|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 30 2014 03:21 GreenHorizons wrote:In other Racism news: DONALD STERLING BANNED FOR LIFE FROM THE NBA (he cant even go to the games) Also has been assessed the maximum $2.5 million fine. The commissioner is doing anything he can to force the sale of the team. (This actually helps the other owners more than it punishes Sterling) http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/10857580/donald-sterling-los-angeles-clippers-owner-receives-life-ban-nbaHopefully this serves as a stark warning to the peers he was saying were the reason he didn't want his girlfriend being seen on instagram with 'black people' (Magic Johnson).
He had a private conversation with his GF and now he is force to sell his team. The first amendment is the freedom of speech and he was having a private conversation with his gf. You can fine and ban the man all you want but forcing him to sell his team is absurd. He was emotional and said something wrong, he should not be severely persecuted for it. He never acted on the things he said and if everyone is persecuted for the things they ONLY say, America is going down a slippery slope.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
he'll ruin the nba if he remains. it's more of a business decision than moral hunting. get real
|
On April 30 2014 06:43 Forgottenfrog wrote:He had a private conversation with his GF and now he is force to sell his team. The first amendment is the freedom of speech and he was having a private conversation with his gf. You can fine and ban the man all you want but forcing him to sell his team is absurd. He was emotional and said something wrong, he should not be severely persecuted for it. He never acted on the things he said and if everyone is persecuted for the things they ONLY say, America is going down a slippery slope.
I had no idea the NBA was an arm of the government and was required to uphold the First Amendment! Truly fascinating revelation. Here I was thinking the NBA (and other related people and organizations) were exercising that same freedom by persecuting him by the means they had available to them... My bad.
|
This was the recording if anyone is interested. + Show Spoiler +http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-new-audio-released-clippers-black-people/
He said something in a private conversation while he was emotional. He should not be force to sell his team. I think it is too harsh of a punishment because the 2.5million dollar fine and lifetime ban is enough. In the audio it felt as if his ex gf was provoking him to say those things. What do you guys think?
|
Isn't this only allowed because it's a franchise? I mean, if he personally owned a store - no one could force him to sell the store. It's specifically because it's a franchise that has an overseeing body that this can be allowed.
There is no infringement of rights here and the government has nothing to do with this.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
what he did is akin to renting out your condo to a meth lab. it affects other clubs in the league and they have a governing process for it.
|
Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’
A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.
Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.
Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.
Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ...
Source
Hrmm, doesn't sound very effective...
|
On April 30 2014 07:15 Forgottenfrog wrote:This was the recording if anyone is interested. + Show Spoiler +http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-new-audio-released-clippers-black-people/ He said something in a private conversation while he was emotional. He should not be force to sell his team. I think it is too harsh of a punishment because the 2.5million dollar fine and lifetime ban is enough. In the audio it felt as if his ex gf was provoking him to say those things. What do you guys think?
You're saying that the NBA shouldn't be allowed to prohibit people from owning their teams? Why is that? It's a free enterprise providing nothing more than entertainment, they can conduct business however they please.
Why should the NBA, with its overwhelmingly large fanbase of black Americans, be forced to let a man so ignorant that he can't even tolerate Magic fucking Johnson, own one of their teams? I could even understand run-of-the-mill closet racism, but throwing Magic Johnson into the race-bin strongly suggests a complete lack of respect for the athletes that play the game.
I'm not sure how ownership in the NBA works exactly, but I imagine there are limits to behavior and other extenuating circumstances that can rescind that ownership. It isn't a lifelong right.
|
On April 30 2014 07:15 Forgottenfrog wrote:This was the recording if anyone is interested. + Show Spoiler +http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-new-audio-released-clippers-black-people/ He said something in a private conversation while he was emotional. He should not be force to sell his team. I think it is too harsh of a punishment because the 2.5million dollar fine and lifetime ban is enough. In the audio it felt as if his ex gf was provoking him to say those things. What do you guys think?
The guy was an OBVIOUS racist among other not nice characterizations. This was not by any stretch of the imagination a revelation about him. People trying to rationalize his comments kind of can't see the forest for the trees?(A little googling will show you what I'm talking about)
Well he only has to sell if 75% of his owner peers say so (not really a question that they will) it's not as if the other owners couldn't stand with him if they wanted though. If you took his word for it, it's really the people he professionally associates with that are the racists anyway.
Whether he was provoked or not could not matter less.
EDIT for fairness in the story: In the interest of pointing out ridiculous stuff I see on both sides, WTF LA NAACP I'm all for forgiveness but damn he hasn't even asked for it. (Looks like that NAACP is just more or less selling their awards.)
Leon Jenkins, president of the LA NAACP, said at a news conference Monday that donations made by Sterling will be returned. He wouldn't say how much money was involved but called it an "insignificant amount."
Source (outdated)
Doesn't really sit well with this statement
He has also over the years contributed to a number of minority charities. Compared to other L.A. franchises, his organization gave more money,"
Source
I guess it may be hard to distinguish between Him and the organization he owned? For instance if the 'franchises' is including donations from players and such too.
|
On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’
A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.
Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.
Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.
Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ... SourceHrmm, doesn't sound very effective...
Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...
|
On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’
A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.
Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.
Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.
Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ... SourceHrmm, doesn't sound very effective... Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe...
What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis.
|
On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’
A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.
Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.
Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.
Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ... SourceHrmm, doesn't sound very effective... Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe... What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis.
Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking.
|
On April 30 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’
A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.
Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.
Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.
Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ... SourceHrmm, doesn't sound very effective... Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe... What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis. Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking.
Seems like the opposite. Last go around we shifted risk away from banks and into shadow banks. Now we're doing the same. Lesson learned all right - don't expect too much out of regulators.
|
On April 30 2014 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’
A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.
Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.
Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.
Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ... SourceHrmm, doesn't sound very effective... Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe... What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis. Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking. Seems like the opposite. Last go around we shifted risk away from banks and into shadow banks. Now we're doing the same. Lesson learned all right - don't expect too much out of regulators.
No, there was no real shifting since the banks were funding those shadow banking operations anyways. Now the two are much more separated and should stay that way.
|
On April 30 2014 08:49 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’
A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.
Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.
Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.
Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ... SourceHrmm, doesn't sound very effective... Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe... What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis. Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking. Seems like the opposite. Last go around we shifted risk away from banks and into shadow banks. Now we're doing the same. Lesson learned all right - don't expect too much out of regulators. No, there was no real shifting since the banks were funding those shadow banking operations anyways. Now the two are much more separated and should stay that way.
I think you'll still have exposure / overlap.
Regardless, safe traditional banks and unsafe shadow banks doesn't leave you with safe system. Moving risk around doesn't eliminate it.
Edit: and hang on, they aren't removing the bank funding into shadow banking with this regulation. Can traditional banks no longer provide liquidity backstops to shadow banking?
|
On April 30 2014 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 08:49 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 08:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 08:07 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On April 30 2014 07:59 aksfjh wrote:On April 30 2014 07:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Leveraged loan crackdown drives borrowers to ‘shadow banks’
A US regulatory crackdown on the $600bn leveraged loan market is driving borrowers to alternative lenders known as “shadow banks”, according to market participants.
Bankers said the Federal Reserve and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency had stepped up their policing of the market, which provides financing for big corporate buyouts.
Following a review, officials told banks in January that they were not satisfied with their lending practices and instructed them to make only “rare” exceptions to 2013 guidelines that warned against granting loans greater than six times a company’s earnings.
Senior executives at two of the top US banks said buyout firms had responded by seeking leveraged loans from less-regulated entities, including foreign banks, hedge funds and broker-dealers. The US bankers complained that the regulators were picking winners and losers, while having no impact on bank or market safety. ... SourceHrmm, doesn't sound very effective... Sounds very effective at keeping our banks a bit more safe... What happens in shadow banking can affect traditional banking. That's an important lesson we should have learned from the last crisis. Yes, when mainstream banks take a more active role in shadow banking. By more heavily regulating and forcing bigger banks to take safer roles in the financial system, that is learning the lesson from the crisis and shadow banking. Seems like the opposite. Last go around we shifted risk away from banks and into shadow banks. Now we're doing the same. Lesson learned all right - don't expect too much out of regulators. No, there was no real shifting since the banks were funding those shadow banking operations anyways. Now the two are much more separated and should stay that way. I think you'll still have exposure / overlap. Regardless, safe traditional banks and unsafe shadow banks doesn't leave you with safe system. Moving risk around doesn't eliminate it. Edit: and hang on, they aren't removing the bank funding into shadow banking with this regulation. Can traditional banks no longer provide liquidity backstops to shadow banking?
I imagine the idea is transparency in where the risk is, and that safe banks actually are safe.
|
On April 29 2014 16:11 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 15:24 Danglars wrote:
Yes, it's not as bad as in the ultra corrupt countries where money is easily turned into great political influence. The danger is that government will keep the enterprise out through the regulatory barriers and the laws that entrenched business interests or non-business special interests erect. On the flip side, companies sidling up to government willing to hand them pork for votes is a danger. Heavy lobbying for changes in immigration policy to benefit themselves and bailouts if things turn south..
Uhm... Superpacs? Partyfunding? Thats as close as you can get to "buying" politicial influence whiteout openly allowing corruption. We wouldn't be having this problem is government was limited. Put government in charge of funneling pork and hurting competitors, and you'll have that crony capitalism anywhere. I see the very same people decrying unlimited campaign donations also advocating for greater government roles in the market, whether redistributing or policing. Can't kill free speech just because you think the current state of affairs stops just short of corruption; that's the worse option.
|
On April 30 2014 13:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 29 2014 16:11 Velr wrote:On April 29 2014 15:24 Danglars wrote:
Yes, it's not as bad as in the ultra corrupt countries where money is easily turned into great political influence. The danger is that government will keep the enterprise out through the regulatory barriers and the laws that entrenched business interests or non-business special interests erect. On the flip side, companies sidling up to government willing to hand them pork for votes is a danger. Heavy lobbying for changes in immigration policy to benefit themselves and bailouts if things turn south..
Uhm... Superpacs? Partyfunding? Thats as close as you can get to "buying" politicial influence whiteout openly allowing corruption. We wouldn't be having this problem is government was limited. Put government in charge of funneling pork and hurting competitors, and you'll have that crony capitalism anywhere. I see the very same people decrying unlimited campaign donations also advocating for greater government roles in the market, whether redistributing or policing. Can't kill free speech just because you think the current state of affairs stops just short of corruption; that's the worse option.
Preventing unlimited secret donations =/= 'killing free speech' but you know that.
But yeah just take the ref out of the game... that will fix the rule breakers/manipulators... If someone buys the ref you don't just stop refereeing the game.
Not a surprise the same people claiming any limit on anonymous donations or making them public is 'killing free speech', also claim wealth inequality is 'nowhere problematic nor even a priority to be targeted'...
|
^lol anyone actually thinking wealth inequality is 'nowhere problematic' is talking out of their ass/watching too much Sean Hannity/listening to too much Rush Limbaugh.
People that actually look into that issue with unprecedented focus on actual data spanning decades in the US and around the world claim it IS problematic. Try Thomas Piketty instead of Fox 'n Friends 
|
On April 30 2014 13:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2014 13:06 Danglars wrote:On April 29 2014 16:11 Velr wrote:On April 29 2014 15:24 Danglars wrote:
Yes, it's not as bad as in the ultra corrupt countries where money is easily turned into great political influence. The danger is that government will keep the enterprise out through the regulatory barriers and the laws that entrenched business interests or non-business special interests erect. On the flip side, companies sidling up to government willing to hand them pork for votes is a danger. Heavy lobbying for changes in immigration policy to benefit themselves and bailouts if things turn south..
Uhm... Superpacs? Partyfunding? Thats as close as you can get to "buying" politicial influence whiteout openly allowing corruption. We wouldn't be having this problem is government was limited. Put government in charge of funneling pork and hurting competitors, and you'll have that crony capitalism anywhere. I see the very same people decrying unlimited campaign donations also advocating for greater government roles in the market, whether redistributing or policing. Can't kill free speech just because you think the current state of affairs stops just short of corruption; that's the worse option. Preventing unlimited secret donations =/= 'killing free speech' but you know that. But yeah just take the ref out of the game... that will fix the rule breakers/manipulators... If someone buys the ref you don't just stop refereeing the game. Not a surprise the same people claiming any limit on anonymous donations or making them public is 'killing free speech', also claim wealth inequality is 'nowhere problematic nor even a priority to be targeted'... All free speech is equal, but some is more equal than others.
On April 30 2014 13:35 FallDownMarigold wrote:^lol anyone actually thinking wealth inequality is 'nowhere problematic' is talking out of their ass/watching too much Sean Hannity/listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. People that actually look into that issue with unprecedented focus on actual data spanning decades in the US and around the world claim it IS problematic. Try Thomas Piketty instead of Fox 'n Friends Wait a second, are you advocating talking out of your ass? Don't watch Fox, Piketty instead? Surely you're some kind of tea party plant made to discredit the left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
