molson_golden2002 Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Crooks in high places http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13fraud.html?hp But on Friday, less than 24 hours after this prominent Wall Street figure was arrested on charges connected with what authorities portrayed as the biggest Ponzi scheme in financial history, hard questions began to be raised about whether Mr. Madoff acted alone and why his suspected con game was not uncovered sooner. Victims of the scam included gray-haired grandmothers in Florida, investment companies in London, and charities and universities across the United States. The Wilpon family, the main owners of the New York Mets, and Yeshiva University both confirmed that they had invested with Mr. Madoff, and a Jewish charity in Massachusetts said it would lay off its five employees and close after losing nearly all of its $7 million endowment. Other investors included prominent Jewish families in New York and Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 The bothersome part of the article is the S.E.C investigated him years ago and found nothing wrong. Perhaps if the newspapers weren't focused on Britney Spears, maybe they would have broke this story a long time ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Crooks in high places http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13fraud.html?hp Interesting choice of paragraphs to lift out of the two page story. Anyhoo, wonder why NYT thought that this news item was not fit for print: According to a 1986 report in a monthly financial magazine, Financial World, titled "The Highest Paid People on Wall Street," Mr. Madoff owned three homes and kept a yacht moored in the Bahamas. The report said he earned $6 million in 1985. Property records show at one point he owned a home in Montauk, N.Y., and paid more than a $1 million in annual taxes. He has made major donations to Democratic candidates and organizations. From WSJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 13, 2008 Author Share Posted December 13, 2008 The bothersome part of the article is the S.E.C investigated him years ago and found nothing wrong. Perhaps if the newspapers weren't focused on Britney Spears, maybe they would have broke this story a long time ago. Ya, many years ago. How Britney Spears is part of this is beyond me, but whatever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted December 13, 2008 Author Share Posted December 13, 2008 Interesting choice of paragraphs to lift out of the two page story. Anyhoo, wonder why NYT thought that this news item was not fit for print: From WSJ 1985? Was he a criminal then? There was so much outrage against Unions yesterday but no one really cares about this. People, like you GG just want to deflect blame away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tcali Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 The bothersome part of the article is the S.E.C investigated him years ago and found nothing wrong. Perhaps if the newspapers weren't focused on Britney Spears, maybe they would have broke this story a long time ago. but we love britney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Strange. You'd think think this guy would be a Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Strange. You'd think think this guy would be a Republican. Why? Since when is greed and breaking the law a partisan trait? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 1985? Was he a criminal then? There was so much outrage against Unions yesterday but no one really cares about this. People, like you GG just want to deflect blame away from it. IMO, two reasons. Rich people ripping off rich people is less outrageous to the average person and that's what this looks like on the surface. And this case is new and unexpected, versus the old news that many large unions were providing their membership with compensation that was undermining the growth of their respective industries. A lot of working people all over the country have long been jealous of the impressive, and sometimes inexplicable, compensation that many union workers have received for doing the same type or lesser skilled labor than they have done for much less. It's a have vs. have-not conflict at the working class level which interests a whole lot more people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted December 13, 2008 Share Posted December 13, 2008 Why? Since when is greed and breaking the law a partisan trait? It's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsidethebox Posted December 14, 2008 Share Posted December 14, 2008 If this was about a janitor making 100,00 grand a year, the outrage would be huge. Since it was a SKILLED person who stole 50 billion, no big deal! Hypocrisy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted December 14, 2008 Share Posted December 14, 2008 Either the people running the SEC are complete morons or they are on the take....between this and their refusal to bring back the uptick rule...something is fishy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts