Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell met with hedge fund managers last
week to work out a deal where they would give the republicans big
donations and in return the republicans would stop any reforms of the
banking industry.

It was announced later in the week that all 41 republican senators would
oppose the banking reform bill and would filibuster to stop it.

So there you have it. What is wrong with America. Wealthy corporate
interests are able to tell the congress what they want and they get it,
and venal congressmen, republicans in this case, are willing to do
anything they are paid to do. So much for our "democracy".

Hawke

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:57:44 -0700, Hawke
wrote:


Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell met with hedge fund managers last
week to work out a deal where they would give the republicans big
donations and in return the republicans would stop any reforms of the
banking industry.

It was announced later in the week that all 41 republican senators would
oppose the banking reform bill and would filibuster to stop it.

So there you have it. What is wrong with America. Wealthy corporate
interests are able to tell the congress what they want and they get it,
and venal congressmen, republicans in this case, are willing to do
anything they are paid to do. So much for our "democracy".

Hawke
============

Most unfortunately this does not appear to be solely due to the
elected personalities/individuals, because if it were, a
replacement of a simple majority would "fix" the problem, i.e.
"throw the bums out."

Rather the entire system/structure of government is becoming
increasingly dysfunctional, which is not surprising, given the
extraordinarily intensive, extensive and rapid changes in the
domestic U.S. economy [globalization/deindustrialization] and
U.S. society/culture with minimal changes in the form, structure
and operation of government at all levels.

What was designed/developed for the governance of rural and small
town population has apparently reached it's limits of its
evolution or adaptability with the rise of a multi-cultural,
tetra-urban, polyglot, trans-national majority population.

The regulatory agencies are exhibiting the same inconsistent
behavior.
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/gol...k=MW_news_stmp
April 17, 2010, 5:14 p.m. EDT
Goldman warned of SEC suit 9 months ago: report
Investment bank could be exposed to a raft of private lawsuits
By Alistair Barr, Marke****ch
SAN FRANCISCO (Marke****ch) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was
warned nine months ago that Securities and Exchange Commission
staff wanted to bring a civil case against it, but the investment
bank didn't specifically disclose this to investors in regulatory
filings, Bloomberg News reported Saturday, citing unidentified
people it credited with direct knowledge of the communications.
snip

FWIW -- it appears that even if Goldman Sachs is put out of
business, their executives sentenced long prison terms, with
massive disgorgement of personal wealth, nothing will change
because the system that allowed/encouraged Goldman Sachs and many
other financial firms to flourish at the expense of the people
was not changed. When you always do what you've always done,
you'll always get what you always got. To paraphrase Winston
Churchill when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, about the
possibility of a successful surprise attack by the Imperial
German navy, "The goal of the Royal Navy is not to see they won't
do it, the goal of the Royal Navy is to see they *CAN'T* do it."


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 Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:11:05 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:
snip
Rather the entire system/structure of government is becoming
increasingly dysfunctional, which is not surprising, given the
extraordinarily intensive, extensive and rapid changes in the
domestic U.S. economy [globalization/deindustrialization] and
U.S. society/culture with minimal changes in the form, structure
and operation of government at all levels.

What was designed/developed for the governance of rural and small
town population has apparently reached it's limits of its
evolution or adaptability with the rise of a multi-cultural,
tetra-urban, polyglot, trans-national majority population.

The regulatory agencies are exhibiting the same inconsistent
behavior.
snip
==========
And another zinger....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000..._sections_news
http://topnews.us/content/217179-ots...on-mutual-case
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/bu...html?src=busln
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/key...k=MW_news_stmp
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_Most_Popular



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 4/17/2010 4:11 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:57:44 -0700, Hawke
wrote:


Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell met with hedge fund managers last
week to work out a deal where they would give the republicans big
donations and in return the republicans would stop any reforms of the
banking industry.

It was announced later in the week that all 41 republican senators would
oppose the banking reform bill and would filibuster to stop it.

So there you have it. What is wrong with America. Wealthy corporate
interests are able to tell the congress what they want and they get it,
and venal congressmen, republicans in this case, are willing to do
anything they are paid to do. So much for our "democracy".

Hawke
============

Most unfortunately this does not appear to be solely due to the
elected personalities/individuals, because if it were, a
replacement of a simple majority would "fix" the problem, i.e.
"throw the bums out."

Rather the entire system/structure of government is becoming
increasingly dysfunctional, which is not surprising, given the
extraordinarily intensive, extensive and rapid changes in the
domestic U.S. economy [globalization/deindustrialization] and
U.S. society/culture with minimal changes in the form, structure
and operation of government at all levels.

What was designed/developed for the governance of rural and small
town population has apparently reached it's limits of its
evolution or adaptability with the rise of a multi-cultural,
tetra-urban, polyglot, trans-national majority population.

The regulatory agencies are exhibiting the same inconsistent
behavior.
http://www.marke****ch.com/story/gol...k=MW_news_stmp
April 17, 2010, 5:14 p.m. EDT
Goldman warned of SEC suit 9 months ago: report
Investment bank could be exposed to a raft of private lawsuits
By Alistair Barr, Marke****ch
SAN FRANCISCO (Marke****ch) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. was
warned nine months ago that Securities and Exchange Commission
staff wanted to bring a civil case against it, but the investment
bank didn't specifically disclose this to investors in regulatory
filings, Bloomberg News reported Saturday, citing unidentified
people it credited with direct knowledge of the communications.
snip

FWIW -- it appears that even if Goldman Sachs is put out of
business, their executives sentenced long prison terms, with
massive disgorgement of personal wealth, nothing will change
because the system that allowed/encouraged Goldman Sachs and many
other financial firms to flourish at the expense of the people
was not changed. When you always do what you've always done,
you'll always get what you always got. To paraphrase Winston
Churchill when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, about the
possibility of a successful surprise attack by the Imperial
German navy, "The goal of the Royal Navy is not to see they won't
do it, the goal of the Royal Navy is to see they *CAN'T* do it."


The simple answer to this clear cut corruption of the government is to
switch to a publicly financed election system. The funds the people in
congress get from these large corporations are almost exclusively in the
form of campaign contributions. You have to take the money out of the
equation. As long as they can get away with funneling money to the
politicians the system will remain one that is bought and paid for by
the special interests. Step one is to get that money out of the system.
The only way to do that is to publicly finance our elections. Until that
happens everything still remains the same. The question is will we ever
be able to eliminate the corrupt private financing of elections. Until
elections are funded by the public no other improvements can hope to
happen. Funny isn't it that you hear about going to the public financing
so infrequently? Do you think that's because both the members of
congress and the people with the money really, really, do like it just
the way it is now? Since they like it so much why does the public
continue to let them have it their way?

Hawke

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 18:11:05 -0500, the infamous F. George McDuffee
scrawled the following:

with the rise of a multi-cultural,
tetra-urban, polyglot, trans-national majority population.

Holy ****, Batman! I betcha can't say that 3 times really fast.

---
A book burrows into your life in a very profound way
because the experience of reading is not passive.
--Erica Jong

On 4/17/2010 4:11 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

(...)

FWIW -- it appears that even if Goldman Sachs is put out of
business, their executives sentenced long prison terms, with
massive disgorgement of personal wealth, nothing will change
because the system that allowed/encouraged Goldman Sachs and many
other financial firms to flourish at the expense of the people
was not changed.

If those three things were to happen, it would signal a
fundamental and earthshaking change in the system, yes?

Then Wall Street would likely demand a partial refund on
their purchase of D.C.

"It isn't broken and we want it FIXED!".



--Winston

On 4/19/2010 8:54 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/17/2010 4:11 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

(...)

FWIW -- it appears that even if Goldman Sachs is put out of
business, their executives sentenced long prison terms, with
massive disgorgement of personal wealth, nothing will change
because the system that allowed/encouraged Goldman Sachs and many
other financial firms to flourish at the expense of the people
was not changed.

If those three things were to happen, it would signal a
fundamental and earthshaking change in the system, yes?

It would signal that America had taken another step down the road to
becoming become just another banana republic.

Let's say that I sell you a product that I know is worthless
and will almost certainly cause you to lose a large amount
of time and money. Let's say that I game the system
so that the product appears to be well regarded and a good
value; I use that to convince you to buy.

Is that not fraud and theft in their purest form?
Why would that not be investigated and punished within
a financial system propped up by the appearance (if not the
actual presence) of honorable commerce?

Prosecution would be a step towards the 'rule of law', yes?

The financial system we have now is "ruled by a small, self-elected,
wealthy, and corrupt clique", is that not so?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_republic


--Winston

On 2010-04-19, Winston wrote:
Let's say that I sell you a product that I know is worthless
and will almost certainly cause you to lose a large amount
of time and money. Let's say that I game the system
so that the product appears to be well regarded and a good
value; I use that to convince you to buy.

Exactly.

Let's say that I sold you a lathe that was made of parts handpicked to
fail, greased with abrasive added to grease, pee instead of oil, etc.

Furthermore, assume that my client actually built this lathe so that
it will fail as early as possible, say to eliminate competition (just
to make this example more realistic).

I know that full well, sell you a lathe like that, and say "here's a
lathe, as far as I know it is great, it runs, but it is sold AS IS".

Then the lathe fails in 2 weeks.

Would I be a fraud? Yes. Would saying something like "but the buyer
considered hilself sophisticated", absolve me from responsibility?
No.

i

Winston wrote:
On 4/17/2010 4:11 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

(...)

FWIW -- it appears that even if Goldman Sachs is put out of
business, their executives sentenced long prison terms, with
massive disgorgement of personal wealth, nothing will change
because the system that allowed/encouraged Goldman Sachs and many
other financial firms to flourish at the expense of the people
was not changed.

If those three things were to happen, it would signal a
fundamental and earthshaking change in the system, yes?

It would signal that America had taken another step down the road to
becoming become just another banana republic.


--
John R. Carroll

Ignoramus9593 wrote:
On 2010-04-19, Winston wrote:
Let's say that I sell you a product that I know is worthless
and will almost certainly cause you to lose a large amount
of time and money. Let's say that I game the system
so that the product appears to be well regarded and a good
value; I use that to convince you to buy.

Exactly.

Let's say that I sold you a lathe that was made of parts handpicked to
fail, greased with abrasive added to grease, pee instead of oil, etc.

Furthermore, assume that my client actually built this lathe so that
it will fail as early as possible, say to eliminate competition (just
to make this example more realistic).

I know that full well, sell you a lathe like that, and say "here's a
lathe, as far as I know it is great, it runs, but it is sold AS IS".

Then the lathe fails in 2 weeks.

Would I be a fraud? Yes. Would saying something like "but the buyer
considered hilself sophisticated", absolve me from responsibility?
No.


They haven't been charged with, or done, anything criminal.
Goldman also didn't do what your hypothetical implies. At least it doesn't
appear so. You, of all people, should know that.
The deals were done by separate divisions of Goldman by people that had
never even heard of each other, let alone conspired against their customers
and it isn't against the law to for one house to take both sides of the same
deal.
They certainly appear to have a civil problem but they didn't break a single
criminal statute and that's what it takes to end up in prison.
I distinctly recall "a long prison sentence" being mentioned in the original
post.

Unless the civil case uncovers criminal wrong doing, there won't be any jail
time and there shouldn't be.
That might, however, be exactly what happens and at the highest level. It's
starting to look like all of this was orchestrated by GS's executive
officers and management. That's an entirely different kettle of fish and it
is criminal.

All of this is a perfect example of the reason behind keeping insured
deposit instruments and the companies engaged in that financial activity
completely divorced from speculative enterprises/hedge fund activity. When
that isn't done, stealing has been legalized.
That is exactly what has been going on between the law and a concerted
effort not to rigorously enforce laws, rules and regulations that are
already on the books.

Enron, on the other hand, did violate a multitude of criminal statutes.
The first among those was money laundering, not ****ed off investors or
shareholders.

--
John R. Carroll

On 4/19/2010 10:08 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus9593 wrote:
On 2010-04-19, wrote:
Let's say that I sell you a product that I know is worthless
and will almost certainly cause you to lose a large amount
of time and money. Let's say that I game the system
so that the product appears to be well regarded and a good
value; I use that to convince you to buy.

Exactly.

Let's say that I sold you a lathe that was made of parts handpicked to
fail, greased with abrasive added to grease, pee instead of oil, etc.

Furthermore, assume that my client actually built this lathe so that
it will fail as early as possible, say to eliminate competition (just
to make this example more realistic).

I know that full well, sell you a lathe like that, and say "here's a
lathe, as far as I know it is great, it runs, but it is sold AS IS".

Then the lathe fails in 2 weeks.

Would I be a fraud? Yes. Would saying something like "but the buyer
considered hilself sophisticated", absolve me from responsibility?
No.

Nicely put, Ig.

They haven't been charged with, or done, anything criminal.

Bill Moyers Journal that aired last night:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1471123509/#

"SIMON JOHNSON: (...) the person who nailed this intellectually a
long time ago was from the University of Chicago. George Stigler.
Not a man of the left. He got a Nobel Prize for his observation.
All regulated industries end up with the industry capturing the regulators."

It's a little disingenuous to claim that nothing criminal took place
only because the captured regulators were told to regard broad
categories of theft as 'technically legal'.

--Winston

Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 10:08 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus9593 wrote:
On 2010-04-19, wrote:
Let's say that I sell you a product that I know is worthless
and will almost certainly cause you to lose a large amount
of time and money. Let's say that I game the system
so that the product appears to be well regarded and a good
value; I use that to convince you to buy.

Exactly.

Let's say that I sold you a lathe that was made of parts handpicked
to fail, greased with abrasive added to grease, pee instead of oil,
etc.

Furthermore, assume that my client actually built this lathe so that
it will fail as early as possible, say to eliminate competition
(just to make this example more realistic).

I know that full well, sell you a lathe like that, and say "here's a
lathe, as far as I know it is great, it runs, but it is sold AS IS".

Then the lathe fails in 2 weeks.

Would I be a fraud? Yes. Would saying something like "but the buyer
considered hilself sophisticated", absolve me from responsibility?
No.

Nicely put, Ig.

They haven't been charged with, or done, anything criminal.

Bill Moyers Journal that aired last night:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1471123509/#

"SIMON JOHNSON: (...) the person who nailed this intellectually a
long time ago was from the University of Chicago. George Stigler.
Not a man of the left. He got a Nobel Prize for his observation.
All regulated industries end up with the industry capturing the
regulators."

It's a little disingenuous to claim that nothing criminal took place
only because the captured regulators were told to regard broad
categories of theft as 'technically legal'.


I follow Moyers to the extent possible and he's just excellent.

There isn't anything "disingenuous" about such a claim at all.
You and Ig are placing the failure of both the voters and regulatory
agencies on the backs of the regulated.
I'm not condoning GS's behavior in any way, I'm saying that putting people
in jail anytime someone gets mad is a bad idea.
Even promoting that possibility is counterproductive.

As close as there is to a silver bullet to our current dilemma would have
been to trade derivative products on regulated exchanges.
At that point, most of the behavior that proved so problematic wouldn't have
happened because all of the sleights of hand would have been obvious in real
time.

Another mistake was in letting money, real money as demand deposits, get
into the hands of businesses that are speculative by nature.
Goldman Sach's is a bank and they shouldn't be unless they want to divest
their investment banking and hedge fund divisions.

All of these companies were granted the power to print alternative
currencies that were backed by their actual currency based demand deposit
operations. Only an idiot would expect them not to have gone ahead and done
just that when it could be done in a completely opaque environment. They
would actually have been failing in their duty to shareholders had they not.

The final failure of our government was the lack of any resolution authority
whatsoever.
Having allowed the comingling of previously seperated types of financial
services operations, the resolution authority and mechanisms weren't updated
to reflect the new reality.

None of this couldn't have happened in the face of a well informed, active
and motivated electorate.
America did itself and what's "disingenuous" is claiming otherwise.

--
John R. Carroll

On 2010-04-19, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 10:08 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus9593 wrote:
On 2010-04-19, wrote:
Let's say that I sell you a product that I know is worthless
and will almost certainly cause you to lose a large amount
of time and money. Let's say that I game the system
so that the product appears to be well regarded and a good
value; I use that to convince you to buy.

Exactly.

Let's say that I sold you a lathe that was made of parts handpicked
to fail, greased with abrasive added to grease, pee instead of oil,
etc.

Furthermore, assume that my client actually built this lathe so that
it will fail as early as possible, say to eliminate competition
(just to make this example more realistic).

I know that full well, sell you a lathe like that, and say "here's a
lathe, as far as I know it is great, it runs, but it is sold AS IS".

Then the lathe fails in 2 weeks.

Would I be a fraud? Yes. Would saying something like "but the buyer
considered hilself sophisticated", absolve me from responsibility?
No.

Nicely put, Ig.

They haven't been charged with, or done, anything criminal.

Bill Moyers Journal that aired last night:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1471123509/#

"SIMON JOHNSON: (...) the person who nailed this intellectually a
long time ago was from the University of Chicago. George Stigler.
Not a man of the left. He got a Nobel Prize for his observation.
All regulated industries end up with the industry capturing the
regulators."

It's a little disingenuous to claim that nothing criminal took place
only because the captured regulators were told to regard broad
categories of theft as 'technically legal'.


I follow Moyers to the extent possible and he's just excellent.

There isn't anything "disingenuous" about such a claim at all.
You and Ig are placing the failure of both the voters and regulatory
agencies on the backs of the regulated.
I'm not condoning GS's behavior in any way, I'm saying that putting people
in jail anytime someone gets mad is a bad idea.
Even promoting that possibility is counterproductive.

I never suggested that the fraud was criminal.

i

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:46:43 -0700, Winston
wrote:

On 4/17/2010 4:11 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

(...)

FWIW -- it appears that even if Goldman Sachs is put out of
business, their executives sentenced long prison terms, with
massive disgorgement of personal wealth, nothing will change
because the system that allowed/encouraged Goldman Sachs and many
other financial firms to flourish at the expense of the people
was not changed.

If those three things were to happen, it would signal a
fundamental and earthshaking change in the system, yes?

Then Wall Street would likely demand a partial refund on
their purchase of D.C.

"It isn't broken and we want it FIXED!".



--Winston
===========
John Carroll appears to be exactly correct when he observes that
until and unless a new super Glass-Stegall is enacted and
enforced, and derivative trading is either outlawed [contracts
not enforceable in the courts] or confined to regulated specialty
exchanges, nothing is going to change in the world of the
banksters. I would add that a "small enough to fail" cap may
also be required for both market share and total capitalization
if things are to be brought under control.

Consider what happened in Chicago. Elliott Ness, the
"Untouchables" and many other brave and dedicated law enforcement
personnel managed to nail Al Capone and send him away for a long
stretch in prison [income tax IIRC]. This was *NOT* the end of
the syndicate in Chicago, or anywhere else. Big Al went to the
slammer, and paid some fines, but the system was not changed, so
only the names of a few of the people running things changed.

We do not allow the interstate sale of mis-branded, adulterated,
or impure food in the United States. While occasionally
ineffective, the FDA acts to prevent systemic violations, and the
CDC tracks outbreaks of food born illnesses after they occur. The
FTC commission will also act in the case of fraudulent
misbranding resulting in unfair competition, preventing a "race
to the bottom."
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/02/27/256...s=Our%20Region

I can see no reason why similar constant and strict oversight is
not now required for financial products/services, given the
proliferation and the increasingly large fraction of the
population now directly affected through their IRAs, 401ks, etc.
when the financial markets "go south." ==Everyone is indirectly
affected because of the effects on employment and demands for
governmental [i.e.taxpayer] "rescue" efforts, e.g. government
[formerly known as general] motors, Chrysler, Chase, Citibank,
AIG, etc. etc.==


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 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:

(...)

It's a little disingenuous to claim that nothing criminal took place
only because the captured regulators were told to regard broad
categories of theft as 'technically legal'.


I follow Moyers to the extent possible and he's just excellent.

There isn't anything "disingenuous" about such a claim at all.

Here is the definition I intended:
Not noble; unbecoming true honor or dignity; mean; unworthy; fake or deceptive.

What definition of the term did you intend?

You and Ig are placing the failure of both the voters and regulatory
agencies on the backs of the regulated.

In what way was Goldman Sachs 'regulated'?

That is the entire point. They simply chose to not be 'regulated'.
Are they guilty? Should their upper management be investigated?
I think so.

Lloyd Blankfein should also be required to change his legal name
to Max Bialystock, (but that's just me).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063462/


I'm not condoning GS's behavior in any way, I'm saying that putting people
in jail anytime someone gets mad is a bad idea.
Even promoting that possibility is counterproductive.

As close as there is to a silver bullet to our current dilemma would have
been to trade derivative products on regulated exchanges.

The regulators would presumably continue to be the same individuals
that have been purchased by Wall Street? I sense a potential problem
with that plan but I can't quite put my finger on it.

At that point, most of the behavior that proved so problematic wouldn't have
happened because all of the sleights of hand would have been obvious in real
time.

To whom? Goldman Sachs was quite aware of what they were doing, all
protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Does anyone else matter?

Apparently not.

Another mistake was in letting money, real money as demand deposits, get
into the hands of businesses that are speculative by nature.
Goldman Sach's is a bank and they shouldn't be unless they want to divest
their investment banking and hedge fund divisions.

We agree there.

All of these companies were granted the power to print alternative
currencies that were backed by their actual currency based demand deposit
operations. Only an idiot would expect them not to have gone ahead and done
just that when it could be done in a completely opaque environment. They
would actually have been failing in their duty to shareholders had they not.

Have we fallen so low that fraud is considered 'due diligence'?

The final failure of our government was the lack of any resolution authority
whatsoever.
Having allowed the comingling of previously seperated types of financial
services operations, the resolution authority and mechanisms weren't updated
to reflect the new reality.

They were only doing what they were told to do by their owners, after all.

None of this couldn't have happened in the face of a well informed, active
and motivated electorate.

Had you known for certain in October of 2008 that Goldman Sachs was going to
defraud investors of a billion dollars by selling them instruments based on
worthless mortgage securities, what would you have done to prevent them
from getting their TARP loan?

The universe is expanding but what can we as individuals do?

America did itself and what's "disingenuous" is claiming otherwise.

Nonsense. America was 'done' by Wall Street.

--Winston

On 4/19/2010 12:13 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:46:43 -0700, Winston
wrote:

On 4/17/2010 4:11 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

(...)

FWIW -- it appears that even if Goldman Sachs is put out of
business, their executives sentenced long prison terms, with
massive disgorgement of personal wealth, nothing will change
because the system that allowed/encouraged Goldman Sachs and many
other financial firms to flourish at the expense of the people
was not changed.

If those three things were to happen, it would signal a
fundamental and earthshaking change in the system, yes?

Then Wall Street would likely demand a partial refund on
their purchase of D.C.

"It isn't broken and we want it FIXED!".



--Winston
===========
John Carroll appears to be exactly correct when he observes that
until and unless a new super Glass-Stegall is enacted and
enforced, and derivative trading is either outlawed [contracts
not enforceable in the courts] or confined to regulated specialty
exchanges, nothing is going to change in the world of the
banksters. I would add that a "small enough to fail" cap may
also be required for both market share and total capitalization
if things are to be brought under control.

If that is the case then we are in 'violent agreement'.

If the government put GS out of business,
sentenced their executives to long prison terms and
forced them to relinquish the booty, they could only
do so within an appropriate legal structure.

It ain't gonna happen.

--Winston

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:03:45 -0500, Ignoramus9593
wrote:

On 2010-04-19, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 10:08 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus9593 wrote:
On 2010-04-19, wrote:
Let's say that I sell you a product that I know is worthless
and will almost certainly cause you to lose a large amount
of time and money. Let's say that I game the system
so that the product appears to be well regarded and a good
value; I use that to convince you to buy.

Exactly.

Let's say that I sold you a lathe that was made of parts handpicked
to fail, greased with abrasive added to grease, pee instead of oil,
etc.

Furthermore, assume that my client actually built this lathe so that
it will fail as early as possible, say to eliminate competition
(just to make this example more realistic).

I know that full well, sell you a lathe like that, and say "here's a
lathe, as far as I know it is great, it runs, but it is sold AS IS".

Then the lathe fails in 2 weeks.

Would I be a fraud? Yes. Would saying something like "but the buyer
considered hilself sophisticated", absolve me from responsibility?
No.

Nicely put, Ig.

They haven't been charged with, or done, anything criminal.

Bill Moyers Journal that aired last night:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1471123509/#

"SIMON JOHNSON: (...) the person who nailed this intellectually a
long time ago was from the University of Chicago. George Stigler.
Not a man of the left. He got a Nobel Prize for his observation.
All regulated industries end up with the industry capturing the
regulators."

It's a little disingenuous to claim that nothing criminal took place
only because the captured regulators were told to regard broad
categories of theft as 'technically legal'.


I follow Moyers to the extent possible and he's just excellent.

There isn't anything "disingenuous" about such a claim at all.
You and Ig are placing the failure of both the voters and regulatory
agencies on the backs of the regulated.
I'm not condoning GS's behavior in any way, I'm saying that putting people
in jail anytime someone gets mad is a bad idea.
Even promoting that possibility is counterproductive.

I never suggested that the fraud was criminal.

i
Fraud is always criminal

Mistakes are not.

Which are you referring to?

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:04:35 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
snip
Fraud is always criminal
snip
Actually no. There is "civil fraud," which may also be "criminal
fraud." It depends on the scale, i.e. number of people and the
amount of money involved, intent, planning and a number of other
factors.

see
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/307056
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

While "civil fraud" is easier to prove, i.e. the standard is
"preponderance of the evidence," criminal cases require "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt" It appears from the media reports that
Goldman-Sachs with their Abacus scam crossed well over into
"criminal fraud" territory.

It is clear that number of conspirators were involved, large
amounts of planning/coordination were required, considerable
"front money" was provided, and while a question for the courts
to decide, it appears that the CDO investor losses were planned
from the start to benefit the co-conspirator hedge fund manager,
who stood no real chance of any loss.

As is frequently the case, this also meets the requirements for
"criminal conspiracy."
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29


Indeed, if two prior felony counts can be sustained in court, the
Goldman-Sachs corporation and the individuals involved may well
qualify for a RICO prosecution with disgorgement of any profits
that resulted. FWIW -- there are also "civil RICO" actions.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit08.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...e9/110mcrm.htm
http://www.monteleonelaw.com/CivilRI...rint020104.pdf


What is becoming increasingly evident is that the SEC, other
regulatory agencies [state and federal] and "law enforcement"
[state and federal] had [and has] more than ample justification
to investigate and prosecute. The introduction of yet more
regulations and statutes, that won't be enforced, will accomplish
nothing.


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 4/19/2010 3:48 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

(...)

Trading derivatives on an open exchange would cause the market to work
appropriately.

From the trader's point of view, yes? (Huge grin)

You'd be able to see the Goldman divisions operating in real time. Investors
aren't stupid, they just can't see in the dark.

Which is a great stimulus to keep the lights off.

Transparency is the key. The CFMA of 2000 turned out the lights.

And that is just the way Wall Street likes it.

--Winston

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:52:16 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:04:35 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
snip
Fraud is always criminal
snip
Actually no. There is "civil fraud," which may also be "criminal
fraud." It depends on the scale, i.e. number of people and the
amount of money involved, intent, planning and a number of other
factors.

George....Civil fraud doesnt involve many many millions of dollars.


see
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/307056
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud

While "civil fraud" is easier to prove, i.e. the standard is
"preponderance of the evidence," criminal cases require "proof
beyond a reasonable doubt" It appears from the media reports that
Goldman-Sachs with their Abacus scam crossed well over into
"criminal fraud" territory.

Indeed they did.

It is clear that number of conspirators were involved, large
amounts of planning/coordination were required, considerable
"front money" was provided, and while a question for the courts
to decide, it appears that the CDO investor losses were planned
from the start to benefit the co-conspirator hedge fund manager,
who stood no real chance of any loss.

As is frequently the case, this also meets the requirements for
"criminal conspiracy."
http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_%28crime%29

Ayup.

Indeed, if two prior felony counts can be sustained in court, the
Goldman-Sachs corporation and the individuals involved may well
qualify for a RICO prosecution with disgorgement of any profits
that resulted. FWIW -- there are also "civil RICO" actions.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/lit08.htm
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/fo...e9/110mcrm.htm
http://www.monteleonelaw.com/CivilRI...rint020104.pdf


Gota love RICO when taking on a large organization.

What is becoming increasingly evident is that the SEC, other
regulatory agencies [state and federal] and "law enforcement"
[state and federal] had [and has] more than ample justification
to investigate and prosecute. The introduction of yet more
regulations and statutes, that won't be enforced, will accomplish
nothing.


But..if they put the entire management in prison for 5-20 yrs..it will
give a bit of pause to the next nefarious scofflaw...and there are
enough people out there who are guilty of Criminal Fraud in the
industry..that a very very good and widespread example can be made of
them.
Not to mention impoverishing each and everyone of them to get the money
back....

Gunner


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).


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Ignoramus9593 wrote:
On 2010-04-19, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 10:08 AM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Ignoramus9593 wrote:
On 2010-04-19, wrote:
Let's say that I sell you a product that I know is worthless
and will almost certainly cause you to lose a large amount
of time and money. Let's say that I game the system
so that the product appears to be well regarded and a good
value; I use that to convince you to buy.

Exactly.

Let's say that I sold you a lathe that was made of parts
handpicked to fail, greased with abrasive added to grease, pee
instead of oil, etc.

Furthermore, assume that my client actually built this lathe so
that it will fail as early as possible, say to eliminate
competition (just to make this example more realistic).

I know that full well, sell you a lathe like that, and say
"here's a lathe, as far as I know it is great, it runs, but it is
sold AS IS".

Then the lathe fails in 2 weeks.

Would I be a fraud? Yes. Would saying something like "but the
buyer considered hilself sophisticated", absolve me from
responsibility? No.

Nicely put, Ig.

They haven't been charged with, or done, anything criminal.

Bill Moyers Journal that aired last night:

http://video.pbs.org/video/1471123509/#

"SIMON JOHNSON: (...) the person who nailed this intellectually a
long time ago was from the University of Chicago. George Stigler.
Not a man of the left. He got a Nobel Prize for his observation.
All regulated industries end up with the industry capturing the
regulators."

It's a little disingenuous to claim that nothing criminal took place
only because the captured regulators were told to regard broad
categories of theft as 'technically legal'.


I follow Moyers to the extent possible and he's just excellent.

There isn't anything "disingenuous" about such a claim at all.
You and Ig are placing the failure of both the voters and regulatory
agencies on the backs of the regulated.
I'm not condoning GS's behavior in any way, I'm saying that putting
people in jail anytime someone gets mad is a bad idea.
Even promoting that possibility is counterproductive.

I never suggested that the fraud was criminal.

You didn't.
Winston did. George would probably have. He has in the past IIRC.
I wrote a sort of "catch-all" response.

Blaming Goldman for something they and everyone else didn't actually do will
only distract from any effective effort to
impliment effective or meaningful regulatory reform.

The guys doing the reform are elected representatives of the people and if
we get crappy reform it won't be the fault of crappy legislators. It will be
the result of crappy voters and a process that's been corrupted by
organizations like Fox News to make a buck off of peoples natural emotional
response to catastrophe. That's something that shouldn't be legal either but
can't really be legislated.
Market forces ought to discourage the practice but there are a lot of sheep.

That's why I say American's have done themselves. The real truth is that
American's demanded the screwing we've all gotten.
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:13 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:46:43 -0700, Winston
wrote:

On 4/17/2010 4:11 PM, F. George McDuffee wrote:

(...)

FWIW -- it appears that even if Goldman Sachs is put out of
business, their executives sentenced long prison terms, with
massive disgorgement of personal wealth, nothing will change
because the system that allowed/encouraged Goldman Sachs and many
other financial firms to flourish at the expense of the people
was not changed.

If those three things were to happen, it would signal a
fundamental and earthshaking change in the system, yes?

Then Wall Street would likely demand a partial refund on
their purchase of D.C.

"It isn't broken and we want it FIXED!".



--Winston
===========
John Carroll appears to be exactly correct when he observes that
until and unless a new super Glass-Stegall is enacted and
enforced, and derivative trading is either outlawed [contracts
not enforceable in the courts] or confined to regulated specialty
exchanges, nothing is going to change in the world of the
banksters. I would add that a "small enough to fail" cap may
also be required for both market share and total capitalization
if things are to be brought under control.

If that is the case then we are in 'violent agreement'.

If the government put GS out of business,
sentenced their executives to long prison terms and
forced them to relinquish the booty, they could only
do so within an appropriate legal structure.

It ain't gonna happen.

Trading derivatives on an open exchange would cause the market to work
appropriately.
You'd be able to see the Goldman divisions operating in real time. Investors
aren't stupid, they just can't see in the dark.
Transparency is the key. The CFMA of 2000 turned out the lights.

--
John R. Carroll

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:08:00 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
snip
But..if they put the entire management in prison for 5-20 yrs..it will
give a bit of pause to the next nefarious scofflaw...and there are
enough people out there who are guilty of Criminal Fraud in the
industry..that a very very good and widespread example can be made of
them.
Not to mention impoverishing each and everyone of them to get the money
back....

Gunner
=========
Indeed it would ==IF WE WERE DEALING WITH NORMAL PEOPLE.== The
problem is, almost by definition, the people running the
financial firms [and other mega corporations] are egomaniacs and
sociopaths in their manic phase. Operationally we are dealing
with beings from another planet.

IMNSHO: The only real effect on this "elite" group that would
result from the mass conviction and imprisonment, even with
individual disgorgement of profits, of the Goldman-Sachs "outfit"
and its dons, cappos and "button men," would be to reinforce
their belief "I am smarter than those G/S people, because I have
not been caught, and I won't get caught if I learn from the G/S
mistakes."

John Carroll's observations that we must enact a new "super"
Glass-Steagall, and require that derivatives including "synthetic
collateralize debt obligations" such as Abacus, are both closely
regulated and traded only on specialty exchanges with publicly
accessible records, including prices and parties, appears to be
exactly correct, if we are to avoid another financial meltdown in
a few years. I would add "small enough to fail" caps on both
market share and capitalization and "fire walls" between firms
are also required, if future taxpayer rescue of private firms is
to be avoided or at least minimized. The result desired is not
that they won't do it -- the result desired is they *CAN'T* do
it.


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 4/19/2010 5:43 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:

(...)
At that point, most of the behavior that proved so problematic
wouldn't have happened because all of the sleights of hand would
have been obvious in real time.

To whom? Goldman Sachs was quite aware of what they were doing, all
protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Does anyone else
matter?

To anyone who wanted to see what was being traded, in what notional amounts
and by whom.
When you can see, in real time, that a seller is betting against one of
there own products, you have a hard look at that product.

Goldman Sachs is not about to do anything likely to reduce the very
profitable smokescreen they have carefully developed. I was being
flip when I asked 'Does anyone else matter?'

Goldman is certain that no one else matters.

None of this couldn't have happened in the face of a well informed,
active and motivated electorate.

Had you known for certain in October of 2008 that Goldman Sachs was
going to defraud investors of a billion dollars by selling them
instruments based on worthless mortgage securities, what would you
have done to prevent them
from getting their TARP loan?

I was writing about this sort of behavior from personal experience in 2003
and 2004. Right here in this newsgroup in fact.
It should have been obvious to anyone as early as 2005 and there has always
been a large cadre of well respected and experienced people calling
attention to the issue.

Warren Buffet, for example, called derivative products weapons of mass
financial destruction or something like that.
He spent 400 million dollars to get them out of General RE and to get
General RE out of that business. Warren Buffet, John Bogle, Ed Gramlich -
the list is very long, learned, experienced, and distinguished.

In the absence of a resolution authority like the FDIC for non banks, TARP
was a distasteful necessity.
Nothing I knew in 2008 about G/S would have caused me to oppose it. TARP
adressed a completely different issue.

My point was that Goldman can do whatever Goldman wants to do.
There isn't a carrot or stick available to you or me that will
cause them to begin to behave themselves.

I think a lot gets lost in the politics of all of this when it comes to the
deal everyone involved has made - and it is everyone, including the American
public.

What did the American Public do to deserve this economic collapse?
Too much _American Idol_?

Blaming the poor, blind, confused, frustrated, jobless, panic stricken
victim does not usually solve any problem.

--Winston

Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:

(...)
At that point, most of the behavior that proved so problematic
wouldn't have happened because all of the sleights of hand would
have been obvious in real time.

To whom? Goldman Sachs was quite aware of what they were doing, all
protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Does anyone else
matter?

To anyone who wanted to see what was being traded, in what notional amounts
and by whom.
When you can see, in real time, that a seller is betting against one of
there own products, you have a hard look at that product.

None of this couldn't have happened in the face of a well informed,
active and motivated electorate.

Had you known for certain in October of 2008 that Goldman Sachs was
going to defraud investors of a billion dollars by selling them
instruments based on worthless mortgage securities, what would you
have done to prevent them
from getting their TARP loan?

I was writing about this sort of behavior from personal experience in 2003
and 2004. Right here in this newsgroup in fact.
It should have been obvious to anyone as early as 2005 and there has always
been a large cadre of well respected and experienced people calling
attention to the issue.

Warren Buffet, for example, called derivative products weapons of mass
financial destruction or something like that.
He spent 400 million dollars to get them out of General RE and to get
General RE out of that business. Warren Buffet, John Bogle, Ed Gramlich -
the list is very long, learned, experienced, and distinguished.

In the absence of a resolution authority like the FDIC for non banks, TARP
was a distasteful necessity.
Nothing I knew in 2008 about G/S would have caused me to oppose it. TARP
adressed a completely different issue.

I think a lot gets lost in the politics of all of this when it comes to the
deal everyone involved has made - and it is everyone, including the American
public.

--
John R. Carroll

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:08:00 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:
snip
John Carroll's observations that we must enact a new "super"
Glass-Steagall, and require that derivatives including "synthetic
collateralize debt obligations" such as Abacus, are both closely
regulated and traded only on specialty exchanges with publicly
accessible records, including prices and parties, appears to be
exactly correct, if we are to avoid another financial meltdown in
a few years. I would add "small enough to fail" caps on both
market share and capitalization and "fire walls" between firms
are also required, if future taxpayer rescue of private firms is
to be avoided or at least minimized. The result desired is not
that they won't do it -- the result desired is they *CAN'T* do
it.

That's right and the big driver will be that it will end up being bad for
business if they do. Sales will collapse.
That it is illegal is almost secondary. Whatever legislation ends up being
passed, the best lawyers on Wall Street will be finding ways around it the
same way thieves set about defeating ever better locks.

That is how good laws really work.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 5:43 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

My point was that Goldman can do whatever Goldman wants to do.
There isn't a carrot or stick available to you or me that will
cause them to begin to behave themselves.

No they can't.


I think a lot gets lost in the politics of all of this when it comes
to the deal everyone involved has made - and it is everyone,
including the American public.

What did the American Public do to deserve this economic collapse?
Too much _American Idol_?

Vote for it. Repeatedly and in spite of their own known best interests.


Blaming the poor, blind, confused, frustrated, jobless, panic stricken
victim does not usually solve any problem.

You have to admit a mistake in order to learn from it.


Really? Your computer's clock is wrong, so learn how to set it.


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 5:43 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

My point was that Goldman can do whatever Goldman wants to do.
There isn't a carrot or stick available to you or me that will
cause them to begin to behave themselves.

No they can't.


I think a lot gets lost in the politics of all of this when it comes
to the deal everyone involved has made - and it is everyone,
including the American public.

What did the American Public do to deserve this economic collapse?
Too much _American Idol_?

Vote for it. Repeatedly and in spite of their own known best interests.


Blaming the poor, blind, confused, frustrated, jobless, panic stricken
victim does not usually solve any problem.

You have to admit a mistake in order to learn from it.


--
John R. Carroll

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 5:43 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

My point was that Goldman can do whatever Goldman wants to do.
There isn't a carrot or stick available to you or me that will
cause them to begin to behave themselves.

No they can't.


I think a lot gets lost in the politics of all of this when it
comes to the deal everyone involved has made - and it is everyone,
including the American public.

What did the American Public do to deserve this economic collapse?
Too much _American Idol_?

Vote for it. Repeatedly and in spite of their own known best
interests.


Blaming the poor, blind, confused, frustrated, jobless, panic
stricken victim does not usually solve any problem.

You have to admit a mistake in order to learn from it.


Really? Your computer's clock is wrong, so learn how to set it.

Is it?
It's the same as the computer set to NIST.


--
John R. Carroll

On 4/19/2010 6:28 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 5:43 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

My point was that Goldman can do whatever Goldman wants to do.
There isn't a carrot or stick available to you or me that will
cause them to begin to behave themselves.

No they can't.

Watch them and remember the adage about 'absolute power',
would be my advice. I could be horribly mistaken; you
have my permission to rub my nose in it if we see these
folks doing a perp walk on national TV:

Lloyd C. Blankfein
David A. Viniar
Gary D. Cohn
John S. Weinberg
Michael J. Evans
Michael Sherwood
Alan Cohen
Gregory Palm
Esta Stecher
John H. Bryan
Claes Dahlbäck
Stephen Friedman
William W. George
Rajat K. Gupta
James A. Johnson
Lois D. Juliber
Lakshmi N. Mittal
Ruth J. Simmons

I think a lot gets lost in the politics of all of this when it comes
to the deal everyone involved has made - and it is everyone,
including the American public.

What did the American Public do to deserve this economic collapse?
Too much _American Idol_?

Vote for it. Repeatedly and in spite of their own known best interests.

I don't remember a referendum requesting permission to sell
the Securities and Exchange Commission to the highest bidder.
I very much doubt that I would have voted for it, even once.

Show of hands, please. Who voted to sell the SEC to Wall Street?
How much did you get for them and where is my share?

Blaming the poor, blind, confused, frustrated, jobless, panic stricken
victim does not usually solve any problem.

You have to admit a mistake in order to learn from it.

Can you elaborate please?
Are you referring to the election of Bush 43?

Do you honestly think anyone on Wall Street cares who is in the White House?

Because whoever is in the White House has only one question for
Wall Street: 'How high, sir?'

--Winston

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 5:43 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

My point was that Goldman can do whatever Goldman wants to do.
There isn't a carrot or stick available to you or me that will
cause them to begin to behave themselves.

No they can't.


I think a lot gets lost in the politics of all of this when it
comes to the deal everyone involved has made - and it is everyone,
including the American public.

What did the American Public do to deserve this economic collapse?
Too much _American Idol_?

Vote for it. Repeatedly and in spite of their own known best
interests.


Blaming the poor, blind, confused, frustrated, jobless, panic
stricken victim does not usually solve any problem.

You have to admit a mistake in order to learn from it.


Really? Your computer's clock is wrong, so learn how to set it.

Is it?
It's the same as the computer set to NIST.

--
John R. Carroll


Then your messages are showing up before they were posted.
--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:



Really? Your computer's clock is wrong, so learn how to set it.

Is it?
It's the same as the computer set to NIST.


Then your messages are showing up before they were posted.

This was posted at 4:25 am.
What do you see?

--
John R. Carroll

Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 6:28 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 5:43 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/19/2010 12:00 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

My point was that Goldman can do whatever Goldman wants to do.
There isn't a carrot or stick available to you or me that will
cause them to begin to behave themselves.

No they can't.

Watch them and remember the adage about 'absolute power',
would be my advice. I could be horribly mistaken; you
have my permission to rub my nose in it if we see these
folks doing a perp walk on national TV:

Lloyd C. Blankfein
David A. Viniar
Gary D. Cohn
John S. Weinberg
Michael J. Evans
Michael Sherwood
Alan Cohen
Gregory Palm
Esta Stecher
John H. Bryan
Claes Dahlbäck
Stephen Friedman
William W. George
Rajat K. Gupta
James A. Johnson
Lois D. Juliber
Lakshmi N. Mittal
Ruth J. Simmons

I'd be really surprised to see Bill George walking anywhere.


I think a lot gets lost in the politics of all of this when it
comes to the deal everyone involved has made - and it is everyone,
including the American public.

What did the American Public do to deserve this economic collapse?
Too much _American Idol_?

Vote for it. Repeatedly and in spite of their own known best
interests.

I don't remember a referendum requesting permission to sell
the Securities and Exchange Commission to the highest bidder.
I very much doubt that I would have voted for it, even once.

Sure you do.
The last was the one where Grover Norquist was all the rage for wanting to
shrink government to the point where it could be drowned in a bathtub.


Show of hands, please. Who voted to sell the SEC to Wall Street?
How much did you get for them and where is my share?

Blaming the poor, blind, confused, frustrated, jobless, panic
stricken victim does not usually solve any problem.

You have to admit a mistake in order to learn from it.

Can you elaborate please?
Are you referring to the election of Bush 43?

That was the last but hardly the first.
The jerks and jackasses have been taking over in both houses of Congress for
three decades.
To the applause of a majority of the voters, I might add.
You can't explain Phil Gramm or Dick Armey any other way.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:



Really? Your computer's clock is wrong, so learn how to set it.

Is it?
It's the same as the computer set to NIST.


Then your messages are showing up before they were posted.

This was posted at 4:25 am.
What do you see?

--
John R. Carroll


8:26 AM


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:



Really? Your computer's clock is wrong, so learn how to set
it.

Is it?
It's the same as the computer set to NIST.


Then your messages are showing up before they were posted.

This was posted at 4:25 am.
What do you see?

--
John R. Carroll


8:26 AM

Google and my three computers here have it at 4:26 am.
shrug Go figure.

Is this a mistake one of us can learn from.
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:



Really? Your computer's clock is wrong, so learn how to set
it.

Is it?
It's the same as the computer set to NIST.


Then your messages are showing up before they were posted.

This was posted at 4:25 am.
What do you see?

--
John R. Carroll


8:26 AM

Google and my three computers here have it at 4:26 am.
shrug Go figure.

Is this a mistake one of us can learn from.
LOL


FWIW, Your response, John, was time-stamped

"Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:22:08 -0800"

And my newsreader reports it as "02:22P".

"RAM³" wrote in message
. 10...
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:



Really? Your computer's clock is wrong, so learn how to set
it.

Is it?
It's the same as the computer set to NIST.


Then your messages are showing up before they were posted.

This was posted at 4:25 am.
What do you see?

--
John R. Carroll


8:26 AM

Google and my three computers here have it at 4:26 am.
shrug Go figure.

Is this a mistake one of us can learn from.
LOL


FWIW, Your response, John, was time-stamped

"Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:22:08 -0800"

And my newsreader reports it as "02:22P".

This one was sent at 2:22 pm from a NIST machine.



JC

On 4/20/2010 2:23 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

(...)

This one was sent at 2:22 pm from a NIST machine.

I show:
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:23:07 -0700

My RTC is probably off a little, though.


--Winston
__

Gary was a liar, a thief, a scoundrel and a psychologist.
He was the most redundant man I ever met.

Winston wrote:
On 4/20/2010 2:23 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

(...)

This one was sent at 2:22 pm from a NIST machine.

I show:
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:23:07 -0700

My RTC is probably off a little, though.



Weird...
This one was sent at 3:23 pm and I've turned DST on and reset the clock.
I wonder what Wes is seeing?

Maybe Terrell is just screwing with me.
Made Me Look Michael!
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

On 4/20/2010 3:39 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:
Winston wrote:
On 4/20/2010 2:23 PM, John R. Carroll wrote:

(...)

This one was sent at 2:22 pm from a NIST machine.

I show:
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:23:07 -0700

My RTC is probably off a little, though.



Weird...
This one was sent at 3:23 pm and I've turned DST on and reset the clock.
I wonder what Wes is seeing?

Maybe Terrell is just screwing with me.
Made Me Look Michael!
LOL

Maybe not. From your header, I got:
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 15:39:29 -0700

My RTC appears to be 2 seconds in front of:
http://www.time.gov/

Considering the number of layers, that ain't too bad.

OTOH, I have seen some of *my* messages go on to USENET with
very incorrect time stamps as well, even with a 'good enough'
RTC setting.

--Winston -- Sent at 3:53 PM PST


--

Gary was a liar, a thief, a scoundrel and a psychologist.
He was the most redundant man I ever met.