birdog1960

and i was surprised, no, shocked, i tell ya, that no one went to jail for this

when i finally remembered "when - - - talks, people listen" was ef hutton, i had to confirm it. and i got the opportunity to learn all about check kiting. pretty neat trick. now there's an investment opprotunity not open to everyone.

oh yeah. now i remember. it was ef hutton (very clever ad campaign), that later became smith barney that later became...it's so confusing! how do they keep the names straight much less the clients and employees. with fewer players, i guess it'll get easier.

You mean you couldn't transpose Merrill lynch for smith Barney?....no imagination. And what ever happened to them and the short,fat, bald guy from the paper chase? Are they all defunct now too?

and just because the chorus belittles it, that doesn't make it irrelevant. lots of people listen when gates talks. dare i say, more than when merrill lynch does. and ya gotta pay attention to warren, especially all you finance types. lobbyist on k street the atomic bomb of class warfare. tshirts will be out soon. i think i see an investment opportunity.

hmmm, i guess i should be thankful for the protection from all that risk...thanks so much. and who is that decides i'm not up for it? actually there are plenty of risky investments i or anyone have access to. i'm just not stupid enough to think that all risky investments are equal. some speculation isn't risky at all and some is sure folly despite what the investment bankers say. but they're all just honest folks trying to make an honest living, right?

and somehow that precludes you from complaining about perceived wrongs on a message board? really?

i guess you have to be a fatalist to some degree to be a bills fan...you're just more of one than me.

ever heard of a paradigm shift? maybe this method of "commerce" does more harm than good. maybe it's not really needed. maybe we could do without it.

so you can't imagine any changes that might level the playing field? think maybe a method could be found to stop the gaming around the mandated time to buy positions for mutual funds invested in by us plebs? to stop super fast trades that profit not on knowledge but gamesmanship and better computers? i'm sure there are many other examples where the system could be tweaked to make it more fair. but there not gonna happen cuz the people that run the system are the ones winning big. btw, i currently own no individual stocks inside or outside my 401k and have done better than average but 10% over the last 2 years is much better than average. maybe it's a one of, but i doubt it. it doesn't matter the mechanism for the unfairness in the system ("it's how the market operates"- no stojan, sherlock) and the really significant redistribution of wealth it causes, it's the fact that it is inherently unfair. and lets not even get into insider trading and illegal activities that happen way too often (i know, mitt's investments are in blind trusts so this doesn't directly relate to him but who knows about the guys behind the curtain). finally, you entirely missed my point about pension funds. it's the size of them that lets them compete with the romney's and buffets. without unions these workers be totally outmatched as are so many small investors.

so you are ready to unashamedly tell me that the game is not rigged? that big investors are favored over small? geez, if you guys had your way things like union pension fund investors wouldn't even exist and the real income redistribution could occur even faster.

it's a good question and one i don't see a serious answer to. the other question i have is: how during a time where many serious investors went into t-bills and cash just to hold onto their monet, did mitt make 10% a year? i know the market is just a big poker game with winners and losers, but why do the ultra rich always seem to do so much better than everyone else in the game?

don't tell me...i'll bet you're typing this from a suite in davos.

yeah, it's not like despite our decreased dependence on oil, it remains one of, if not the most important geopolitical issue in the world. analysts at intelligence agencies make it a low priority and don't bother to fill in and update govt officials on developments, oil company execs don't communicate with govt officials (remember BP, the lockerbie bomber and the UK?) ... i'm confident that nobody knows as much about it as you.

all of this may be true but it's also true that right wing sky is falling rhetoric over obama's energy policies was proved wrong. and conservation programs certainly had some effect. exactly how much will be argued over by those much more knowledgable than any of us.

maybe obama's energy policy isn't so bad after all. this is pretty encouraging. need to continue to play nice with our friend and neighbor, canada.

i obviously don't agree with you on catholic charities but we appear to agree on the separation of taxes and charitable giving. "give to caesar what belongs to caesar...".

did you read this piece? it contends on 2 occasions that the mormon church contiues to lie (the authors word) about it's past in regards to racism. "problems" indeed and this article does little to dispel them. i dont't know of any inquisition deniers. do you?

interesting that you bring up catholicism. as a Catholic, i will freely admit it is a sexist institution. i don't like it but it's inarguable (as it is in the Mormon church). and while catholic charities give unquestioning aid to many in need, sometimes there are conditions. right now two big issues are birth control adn abortion. having trained in a catholic hospital, no one needs to convince me of the good these institutions do but they reserve the right (or at least were able to reserve the right in the past) to withold procedures or medicines that are against church teachings. thats fine and in my opinion, as it should be. but these procedures are lawful and patients desiring them have a right to access them. if we relied on charitable giving only, for social justice programs, access would likely be severely curtailed. whether that result is actually good isn't relevant to the larger issue being argued here. and confirming your statement that you inferred but was never stated or even intended wouldn't make me more of a man in my own eyes or likely, yours.

1978 is pretty recent in my opinion. the civil war, not so much. the policy was apparently based on the belief of one of the most important figures in the religion. to me, beliefs in political parties and those in a religous movement are two very different things especially if they are thought divinely inspired by the latter. i'm no expert on mormonism but i think a reasonable person might well be concerned with racism in an organization with obvious racist policies in place as recently as 1978.

the reference to mormonism was meant to illustrate that there are often conditions or strings attached to charitable giving. if the country solely relied on charitable giving for it's societal safety net, it's likely some groups felt less desreving or desirable for whatever reason would be less supported. yes, i think the capital gains tax needs to be increased or alternatively the tax system fundamentally changes so that an effective progressive tax structure is in palce. i'll leave the details in how to get there to those more versed in such issues.

until 1978, no black man of african descent was allowed priesthood in the mormon church. read brigham young's writings on this if you don't believe me. does one need to be a bigot to point this fact out?

so you're making this conclusion on the basis of romney vs biden and obama? hardly a large enough sample to conclude that. got any more comprehensive data?

don't have to get around them. you made the argument for us. his charitable giving is voluntary. what is done with that money is not controlled directly or indirectly by voters. what gets done with that money is often dependent on conditions set by the particular charity. for instance, mormons history on race relations is far from stellar. would they be less likely to help down and out minorities than down and out whites? i don't know about now but that was certainly the case a century ago. ever heard of rice bowl conversion? yup, its used in third world countries by groups as diverse as muslim extremists to christian fundamentalists. now, he has every right to voluntarily contribute to any or all such organizations. but it should be an obligation to contribute a percentage of his income equal or greater to those with far less in the way of resources to advance and fund the common goals of our nation prioritized by our elected govt officials. charitable giving should in no way mitigate that obligation.

No it presupposes that a society based on rampant materialism and thus unquenchable desire for more and more despite extravagant abundance is bound to fail...at least for the vast majority of the populace. And if the winners aren't ever satisfied, are they really winners?