Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Truean]

Well, which is it? Either
a.) The system was so financially troubled and in risk of collapse that we had to bail it out (I believe this)
b.) The system wasn't at great risk of financial collapse and we shouldn't worry about guaranteeing the bank's loans.

Yeah, I think this conversation is over...

Fine by me, and yes, it is.

To everyone else, I'm sorry it actually got to that point. I apologize for continuing that conversation, when it is now apparent to me that I should've dropped it long ago, because there was no positive outcome possible.

I think this may... may have some promise. It really depends on how they do it though.

[SalmonGod]

So in the Red corner we've got... the federal reserve, most respected institution in the world

I... I just... erm... excuse me...

*runs away with hand over mouth* ... *raucous laughter from next room*

[Jopax]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/08225217010/breaking-news-feds-falsely-censor-popular-blog-over-year-deny-all-due-process-hide-all-details.shtml


Funny how more and more of this stuff keeps popping up, it's like it's all planned in some way X)

[mainiac]

So in the Red corner we've got... the federal reserve, most respected institution in the world

I... I just... erm... excuse me...

*runs away with hand over mouth* ... *raucous laughter from next room*

This right here is what pisses me off.  You have a right to be angry at the powers that be for their screwups.  That's fine.  But to think they they know nothing?  To reject the economic orthodoxy on depression economics without ever having studied it?  Without even reading any the numerous liberal experts on this subject?  The Paul Krugmans and Elizabeth Warrens and Ezra Kleins of the world are falling over themselves to illuminate these subjects but you are just assuming that these institutions that have studied this shit extensively have nothing to say.

I don't think of myself as an expert on this stuff.  But I can read what the experts say, it's not hard.  The fact that you would reject the experts out of hand infuriates me.  You are acting like the creationists and paultards when you do it.

[SalmonGod]

I don't doubt their abilities.  I doubt their intentions, which are the basis for a currently very widespread disrespect, in very obvious contradiction to your statement.  Respect is based on more than knowing what you're talking about.

[Zangi]

So in the Red corner we've got... the federal reserve, most respected institution in the world

I... I just... erm... excuse me...

*runs away with hand over mouth* ... *raucous laughter from next room*

Maybe if you did not make grand claims like this... 
Not contesting that they can't do their jobs right.... but, it does not mean they can't be influenced.

[timotheus]

Seems like this is an appropriate place to share this.

Quick version: I would be wary of advice from people who have been trained in Finance in the last 20 years

Quick story:
I went to college, originally going for CS. Got through lower-division, really didn't like the teachers, tired of making useless pizza-checking in programs. Switched to Business Finance. The longer I was working towards my degree, the dirtier I felt. Much about it, and what interested the smarter people in the classes was the weird "magical" ways to make money. Not by purchasing and holding stock of a company you researched and agree with their plan, but micro-transactions, option trading, and others. Graduated in 2005, kept working using my IT/programming skills.

My experience in college highlighted that a lot of students around me had no scruples making money any legal way possible, even if it wouldn't be ethical. I guess it draws people like that to it. Being told ways to make money by using the system to your advantage would attract people with those traits.

My point is, trusting experts in the field, even what choices the Federal Reserve does, might be based on people who really bought into that ideology.

Also, slightly off topic, anyone else have a lot of things cleared up for them when you learned that a young Alan Greenspan was a member of The Collective, a member of Ayn Rands closest "worshippers"?

[Truean]

Yup, the above post is unfortunately true.

You can't pay the rent with ethics.

Business people, unlike attorneys, are to make money by hook or by crook. Though unfortunately our ethical obligations do not always stop some  attorneys from doing bad things (and thus taking business away from ethical ones), there are consequences, like disbarment or suspension from the practice of law.

It gets really bad in the debt collection business sometimes, and the difference is palpable. The debt collector, non attorney, is paid to get debts collected any way they can. The attorney over them has to make sure they don't violate the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act and other laws. The debt collector wants to make as much money as possible (or in some cases enough to keep their jobs!) and the attorney has to rein them in.

You don't have to imagine what happens when there isn't anyone to rein them in....

[timotheus]

To clarify, my post was only talking about business people in the Finance industry, based on my personal experience.

[Truean]

To clarify, my post was only talking about business people in the Finance industry, based on my personal experience.

I believe the same basic rule of "They make the money any way they can, good or bad," applies still. No?

[timotheus]

I believe the same basic rule of "They make the money any way they can, good or bad," applies still. No?

I don't think so. (Again, basing off my personal experience) I am in the software dev industry, and most of the small businesses I work with are just trying to do what they love, and have enough in the coffers to make it through tough times. I've seen that with other small businesses outside of my software realm as well.

Also this is a good read: http://scripting.com/stories/2011/12/09/nprShouldGetAPulitzerForTh.html

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So they went online and looked for some small business people to interview, and got the same answer over and over. They played the interviews. It was inspiring! They're trying to win, in business, not win in taxes. When they have a chance to grow -- they grow, and they don't worry about whether they'll pay more or less taxes. A couple of them said taxes are too low and they worry about the country, and they would happily pay more.

Basically its about how small businesses make business decisions without really caring about tax implications, and some want higher taxes.

[SalmonGod]

Police leave one occupier bloodied and unconscious on the ground for 30 minutes during a raid in SF, denying all requests to attend him and even turning away an ambulance.

[Sheb]

How can you say this is "one bad apple"? A whole precinct's worth of policemen was here, anyone could have called an ambulance. But no. They had to obey, and their orders were to use force.

[kaijyuu]

I can't recall the name of the experiment, but it explains this behavior quite well. The one where people were giving shocks to someone while a researcher stood by and told them they would be absolved of any responsibility.


If you absolve people from responsibility and an authority gives them a command, the vast majority of the time they will follow it. It'd take something really heinous or someone of exceptional character for them not to. You can say you wouldn't do so in the same situation, but that's statistically unlikely. Most likely these people are much like you.


These officers were given orders to use force. So they did. Any guilt is washed away under the excuse of "well I can just blame my supervisor." Which is true.

Why they turned away an ambulance I don't know, but murderous intent seems unlikely, especially since they (eventually) called the fire department to take him away instead of making him rot in a cell. My guess is they were told to arrest people, and he was definitely in their custody. Letting him go to a hospital is letting him "get away." Also, most people don't realize being knocked out is often really bad, not just mild incapacitation like on TV. Police officers should know better, of course, so there's definitely some stupidity here. Malice though, I do not have enough evidence to reasonably make that assumption, at least not for individual officers there.

The malice and stupidity that needs to be focused on is the malice and stupidity that brought all this about in the first place. There's a lot of stupidity here because the best way to get rid of non-violent protesters is to ignore them. There's a lot of malice here because someone up the chain of command thought force would somehow be a good (not to mention justifiable) idea.

[ChairmanPoo]

My guess is they were told to arrest people, and he was definitely in their custody. Letting him go to a hospital is letting him "get away

.
No, no it isn't.