The Great Recession - post mortem

[Flasch186]

Well for 1 the expensive homes arent selling at any "real" pace. The builders that ARE building 'expensive' homes are building far fewer than the 'value' providers out there BUT theyre making a killing on their profit margin so if 3 guys and a truck sell 10 homes in a year at 60-70K each in profit, whose to complain.

2 Im not sure that the consumer psyche is going to come back from this in regards to the strength of their money for quite some time.

3 I saw a report that said that future college grads (future being next 4 years) will have a very difficult time finding a job whose salary falls within 15% of their expectations.

What I mean is again, I do not see inflation on the horizon outside of the inflation we would welcome as being a sign of some growth. The opponents of this thought see inflation that would be substantial (I want to say hyper so we can claim winners and losers to this game) enough to cause problems.

In the end we'll all be able to say we were right.

[Flasch186]

DOLA

Market fell today below a significant support line for me so I'll look to slowly peel off my short position that I got hurt on the way up but I protected some of my small gains now on the way down I'll try to peel it off and then buy in on another tranche for my longs $/cost

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Fighter of Foo

Safeway's CEO gave the answer the other day: How Safeway Is Cutting Health-Care Costs - WSJ.com

Safeway's plan capitalizes on two key insights gained in 2005. The first is that 70% of all health-care costs are the direct result of behavior. The second insight, which is well understood by the providers of health care, is that 74% of all costs are confined to four chronic conditions (cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and obesity). Furthermore, 80% of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is preventable, 60% of cancers are preventable, and more than 90% of obesity is preventable.

That's an easy enough insight that I believe I've known for 15 years. But then what? Are we're going to A) drastically reduce the number of Americans who engage in unhealthy behavior or B) have the government question, test and weigh everybody each year (like Japan does) then C) kick the less healthy people off the rolls and not actually have national healthcare or D) charge these people more based of B?

I just can't imagine any system like this being enacted with teeth and winning the inevitable court battles. Especially once you consider that behaviors like obesity and smoking are correlated with lower incomes and thus the people who ostensibly need government healthcare.

[SportsDino]

Well, according to the guvmint inflation is and always has been under control.

Never mind that they changed the measurement countless times over the past three decades or so. Including dramatically changing how housing prices are reflected, constantly reconfiguring the 'basket of goods' and weighting, and excluding food and energy costs for 'volatility reasons' (I need to teach them a better definition of volatility apparently, sustained direction is called a trend!).

Anyway, to make a long story short, I've been observing much of what you describe SI over quite a period.

[albionmoonlight]

Any system that is based on "encouraging" healthy lifestyles has several problems. First, you are basically telling the insurance companies that their profits will come from keeping unhealthy people off the rolls. It will be too easy, at that point, for them to keep people off who have kids with cancer, etc. I know that it won't be done above board, but it will be done.

Second, it is so arrogant to assume that we now know what is healthy behavior and what is not. Eating steak and drinking whole milk 3 times a day used to help us "build strong bones and muscle." Now it apparently gives us all heart attacks. Fat used to be the enemy. Until carbs became the enemy. Oh, and you should cut down on cholesterol, but not the good cholesterol.

Basically, we are still learning about what is and is not healthy. I don't want my take home pay based on what "researchers" happen to mostly agree on at the time my policy is written.*

Basically, a good idea on paper, but a horrible one in practice.

*Assuming, of course, that we believe that health research can remain anything like objective when we decide to make it the lynchpin of the entire American health care complex. When billions and billions are at stake based on what is and is not "healthy," you are not doing science anymore.

[lungs]

Those of us that are dairy farmers continue to take an absolute bloodbath. We've been running about $4.00/cwt (100 lbs.) below the cost of production for the whole year. Futures don't look bright for the rest of the year. I've eliminated cows to the tune of about 50 below my capacity and amazingly am producing more milk than I was. Some processors are instructing farmers to dump their milk because they can't take it. But the processor we work with called on Saturday wondering where their milk is from us as they can't keep up with their demand and are making cheese 24/7.

We think we've hit the bottom, but it's not going to come back until next year at the earliest. Our banker is standing behind us, as he's said if we go under, the whole industry will have likely gone under with us. Others will not be so fortunate, but it's something that needs to be done.

Then you have these farmers from California milking 20,000 cows coming to Wisconsin telling those of us that milk 50-1000 cows that we need to reduce our numbers. Look in the damn mirror, moron.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Any system that is based on "encouraging" healthy lifestyles has several problems. First, you are basically telling the insurance companies that their profits will come from keeping unhealthy people off the rolls. It will be too easy, at that point, for them to keep people off who have kids with cancer, etc. I know that it won't be done above board, but it will be done.

Second, it is so arrogant to assume that we now know what is healthy behavior and what is not. Eating steak and drinking whole milk 3 times a day used to help us "build strong bones and muscle." Now it apparently gives us all heart attacks. Fat used to be the enemy. Until carbs became the enemy. Oh, and you should cut down on cholesterol, but not the good cholesterol.

Basically, we are still learning about what is and is not healthy. I don't want my take home pay based on what "researchers" happen to mostly agree on at the time my policy is written.*

Basically, a good idea on paper, but a horrible one in practice.

*Assuming, of course, that we believe that health research can remain anything like objective when we decide to make it the lynchpin of the entire American health care complex. When billions and billions are at stake based on what is and is not "healthy," you are not doing science anymore.

Very much agree with this. Does anyone remember when eggs were bad for us? I sure as hell do. I remember being told that I can't have eggs because the cholesterol will make me sick. I was only about 10 when that panic was going on. While I agree that we need to be healthier as a nation, mandating any such type of behavior is not realistic, and borders on socialism in my opinion.

[sterlingice]

Any system that is based on "encouraging" healthy lifestyles has several problems. First, you are basically telling the insurance companies that their profits will come from keeping unhealthy people off the rolls. It will be too easy, at that point, for them to keep people off who have kids with cancer, etc. I know that it won't be done above board, but it will be done.

Second, it is so arrogant to assume that we now know what is healthy behavior and what is not. Eating steak and drinking whole milk 3 times a day used to help us "build strong bones and muscle." Now it apparently gives us all heart attacks. Fat used to be the enemy. Until carbs became the enemy. Oh, and you should cut down on cholesterol, but not the good cholesterol.

Basically, we are still learning about what is and is not healthy. I don't want my take home pay based on what "researchers" happen to mostly agree on at the time my policy is written.*

Basically, a good idea on paper, but a horrible one in practice.

*Assuming, of course, that we believe that health research can remain anything like objective when we decide to make it the lynchpin of the entire American health care complex. When billions and billions are at stake based on what is and is not "healthy," you are not doing science anymore.

I understand and accept the argument that the science is inconclusive often. But you still have to go with the best information that you have. You can't just throw your arms up and say "it's not 100% conclusive so let's not even try". So, I disagree with the middle premise.

However, I really am discouraged by your first and last points, tho. I think you're absolutely right about people getting removed from the books. That's not much different than now, unfortunately. Any excuse to charge higher premiums or kick higher risks off of the rolls and modern insurance companies do it. So I'm not sure how much would change.

Then you have the issue of research funded by all sides muddling things. I don't know the answer to that, but, again, you can't just say "don't try"- it's too big of a problem and it's not as if the status quo is a good situation. We're trying to make the best of bad choices and just sticking with one because "it's how we've always done things" is not a good reason at all.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Very much agree with this. Does anyone remember when eggs were bad for us? I sure as hell do. I remember being told that I can't have eggs because the cholesterol will make me sick. I was only about 10 when that panic was going on. While I agree that we need to be healthier as a nation, mandating any such type of behavior is not realistic, and borders on socialism in my opinion.

Taking into account all of what I said in the previous post, how the hell is this socialism? It sounds like 1) you're just trying to use that as a 4-letter word and 2) trying to use it where it doesn't fit.

People want to take more risks, they should have to pay more to take those risks. No one is forcing you into the government health system and you'd still have other choices. Not only that but you're now expecting the government to do something inefficient so that they would be worse than a private system and probably would then come back and talk about how inefficient it was when your argument created the problem in the first place.

Insurance companies do all sorts of risk assessments before deciding on rates for people so how is the government doing it socialism? You have the freedom, the right to choose your behaviors. You also have the rights to pay the consequences for said behaviors.

You want to smoke? Fine- no one's saying you can't, so long as you're not encroaching on other people's rights to be smoke free (i.e. at a residence, in a smoking area, etc). But you also get to pay extra per month for that luxury because we know that down the road you're going to cost more.

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

Very much agree with this. Does anyone remember when eggs were bad for us? I sure as hell do. I remember being told that I can't have eggs because the cholesterol will make me sick. I was only about 10 when that panic was going on. While I agree that we need to be healthier as a nation, mandating any such type of behavior is not realistic, and borders on socialism in my opinion.

Countries do this all the time throughout the world - its not 'socialism' its comon sense imho.

A society exists to ensure that its members prosper, pure and simple.

Its part of making people think about their choices and part in compensating society for others actions.

You doubt this - look at taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in most countries they're taxed higher than other products because they have known possible negative side-effects*.

A lot of European countries use this sort of thing as a carrot as well as a stick - for instance some items in England are sold 'tax free' because they're viewed as 'essentials' rather than luxury items (for instance its deemed unfair to tax Tampons for women or vital medicines).

Incidentally can anyone decrying 'socialism' please explain to me the pure capitalist utopian vision they have - I presume the poor starve to death because in a capitalist society there are no tax breaks on charity because there are no taxes, I also presume that the suppliers of vital components to peoples lives (water/electricity etc.) will obviously be the 'new rulers' of that society because there are no restrictions on their prces or any determination of how they decide to supply areas of society ...

All countries are a hybrid of socialism and capitalism because neither in their pure form would work, some countries are more pro-socialism and some more pro-capitalism but none is near either extreme. I personally would love a socialist society (ala Star Trek) but mankind simply is far too selfish (myself included) to have such a thing at present - even when crisis's like the present ecomonic one show a huge glare on the inadequacies of chasing the almighty dollar rather than looking to use the worlds resources to help everyone.

*It can also be argued that this is also because they're addictive and the goverments know how to milk a cash cow.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

People want to take more risks, they should have to pay more to take those risks. No one is forcing you into the government health system and you'd still have other choices. And they've banned all "catastrophic" plans where there would be a low cost and high deductible, which are the only ones that make sense for young, healthy people like myself.

As a resident of Massachusetts, I am forced to either have one of their approved insurance plans or pay extra on my taxes.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Incidentally can anyone decrying 'socialism' please explain to me the pure capitalist utopian vision they have - I presume the poor starve to death because in a capitalist society there are no tax breaks on charity because there are no taxes,

So you assume the only reason people donate to charity is for the tax breaks? Interesting.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So you assume the only reason people donate to charity is for the tax breaks? Interesting.

I can't speak for Marc, but I personally assume an overwhelming majority of companies do it for this reason.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I can't speak for Marc, but I personally assume an overwhelming majority of companies do it for this reason.

SI

That would be a money-losing strategy.

If we want to assume that companies and the people that run them are 100% immoral, then it makes far more sense to assume that it's done as a form of cheap advertising.

When I go to the Idaho Shakespeare festival, we have to sit through five minutes of thanks to the sponsors (followed by applause for each comapny). Micron puts a ton of money into almost every non-profit here - it's how I hear that brand name the most (and it's done in a way that in theory, doesn't turn us off to that brand, like a bad commercial might).

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Taking into account all of what I said in the previous post, how the hell is this socialism? It sounds like 1) you're just trying to use that as a 4-letter word and 2) trying to use it where it doesn't fit.

People want to take more risks, they should have to pay more to take those risks. No one is forcing you into the government health system and you'd still have other choices. Not only that but you're now expecting the government to do something inefficient so that they would be worse than a private system and probably would then come back and talk about how inefficient it was when your argument created the problem in the first place.

Insurance companies do all sorts of risk assessments before deciding on rates for people so how is the government doing it socialism? You have the freedom, the right to choose your behaviors. You also have the rights to pay the consequences for said behaviors.

You want to smoke? Fine- no one's saying you can't, so long as you're not encroaching on other people's rights to be smoke free (i.e. at a residence, in a smoking area, etc). But you also get to pay extra per month for that luxury because we know that down the road you're going to cost more.

SI

This is assuming there ARE other choices. With no choice but government health care, is that not a variation of socialism? Everyone has the same health care regardless of what their condition (or lack of) is? Everyone pays the same premium and has the same deductable? Sounds like socialism to me.

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Countries do this all the time throughout the world - its not 'socialism' its comon sense imho.

A society exists to ensure that its members prosper, pure and simple.

Its part of making people think about their choices and part in compensating society for others actions.

You doubt this - look at taxes on cigarettes and alcohol in most countries they're taxed higher than other products because they have known possible negative side-effects*.

A lot of European countries use this sort of thing as a carrot as well as a stick - for instance some items in England are sold 'tax free' because they're viewed as 'essentials' rather than luxury items (for instance its deemed unfair to tax Tampons for women or vital medicines).

Incidentally can anyone decrying 'socialism' please explain to me the pure capitalist utopian vision they have - I presume the poor starve to death because in a capitalist society there are no tax breaks on charity because there are no taxes, I also presume that the suppliers of vital components to peoples lives (water/electricity etc.) will obviously be the 'new rulers' of that society because there are no restrictions on their prces or any determination of how they decide to supply areas of society ...

All countries are a hybrid of socialism and capitalism because neither in their pure form would work, some countries are more pro-socialism and some more pro-capitalism but none is near either extreme. I personally would love a socialist society (ala Star Trek) but mankind simply is far too selfish (myself included) to have such a thing at present - even when crisis's like the present ecomonic one show a huge glare on the inadequacies of chasing the almighty dollar rather than looking to use the worlds resources to help everyone.

*It can also be argued that this is also because they're addictive and the goverments know how to milk a cash cow.

I agree with you guys on most of these issues. I do not believe in a pure capitalist concept, it is far-fetched and unrealistic. What I don't believe in is somebody mandating to me what I have to do in regards to my personal choices, such as health care and what/how I should eat. People who smoke SHOULD pay higher rates for life/health insurance than those whom do not. The day that we all pay the same rates and receive the same care regardless of our life choices will be a bad day for this country.

[Arles]

My company just announced they are shutting down our plant in Ohio and things don't look very good for the 3rd/4th quarter in 09. Our hope is that mid 2010 will be better, but it looks like this economy could stay in a tailspin for a while:

SUMCO Phoenix to close Maineville plant - Business Courier of Cincinnati:

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

If we want to assume that companies and the people that run them are 100% immoral, then it makes far more sense to assume that it's done as a form of cheap advertising.

Not really, as we hardly ever hear about most corporate giving.

I'd say tax implication are the #1 motivation for most corporate donations, followed by personal interests of decision makers, with the advertising aspect being a distant third motivator.

In cases like you mention it's definitely a consideration but that's not been the core of most corporate giving I'm familiar with.

edit to add: By #1 motivation, I guess I'm really talking about "would the donation still happen if not for the tax break". In my experience the answer to that is most often going to be no. It's nearly always a factor, with the other factors playing a role in steering where those donations end up.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not really, as we hardly ever hear about most corporate giving.

I'd say tax implication are the #1 motivation for most corporate donations, followed by personal interests of decision makers, with the advertising aspect being a distant third motivator.

In cases like you mention it's definitely a consideration but that's not been the core of most corporate giving I'm familiar with.

edit to add: By #1 motivation, I guess I'm really talking about "would the donation still happen if not for the tax break". In my experience the answer to that is most often going to be no. It's nearly always a factor, with the other factors playing a role in steering where those donations end up.

I agree with your edit, but it still doesn't make sense to me from a financial perspective - it's not like you're getting more in tax breaks than money you spent on the charity. It's a financial loss. Without some other signficant benefit, there would be no reason to do it.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

This is assuming there ARE other choices. With no choice but government health care, is that not a variation of socialism? Everyone has the same health care regardless of what their condition (or lack of) is? Everyone pays the same premium and has the same deductible? Sounds like socialism to me.

Who said there is going to be no other choice? I know there are a bunch of fake doomsday scenarios out there but they just aren't realistic.

Is UnitedHealth walking away from $82.89B in revenue last year? Wellpoint's (BCBS) $61B? How about Aetna's $27B? Cigna and their $17B? Those first couple came in at 21 and 32 on last year's Fortune 1000, and one of those are going to suddenly fold up shop? No, it just means they have to be more competitive pricewise rather than the horrible gouging they do now.

SI

[JAG]

Originally Posted by molson

If we want to assume that companies and the people that run them are 100% immoral, then it makes far more sense to assume that it's done as a form of cheap advertising.

Do you think the companies exist to be a moral force? As I understand it (as someone with only a very basic understanding of finance), their goal is to maximize their wealth. Giving money away in exchange for nothing would not contribute to that goal, therefore they must perceive the money spent to be an investment with a positive return greater than the money spent (good PR + tax breaks = x dollars).

[molson]

Originally Posted by JAG

Do you think the companies exist to be a moral force? As I understand it (as someone with only a very basic understanding of finance), their goal is to maximize their wealth. Giving money away in exchange for nothing would not contribute to that goal, therefore they must perceive the money spent to be an investment with a positive return greater than the money spent (good PR + tax breaks = x dollars).

That's why I made that assumption.

I was talking about the good PR/cheap advertising aspect of this - because I fail to understand how giving to charity creates a net gain for a company without that.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Who said there is going to be no other choice? I know there are a bunch of fake doomsday scenarios out there but they just aren't realistic.

Is UnitedHealth walking away from $82.89B in revenue last year? Wellpoint's (BCBS) $61B? How about Aetna's $27B? Cigna and their $17B? Those first couple came in at 21 and 32 on last year's Fortune 1000, and one of those are going to suddenly fold up shop? No, it just means they have to be more competitive pricewise rather than the horrible gouging they do now.

SI

Agree with all of these points. My only argument is in regards to other health care choices. Do we really believe that a government sponsored healthcare system is going to endorse more than one company? While it is possible, I am not sure if I see it happening. Too much lobbying going on for this to make sense. This is one of the reasons I do not see this type of system coming into place in the U.S. Too much capitalist B.S. going on for these companies and the government to see what might be best for the people. While I think the care we receive is top-notch, I believe the expense factor for the blue-collar worker is pretty high, especially if he/she has a family.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

Agree with all of these points. My only argument is in regards to other health care choices. Do we really believe that a government sponsored healthcare system is going to endorse more than one company? While it is possible, I am not sure if I see it happening. Too much lobbying going on for this to make sense. This is one of the reasons I do not see this type of system coming into place in the U.S. Too much capitalist B.S. going on for these companies and the government to see what might be best for the people. While I think the care we receive is top-notch, I believe the expense factor for the blue-collar worker is pretty high, especially if he/she has a family.

Pretty much agree with you on all accounts here

SI

[Marc Vaughan]

I agree with you guys on most of these issues. I do not believe in a pure capitalist concept, it is far-fetched and unrealistic. What I don't believe in is somebody mandating to me what I have to do in regards to my personal choices, such as health care and what/how I should eat. People who smoke SHOULD pay higher rates for life/health insurance than those whom do not. The day that we all pay the same rates and receive the same care regardless of our life choices will be a bad day for this country.

But thats one of the (many) misunderstanding people in America seem to have about the European healthcare system.

For instance in England everyone pays a pittance (comparative to what you pay in America for coverage) and recieves sensible coverage - ie. prescriptions are free if you're poor or a nominal cost if you're not.

You can have anything important done on the NHS fairly quickly and its covered by the contributions of yourself and others - HOWEVER certain things will take longer to get on the NHS than if you went private (which is still possible), for instance want cosmetic surgery (outside of say burn scars etc.) - its possible on the NHS but good luck convincing your doctor its required for you to have a fulfilled life ....

The other thing which differs somewhat in the UK to America is the approach taken to dentistry etc. - over here everything is about them 'looking good' as far as I can tell, whereas in the UK its about the teeth being healthy not about filmstar smiles ... you can get filmstar smiles in the UK, if again you pay privately for them ...

So to summarise to me it isn't about taking away your options they're still there - its about providing a humane level off care to everyone without a society regardless of income or stature.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

So to summarise to me it isn't about taking away your options they're still there - its about providing a humane level off care to everyone without a society regardless of income or stature.

He's a witc-- err Communist! Burn him!

SI

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JAG

Do you think the companies exist to be a moral force? As I understand it (as someone with only a very basic understanding of finance), their goal is to maximize their wealth. Giving money away in exchange for nothing would not contribute to that goal, therefore they must perceive the money spent to be an investment with a positive return greater than the money spent (good PR + tax breaks = x dollars).

Originally Posted by Adam Smith

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it.

The opening passage from his Theory on Moral Sentiments, the companion book to Wealth of Nations. Companies are still run by people.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

For instance in England everyone pays a pittance (comparative to what you pay in America for coverage) and recieves sensible coverage - ie. prescriptions are free if you're poor or a nominal cost if you're not.

And yet the United States spends about 4 times as much per person on health care than the UK does. There's something missing in the "let's just switch to the European model" analysis.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The opening passage from his Theory on Moral Sentiments, the companion book to Wealth of Nations. Companies are still run by people.

One could argue that with our mega-corporations, it takes a certain set of characteristics to reach the top of said businesses and charity and compassion usually aren't in that skill set and, in fact, run counter to many of the skills required.

SI

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

One could argue that with our mega-corporations, it takes a certain set of characteristics to reach the top of said businesses and charity and compassion usually aren't in that skill set and, in fact, run counter to many of the skills required.

SI

Charity and compassion are actually called greed and ruthlessness in the U.S. One could argue that while these are inherently poor qualities, they do provide for some success in the business world (except for Enron) and most definitely a compelling discussion on FOFC.

[SportsDino]

I'd argue that greed and ruthlessness are not good for success in business, see the absolute failures that are the banking, auto, and housing industry.

Greed can be good, it can also be very destructive... often the latter more than the former, which is why it is probably labeled as a vice rather than a virtue.

In terms of health care, the reason we pay 4 times more per person that in Europe probably has to do with a large chunk of that being taken for making some shareholders rich, and paying for lobbyists to control the government from doing anything about it. I don't think we even need to go to a total socialist system for health, we need to just get things back to common sense... each dollar going towards making people better, and a reasonable return for those providing the service. Instead we have vast sums of money going into a bureaucracy (the health companies, not the government) and only a portion of it actually goes toward the intended purpose (make people better) and the reward is often distributed much farther away from those that provide the service.

Insurance seems like its one of those things we should encourage competition to bring down prices and increase quality. I think right now anyone can point at it as a mess, if not borderline evil. Private business is not a license to print money and be an asshole, its supposed to be a system whereby customers choose the best option for themselves, they chose companies providing the best efficiency, lowest cost, and best service... and that cycle gives a positive feedback loop that improves overall quality and price combinations, while also generating profit.

Health care system is broken, it is not operating as a real economy, so we are not seeing any benefits. In fact, we are seeing massive costs. In reality, our system is as much a command economy as any in Europe, its incentive mechanisms are working in the same way (bloat-ocracy), but denying it with our 'capitalism is always better' koolaid means we are paying much for it, and accepting the massive costs to give an illusion of better service, but in reality it still only exists for those who can pay. We are obfuscating what England has made public for the opportunity to pay some insurance CEO millions of dollars for doing nothing at a desk all day.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

We are obfuscating what England has made public for the opportunity to pay some insurance CEO millions of dollars for doing nothing at a desk all day.

I'm sure he plays a mean game of golf

SI

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SportsDino

I'd argue that greed and ruthlessness are not good for success in business, see the absolute failures that are the banking, auto, and housing industry.

I believe you are confusing greed and ruthlessness with greed and stupidity. While I do not believe that greed and ruthlessness are necessarily good for business, there can be no argument that they are both traits that are entrenched in the business model from hundreds of years ago, and I do not personally see that changing in the near future.

What we need is a more proactive public, one that demands our tax dollars and health premiums be utilized in a responsible manner. I know this has been said numerous times in other threads, postings, water cooler seminars, web chats, and telephone conversations, but if we, as a nation of free thinkers, ever want our finances to get under control in this country, and for the pork barrel spending to stop, and numerous other things, we need to step forward and speak up. What would happen if everyone stopped buying gasoline? Who would suffer the most in that situation? Better yet, what would happen if we all stopped paying health care premiums?

Just as in professional sports, the little guy (a.k.a: the blue collar worker in this case) has not only been forgotten about, he has been ignored and stepped upon. As long as we allow it, nothing will ever change.

[SteveMax58]

Insane prophetic post of the week (maybe year?)...

The issues of volatile world economies, corrupt governments, and greedy businesses will never be properly handled by humans. This is why we need to build bigger & better computers and computer software to evaluate, analyze, and judge compliance of our issues objectively and before they become "too big to fail" or "too late to fix". After all...it is our only hope to maintain our "lifestyle"...right?

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by SteveMax58

Insane prophetic post of the week (maybe year?)...

The issues of volatile world economies, corrupt governments, and greedy businesses will never be properly handled by humans. This is why we need to build bigger & better computers and computer software to evaluate, analyze, and judge compliance of our issues objectively and before they become "too big to fail" or "too late to fix". After all...it is our only hope to maintain our "lifestyle"...right?

Heh, this sounds much better:

IMDb Video: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

[SportsDino]

I do not doubt that greed and ruthlessness are entrenched in the system. I just think people think of the 'capitalism as competition' mantra way too much... competition is but one force within what is ultimately a system of efficient cooperation between actors.

I personally think the mentality I described a long time back as 'board room feudalism', greed and ruthlessness to the point where individuals spend more resources on maintaining position than on growth, will cause very sub-optimal economic trends. I even think organizations that break out of that cycle first have a chance to be the dominant players in a few decades.

As you say, I think the 'little guy' needs to step up his game and stop being a doormat... my bent perspective on it though is that those at the top will actually end up RICHER in the process. There will be more wealth in the pile, and in all likelihood they'll still have their entrenched positions at the top, so the personal pile that they claim on their own will be much larger.

That said, greedy and ruthless traits can help that process... as long as the individuals still have their sights on the long term end game (i.e. the biggest pile of wealth) and not on short term sub-optimal strategies (how can I keep my share price high enough to get my next bonus). Idolizing those traits in and of themselves is why I think we have a generation of the most incompetent scum leading our industry. I've never been so embarrassed as when I saw millionaires putting on their best beggar act in front of Congress asking for multi-billion dollar welfare.

[sterlingice]

Psst... dominant not dominate. It's a completely different part of speech

SI

[Kodos]

Madoff got 150 years in jail. NICE!

hxxp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_bi_ge/us_madoff_scandal

Bernard Madoff gets maximum 150 years in prison

AP – In this courtroom sketch, Bernard Madoff, center, is seated in front of some of his victims that spoke
By TOM HAYS and LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writers Tom Hays And Larry Neumeister, Associated Press Writers – 9 mins ago

NEW YORK – Convicted Wall Street swindler Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison Monday for a fraud so extensive that the judge said he needed to send a message to potential imitators and to victims who demanded harsh punishment.

Scattered applause and whoops broke out in the crowded Manhattan courtroom after U.S. District Judge Denny Chin issued the maximum sentence to the 71-year-old defendant, who said he lives "in a tormented state now, knowing all the pain and suffering I've created."

Chin rejected a request by Madoff's lawyer for leniency and said he disagreed that victims of the Ponzi scheme were seeking mob vengeance.

"Here the message must be sent that Mr. Madoff's crimes were extraordinarily evil and that this kind of manipulation of the system is not just a bloodless crime that takes place on paper, but one instead that takes a staggering toll," Chin said.

The judge said the estimate that Madoff has cost his victims more than $13 billion was conservative because it did not include money from feeder funds.

"Objectively speaking, the fraud here was staggering," he said.

Chin announced the sentence with Madoff standing at the defense table, wearing a dark suit, white shirt and a tie, and looking thinner than his last court appearance in March. He gave no noticeable reaction when the sentence was announced.

He also showed no emotion earlier in the hearing as he listened to nine victims spend nearly an hour describing their despair. Some openly wept. Others raised their voices in anger.

"Life has been a living hell. It feels like the nightmare we can't wake from," said Carla Hirshhorn.

"He stole from the rich. He stole from the poor. He stole from the in between. He had no values," said Tom Fitzmaurice. "He cheated his victims out of their money so he and his wife Ruth could live a life of luxury beyond belief."

Dominic Ambrosino called it an "indescribably heinous crime" and urged a long prison sentence so "will know he is imprisoned in much the same way he imprisoned us and others."

He added: "In a sense, I would like somebody in the court today to tell me, how long is my sentence?"

When asked by the judge whether he had anything to say, Madoff slowly stood, leaned forward on the defense table and spoke in a monotone for about 10 minutes. At various times, he referred to his historic fraud as a "problem," "an error of judgment" and "a tragic mistake."

He claimed he and his wife were tormented, saying she "cries herself to sleep every night, knowing all the pain and suffering I have caused," he said. "That's something I live with, as well."

He then finally looked at the victims lining the first row of the gallery.

"I will turn and face you," he said. "I'm sorry. I know that doesn't help you."

Afterward, Ruth Madoff — often a target of victims' scorn since her husband's arrest — broke her silence by issuing a statement through her lawyer. She said she, too, had been misled.

"I am embarrassed and ashamed," she said. "Like everyone else, I feel betrayed and confused. The man who committed this horrible fraud is not the man whom I have known for all these years."

Prosecutor Lisa Baroni said Madoff deserved a life sentence because he "stole ruthlessly and without remorse."

The jailed Madoff already has taken a severe financial hit: Last week, a judge issued a preliminary $171 billion forfeiture order stripping Madoff of all his personal property, including real estate, investments and $80 million in assets Ruth Madoff had claimed were hers. The order left her with $2.5 million.

The terms require the Madoffs to sell a $7 million Manhattan apartment where Ruth Madoff still lives. An $11 million estate in Palm Beach, Fla., a $4 million home on Long Island and a $2.2 million boat will be put on the market, as well.

Before Madoff became a symbol of Wall Street greed, he earned a reputation as a trusted money manager with a Midas touch. Even as the market fluctuated, clients of his secretive investment advisory business — from Florida retirees to celebrities such as Steven Spielberg, actor Kevin Bacon and Hall of Fame pitcher Sandy Koufax — for decades enjoyed steady double-digit returns.

But late last year, Madoff made a dramatic confession: Authorities say he pulled his sons aside and told them it was "all just one big lie."

Madoff pleaded guilty in March to securities fraud and other charges, saying he was "deeply sorry and ashamed." He insisted that he acted alone, describing a separate wholesale stock-trading firm run by his sons and brother as honest and legitimate.

Aside from an accountant accused of cooking Madoff's books, no one else has been criminally charged. But the family, including his wife, and brokerage firms that recruited investors have come under intense scrutiny by the FBI, regulators and a court-appointed trustee overseeing the liquidation of Madoff's assets.

The trustee and prosecutors have sought to go after assets to compensate thousands of burned victims who have filed claims against Madoff. How much is available to pay them remains unknown, though it's expected to be only a fraction of the astronomical losses associated with the fraud.

The $171 billion forfeiture figure used by prosecutors merely mirrors the amount they estimate that, over decades, "flowed into the principal account to perpetrate the Ponzi scheme." The statements sent to investors showing their accounts were worth as much as $65 billion were fiction.

The investigation has found that in reality, Madoff never made any investments, instead using the money from new investors to pay returns to existing clients — and to finance a lavish lifestyle for his family.

In bankruptcy filings, Trustee Irving Picard say family members "used customers accounts as though they were their own," putting Madoff's maid, boat captain and house-sitter in Florida on the company payroll and paying nearly $1 million in fees at high-end golf clubs on Long Island and in Florida.

Picard has sought to reclaim ill-gotten gains by freezing Madoff's business bank accounts and selling legitimate portions of his firm. (Its season tickets for the Mets went for $38,100.) He's also sued big money managers and investors for billions of dollars, claiming they were Madoff cronies who also cashed in on the fraud.

The defendants include leading philanthropists Stanley Chais and Jeffry Picower — from whom Picard is seeking at least $5.1 billion alleged to have come out of victims' pockets — and hedge fund manager J. Ezra Merkin. All have denied any wrongdoing.

[lungs]

It's too bad nobody assassinated him.

[Edward64]

Thought this was interesting. Macro view, easy enough for me to understand. Unfortunately only 1 of 6 is positive right now, but 5 of 6 are showing of getting better.

Kiplinger Economic recovery index
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/recovery/

Identifying a turn in the economy is tricky business, especially when each day's news seems to bring conflicting information. To cut through the noise, we've identified six key economic indicators. All have posted some dramatic tumbles, but all are also showing signs that they may be bottoming, several are recovering, and interest rate spreads have returned to health. When at least three of the six indicators go fully positive -- with a check mark from us -- it's more than likely that the recession has ended.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by lungs

It's too bad nobody assassinated him.

I do think there should be a death penalty for white collar crime. Yes, I do think white collar criminals would be deterred by it.

[larrymcg421]

Obama gets the support of both Walmart and a key union for his health care proposal.

Obama gets ally for health care plan: Wal-Mart - Consumer news- msnbc.com

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Obama gets the support of both Walmart and a key union for his health care proposal.

Obama gets ally for health care plan: Wal-Mart - Consumer news- msnbc.com

A friend of mine told me that yesterday and we were trying to figure out the angle. They certainly aren't doing this out of the kindness of their heart and I don't think they'd do it just for a seat at the negotiating table. So, what's the story behind the story?

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

A friend of mine told me that yesterday and we were trying to figure out the angle. They certainly aren't doing this out of the kindness of their heart and I don't think they'd do it just for a seat at the negotiating table. So, what's the story behind the story?

SI

If they see reform as inevitable with the current political balance in Washington, then it makes sense for htem to make an early claim at the negotiating table to somehow influence the bill, while also getting some good PR.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do think there should be a death penalty for white collar crime. Yes, I do think white collar criminals would be deterred by it.

I don't believe in the death penalty, thus I was hoping somebody would assassinate him. Kind of fucked up logic but I'll stand by it.

[Passacaglia]

I've read somewhere that Wal-Mart is really good about educating their employees on what government programs are available to them, and makes sure they take advantage of them, so I could see them wanting this.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

A friend of mine told me that yesterday and we were trying to figure out the angle. They certainly aren't doing this out of the kindness of their heart and I don't think they'd do it just for a seat at the negotiating table. So, what's the story behind the story?

SI

heh, I think that if they see the government option as better for employees they'll be able to 'encourage' a great majority of employees off of their books onto the governments perhaps even with a less attractive sumplemental program that saves them money while making it look better for the employee. {shrug}

[albionmoonlight]

Tracking the jobless recovery | Free exchange | Economist.com

[sterlingice]

So, yeah, up until today, I hadn't heard the term "jobless recovery" but this really explains what I've always said about the 2001 recession (I was too young to pay attention to the economy in the early 90s). It didn't seem like there was ever really any recovery- jobs kept getting shipped overseas and apparently we built our "recovery" on piles of debt.

SI

[SportsDino]

I'm very nervous about there being no jobs, unfortunately throwing around piles of money with little control is as likely to create a negative feedback loop as stimulate growth. If you can make all your incentives go green without having to hire people, you generally won't. That is what corporate welfare can do, but unfortunately it shocks the economy further into depression turning a decision to cut or grow based on profits, into a situation where you need to cut because of impossible costs.

Eventually it'll bounce out of the cycle, its hard to convince an economy there is zero growth opportunity when there is no production at all (because in the world of zero production the first one to make something wins by default)... similar to recovery from 'boredom', but a lot more pain comes from letting things fall to crap before turning around versus making the change while you still have strength.

We need jobs more than we need COMPANIES, the goons haven't figured that out yet. 5 inefficient (in terms of economy of scale) but active companies beats one dying hulk in terms of economic stabilization effect. It creates jobs even though their is less of the pie to split among the 'overhead' of stakeholders. As it is this GM experiment is some of the sickest garbage devised yet (sell out all the assets to some company theoretically owned by the government just sounds like a new version of the Nigerian email bank scam). Quit pretending its a capitalist system or its helping the people to prop these companies up the way we are doing, the method and motivation is not saving the economy but rather the deep pockets trying to grab an even bigger pie now that they've been scared a little.

[albionmoonlight]

Turning a Corner? - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

[SportsDino]

I don't like the graph. The biggest leading indicator in my opinion is jobs, and they have continued to be rotten. When you have a massive infusion of capital from the government combined with a sustained super cutback period, of course some of the other leading indicators are going to point rosy. It only matters though if companies are encouraged to expand hiring and production, otherwise we are so soft that the smallest little thing can set off another drop.