One of the most troubling is that historically when wealth/income
becomes concentrated, serious economic/social disruptions occur.
From the available records it appears that just before every
major economic crash the income/wealth had become concentrated.
FWIW the concentration of U.S. wealth/income as measured by the
GINI coefficient/index is higher now than it was just before the
29-33 depression.

Another serious problem is the difference in perception of
life/reality between the small (monied) elite and the majority.
This results in working at cross purposes and political
stalemate.

For a discussion of this point see
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...VhbHRoZm9ydGhl
snip
Between 1960 to 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers have
seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop
from 60 to 33.6 percent. The top 400 income-earners have seen the
share of their income they pay in federal income tax alone
plummet from 51.2 percent in 1955 to 16.6 percent in 2007.

In 2007, if the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers had paid total
federal taxes at the same rate as they paid in 1960, the federal
treasury would have collected an additional $281.2 billion. If
the top 400 had paid the same rate as it did in 1955 it would
have meant an additional $47.7 billion in revenue. (The incomes
of the top 400 have multiplied by 27 times--adjusted for
inflation--since 1955, yet back then they paid over three times
more of their incomes in federal income tax.)

Meanwhile, the middle class has seen their taxes increase. The
report lays out that, "Despite all the 'tax cut' political
rhetoric and action of recent years, average Americans have seen
no tax savings at the federal level."

Taxpayers in the middle--who made more than the bottom 40 percent
but less than the top 40 percent--saw an increase in their taxes,
paying 15.9 percent of their incomes in total federal taxes in
1960 and 16.1 percent in 2004. Adding insult to injury, "Our
children and grandchildren... will be asked to pay back, with
interest, the trillions our federal government has been borrowing
to offset our loss of tax revenue from wealthy taxpayers."
snip.
==What's really shocking is we can't even manage Tax Reform
101--to tax the hedge fund managers like we do normal working
people. They pay a stunning 15 percent on their billions--a lower
rate than teachers, cops, even their own assistants! (see here,
here, and here.) And a 2008 GAO report found that two-thirds of
US corporations paid zero federal income taxes from 1998-2005.
Twenty-five percent of the largest US corporations had $1.1
trillion in gross sales in 2005 but paid no federal income
taxes.== {emphasis added}
snip


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:28:19 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

snip
you having the rich own most of the country's wealth is a good thing
because they put the money to work by investing it and by spending it.
That sounds good but the reality is the money is not well spent when
only a small portion of the population has most of it.
snip

As indicated in another thread, one widely accepted measure of
the distribution of wealth the GINI coefficient. Historically
the GINI has peaked [larger disparity of wealth/income] just
before every major U.S. economic contraction. While it is not
clear if this is a causal or predictive factor, it is still a
matter of concern in that the GINI is *HIGHER* now than it was in
1929 just prior to the great depression.

Another problem is the meaning of the word "investment." To be
sure, from the perspective of the buyer, when they purchase
stocks, bonds, and futures contracts, generally on the secondary
market, it is an "investment" in the sense they expect to realize
a profit. "Investment" in this narrow sense is a "zero sum game,"
where one "investors" gains are another persons losses, either
another investor, company employees [when the business is off
shored], consumers, etc. In the larger aggregate sense this is
*NOT* an investment in the sense that no new production
facilities, new/cheaper products, employment opportunities,
expanded tax base, etc. were created.

FWIW -- it would appear that the income derived from "narrow"
investments, should be taxed at a *HIGHER* rate than that for
earned income [25-35%] as these are extractive/nonproductive,
with the special 15% capital gains tax rates reserved for profits
gained by "real" investments that expands the total aggregate
wealth rather than just shuffling money around, with much of it
skimmed off the top (and "lost").


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

Hawke wrote:


Does anyone actually deserve 400 million dollars? What's the point of
having that kind of money in the first place? Once you have all the
necessities of life covered everything else is just for useless luxuries
and doesn't do anything for you. Might as well let the government take
that surplus and use it for the common good. I would be glad to give up
that money if I were in his shoes. That's better than having one person
just buy himself more houses, cars, jewelry, and other crap rich people
buy because they have nothing better to do with their time.


WHile I sort of agree,
One man's luxuries is another mans necessity.
By many standards, you having a computer and internet access is a
luxury, not a basic necessity, and yet you haven't given it away. In a
similar fashion, I am sure he "needs" everything he has.

[THe flip side of expenses always rising to meet or exceed income]


jk

===========
There are several reasons why a gross difference in the
distribution of wealth/income is not good.

One of the most troubling is that historically when wealth/income
becomes concentrated, serious economic/social disruptions occur.
From the available records it appears that just before every
major economic crash the income/wealth had become concentrated.
FWIW the concentration of U.S. wealth/income as measured by the
GINI coefficient/index is higher now than it was just before the
29-33 depression.

Another serious problem is the difference in perception of
life/reality between the small (monied) elite and the majority.
This results in working at cross purposes and political
stalemate.


snip
Between 1960 to 2004, the top 0.1 percent of U.S. taxpayers have
seen the share of their income paid in total federal taxes drop
from 60 to 33.6 percent. The top 400 income-earners have seen the
share of their income they pay in federal income tax alone
plummet from 51.2 percent in 1955 to 16.6 percent in 2007.

In 2007, if the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers had paid total
federal taxes at the same rate as they paid in 1960, the federal
treasury would have collected an additional $281.2 billion. If
the top 400 had paid the same rate as it did in 1955 it would
have meant an additional $47.7 billion in revenue. (The incomes
of the top 400 have multiplied by 27 times--adjusted for
inflation--since 1955, yet back then they paid over three times
more of their incomes in federal income tax.)

Meanwhile, the middle class has seen their taxes increase. The
report lays out that, "Despite all the 'tax cut' political
rhetoric and action of recent years, average Americans have seen
no tax savings at the federal level."

Taxpayers in the middle--who made more than the bottom 40 percent
but less than the top 40 percent--saw an increase in their taxes,
paying 15.9 percent of their incomes in total federal taxes in
1960 and 16.1 percent in 2004. Adding insult to injury, "Our
children and grandchildren... will be asked to pay back, with
interest, the trillions our federal government has been borrowing
to offset our loss of tax revenue from wealthy taxpayers."
snip.
==What's really shocking is we can't even manage Tax Reform
101--to tax the hedge fund managers like we do normal working
people. They pay a stunning 15 percent on their billions--a lower
rate than teachers, cops, even their own assistants! (see here,
here, and here.) And a 2008 GAO report found that two-thirds of
US corporations paid zero federal income taxes from 1998-2005.
Twenty-five percent of the largest US corporations had $1.1
trillion in gross sales in 2005 but paid no federal income
taxes.== {emphasis added}
snip


Unka George (George McDuffee)

Thanks a lot of those figures, George. I've been telling people for
years what your figures just showed, which is that there has been a
tremendous redistribution of wealth in this country from the middle
class to the rich. The problem I have is that when I tell that to a
conservative they simply refuse to believe it and demand citations,
which I never have at my fingertips. But the facts are the facts. The
disparity in wealth distribution has only been as bad as now twice; in
1929 and in the gilded era of the 1890s. As you know, both of those
ended badly. If you know history, it was clear that we were heading for
a similar iceberg in the first decade of the 21st century. You will also
notice that each time this has happened it has followed a period of rule
by laissez-faire republican administrations, which we had again with the
Bush administration. You didn't have to be a genius to see what was
coming. But you couldn't be a republican either because they never admit
their policies are what lead to the crashes and the wealth disparities.

So now we have Obama and he's talking about spreading the wealth. Which
is code for redistributing the country's income back down from the few
to the many. You can see how that is going over with the republican
party and the conservatives. Health care for everyone is the first step.
Now we'll see how successful he is at the next steps. All we can do is
hope because if we don't get the wealth back into the hands of the
middle class the country is done for. All you have to do is look at
Mexico to see what a country with a small elite owning all the wealth
and the masses all being poor looks like. That's the direction the U.S.
has been heading. If Obama can't get us off the path the republicans put
us on the next financial crisis we have will make the last one look tame
in comparison. Maybe it is time to get that gold after all.

Hawke

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:16 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

snip
Thanks for the kind words.
snip
Maybe it is time to get that gold after all.
snip
Lead makes better bullets...

It is strange that the people with the most to lose, i.e. the
banksters, broksters, speculators, are the ones most prone to
play with fire, using the taxpayers' money.

One example is the run-up in speculative oil prices with a global
production glut.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/8604680.stm
And the oil companies are attempting to justify falling profits
because the price of oil is tanking...

Gunner's "great cull" just keeps getting nearer.

We came within, not an ace, but a trey or four, of having a
revolution as a result of the 1929-33 stock market crash and
financial collapse [two related but separate events].


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:30:28 -0500, the infamous F. George McDuffee
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:16 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

snip
Thanks for the kind words.
snip
Maybe it is time to get that gold after all.
snip
Lead makes better bullets...

Gold is hoarded, lead is freely shared; given to the bad guys one
round at a time.


It is strange that the people with the most to lose, i.e. the
banksters, broksters, speculators, are the ones most prone to
play with fire, using the taxpayers' money.

And they should lose more, personally, as a result. Instead, the guy
who caused the trouble, or at least who should have caught it early
and headed it off, is put up as the Czar of Banking.


One example is the run-up in speculative oil prices with a global
production glut.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/business/8604680.stm
And the oil companies are attempting to justify falling profits
because the price of oil is tanking...

Premium is running $3.09.9/gal this week, during this glut. That
refinery explosion was just a bit -too- timely for the industry,
wasn't it? But will heads roll? Don't bank on it.


Gunner's "great cull" just keeps getting nearer.

....as the righteous get more impatient.


We came within, not an ace, but a trey or four, of having a
revolution as a result of the 1929-33 stock market crash and
financial collapse [two related but separate events].

Time to reboot America?

--
Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace
will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will
blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy,
while cares will drop away from you like the leaves of Autumn.
-- John Muir

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 06:46:02 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 01:30:28 -0500, the infamous F. George McDuffee
scrawled the following:

On Thu, 08 Apr 2010 21:57:16 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

snip
Thanks for the kind words.
snip
Maybe it is time to get that gold after all.
snip
Lead makes better bullets...

Gold is hoarded, lead is freely shared; given to the bad guys one
round at a time.
snip
==========
Another warning from the BIS [Bank for International Settlement].
Sovereign debt [including the U.S.] is at or very near the limit
[before the ship hits the sand]. Unfortunately, government
deficits are still required for economic stimulation and even
sustenance of increasing segments of the population, e.g. food
stamps.

WHAT'S A MOTHER TO DO?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...ttlements.html
The Bank for International Settlements does not mince words.
Sovereign debt is already starting to cross the danger threshold
in the United States, Japan, Britain, and most of Western Europe,
threatening to set off a bond crisis at the heart of the global
economy.
snip
"The aftermath of the financial crisis is poised to bring a
simmering fiscal problem in industrial economies to the boiling
point", said the Swiss-based bank for central bankers -- the
oldest and most venerable of the world's financial watchdogs.
Drastic austerity measures will be needed to head off a compound
interest spiral, if it is not already too late for some.
snip
Official debt figures in the West are "very misleading" since
they fail to take in account the contingent liabilities and
pension debts that have mushroomed over recent years. "Rapidly
ageing populations present a number of countries with the
prospect of enormous future costs that are not wholly recognised
in current budget projections. The size of these future
obligations is anybody's guess," said the report. The BIS
lamented the lack of any systematic data on the scale of unfunded
IOUs that care-free politicians have handed out like confetti.
snip

Be sure and at least scan the reader comments.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).