Who are you watching for your election night coverage?

pj, post #88 of this thread made you Michael Irvin instead of Terrell Owens. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Thanks!

Those two concepts have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The later is no more a cure for the former than buying freezers for polar bears is a solution to "global warming" Originally Posted by pjorourke

If you do not understand something I have written, just ask for a explanation. Being to big either as a company or person in terms of wealth is not good for the country as a whole. A simple concept. Sorry I had trouble explaining it.

Agreed! Particularly your last point. But let me make a few more:

1) I would be the first to admit there were fundamental flaws in the compensation plans on Wall Street (and on Pine Street, which happens to be where AIG is located. ) They are too short-term focused and have no downside. In the old days, when investment banks were partnerships, those bonuses were largely paid into capital and kept in the firm where it was at risk -- not so in public companies. If banks are to be involved in proprietary trading or securitization (see #2 below) the people doing this business should have a very significant chunk of their bonus re-invested in their own cooking for a minimum of three years -- not restricted stock on the parent -- that doesny have direct downside. It should be invested in their trading book.

2) IMO, because banks are part of the money system, they have no business engaging in proprietary trading*. Yes, they will miss profits, but they also don't manufacture iPods either and I understand that's a real profitable business. Consider it just a cost of the charter. Securitization is another question. This is where a bank bundles up a bunch of loans (e.g., mortgages) and sells them off to investors. This is one of the problem areas in the meltdown, but a very useful function for the economy. Here, I think they should be allowed to continue this business, but should be required to keep some percentage (e.g., 5%) on their books to ensure credit quality. And the people that run these business units should have a big chunk of their bonuses invested in this stuff. Again, if you have to eat your own cooking, you make better decisions.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Well written. That is at the jest of the problem. No skin in the game.

Agre
5) "Our money" did not pay any bonuses. All but one of top ten TARP recipients earned a profit in 2008 and 2009, even with whatever write-offs were necessary on their portfolios. (Surprise, surprise, the one was Citicorp.)

. Originally Posted by pjorourke

This is where you lose any big picture thinker. Think of the investment banking system as a family member, Their action are akin to letting a thief in your families house. Just because the thieves rewarded your banking buddy for letting them in and stealing the family blind does not mean that it was a good deal for the whole family.

It does not equate to a well run business as you seem to think these banks are.

What you free market guys need to admit is that without government complicity , there is no way in hell we would have the growth in this country. RK admits as much in his posts. Now we can argue all day whether this is good or bad or whose fault but that is a fact. Government is our
conscious, or it should be. Do we as a country want a system that is like a crack dealer. Bankers dealing out drugs to any and everyone. Taking all their money but making its customers 'feel' good in doing so? Leaders do not listen to the will of a bunch of crackheads. They crack heads and get folks to understand that there needs to be a change of habit and that this country just might have to go through a tough withdrawal. Is our political system set up for something like this? It appears not. So we either need to do something drastic or make plans for nothing be fixed in this country and bet on the banking dealers continuing to dominate their loyal junkies.
All this was done with smoke and mirrors. Admit that and that is the first step in trying to get a handle on the problem.

Being to big either as a company or person in terms of wealth is not good for the country as a whole. Originally Posted by WTF

That point is debatable, but assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, an inheritance tax doesn't fix it any more than the freezers would.

It does not equate to a well run business as you seem to think these banks are.

I never said that "banks" were well run (although some are). I said the business is inherently profitable unless you fuck up. Which they routinely do and which is why so many of them have disappeared over the years.

What you free market guys need to admit is that without government complicity , there is no way in hell we would have the growth in this country.

I'd be the first to admit that you need a suitable level of government for the country to grow and prosper. There are places like Yemen that prove that too little government is bad and places like North Korea that show too much is equally bad. The art is finding the right balance.

Government is our

conscious, or it should be.

Where the hell do you get this from? It isn't in any constitution I've read. The proper role for government is like the house at a poker game in a casino. They don't favor one player over another. They are there to make sure the game is fair and that people are safe. For that service, they take a small rake out of each pot (where the operative word is small).

Do we as a country want a system that is like a crack dealer. Bankers dealing out drugs to any and everyone. Taking all their money but making its customers 'feel' good in doing so? Leaders do not listen to the will of a bunch of crackheads. They crack heads and get folks to understand that there needs to be a change of habit and that this country just might have to go through a tough withdrawal. Is our political system set up for something like this? It appears not. So we either need to do something drastic or make plans for nothing be fixed in this country and bet on the banking dealers continuing to dominate their loyal junkies

Dude, you obviously have other issues here. Was a banker mean to you when you were a little WTF?

That point is debatable, but assuming for the sake of argument that it is true, an inheritance tax doesn't fix it any more than the freezers would.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Why would it not? Are you for dynastic wealth? I'm all for the the person that earned the money by whatever the means were at the time to use that to sway elections or what ever floats their boat. That includes giving that wealth to their kids. The catch is that the kids have not 'earned' it, they were just born. So tax what is given to them as you would ordinarily income. The objective is to stop undo influence. Let the children build their own wealth and exert earned influence. They would be getting a huge head start as is.

I never said that "banks" were well run (although some are). I said the business is inherently profitable unless you fuck up. Which they routinely do and which is why so many of them have disappeared over the years.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

We agree here then

Where the hell do you get this from? It isn't in any constitution I've read. The proper role for government is like the house at a poker game in a casino. They don't favor one player over another. They are there to make sure the game is fair and that people are safe. For that service, they take a small rake out of each pot (where the operative word is small).

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Where do I get this I get this from? Most would call it reality, while I agree with your poker analogy ...my point was that government is not just a referee between business and workers but an enforcer of the rules between the two players. The government is constantly fought over between these two groups and the collective conscious of both are then implemented in the form of laws. Slavery was ok at one point in history, no longer is (unless you consider welfare a form of slavery, which I do, idiotic program. Huge reason why you had a spike in unwed mothers). The collective conscious of the country has changed , that was my only point to the word you seem to take exception to. Also let me point out that it is no point in playing the game and having a referee if one side dominates the other.

Dude, you obviously have other issues here. Was a banker mean to you when you were a little WTF? Originally Posted by pjorourke

LOL, that must be it, couldn't have anything to do with the huge transfer of wealth and power these guys have accumulated over the last thirty years under the guise of helping the little man! Read up on the FIRE economy and see what it has done for this country.

But if it makes you feel better to think some banker played with my peepee in my youth to shape my view of bankers , go ahead.


BTW, I bank at a local very conservative bank.

I'm getting tired of the yapping dog video. Here is a new one I can rotate in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0n8N98mpes