On October 08 2011 01:18 BioNova wrote: Obama 1.) University of California $1,648,685 2.) Goldman Sachs $1,013,091 3.) Harvard University $864,654 4.) Microsoft Corp $852,167 5.) Google Inc $814,540 6.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $808,799 7.) Citigroup Inc $736,771 8.) Time Warner $624,618 9.) Sidley Austin LLP $600,298 10.) Stanford University $595,716
McCain 1.) Merrill Lynch $375,895 2.) JPMorgan Chase & Co $343,505 3.) Citigroup Inc $338,202 4.) Morgan Stanley $271,902 5.) Goldman Sachs $240,295 6.) US Government $202,929 7.) AT&T Inc $201,938 8.) Wachovia Corp $199,663 9.) UBS AG $187,493 10.) Credit Suisse Group $184,153
Can you say "bribe?"
I was actually off at google checking the less familiar names to me. Wiki sources for quickies
UBS AG (SIX: UBSN, NYSE: UBS) is a Swiss global financial services company headquartered in Basel and Zürich, Switzerland, which provides investment banking, asset management, and wealth management services for private, corporate, and institutional clients worldwide, as well as retail clients in Switzerland. It operates in more than 40 countries and considered as the world's second largest manager of private wealth assets, with over CHF 2.2 trillion in invested assets.[2][3] UBS operates in all of the major financial centers worldwide with offices in over 50 countries and 64,000 employees around the world.[4] UBS traces its heritage, through its predecessors, to 1854.
UBS was originally an abbreviation for the Union Bank of Switzerland, one of its predecessors; however, UBS ceased to be considered a representational abbreviation after its 1998 merger with Swiss Bank Corporation.[5]
Sidley Austin LLP, formerly known as Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, is one of the oldest law firms in the world. It is the sixth-largest U.S.-based corporate law firm with more than 1,650 [4] lawyers, annual revenues of more than one billion dollars, and offices in 17 cities worldwide, with the most recent addition of Palo Alto, California in December 2009. [5] It is a full-service law firm, with broad experience in transaction and litigation matters. Its original predecessor firm was founded in 1866 and had former first lady Mary Todd Lincoln, then the widow of President Abraham Lincoln, among its earliest clients. The firm was formed as the result of the merger of two firms: the Chicago-based Sidley & Austin, founded in 1866, and the New York-based Brown & Wood, founded in 1914. The merger was completed in May 2001. The firm's headquarters is at One South Dearborn in the Chicago Loop, Chicago.[6]
As of 2006, it was the 9th largest law firm in the world (and 5th in the US) by revenue. In September 2010, it received the most First-Tier National Rankings in the inaugural Best Law Firms Survey by US News and World Report. [1]
The Credit Suisse Group AG (SIX: CSGN, NYSE: CS) is a Swiss multinational financial services company headquartered in Zurich, with more than 250 branches in Switzerland and operations in more than 50 countries.
Bill Maher made a joke once about Chocolate Jesus, wonder if he knew it was swiss chocolate!!!
Edit: Searching for Sidley and University of California together in google...
Stephen M. Fronk, 44, advises emerging and public companies, venture funds and entrepreneurs on a wide range of intellectual property-related issues such as copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret licensing, protection and enforcement, software and hardware development and distribution, and contracts and regulatory issues relating to online commerce. He has particular experience advising clients on digital media-related transactions and has negotiated digital distribution deals with leaders in the movie, television, music and publishing industries.
Sooo messy RIAA/Warner Music Group. Need moar overlords?
I wish he wrote the article with less digs at the Tea Party or some of the other parts that seem like their only purpose is to alienate readers of opposing political views, but great article none the less.
Since when is repeating the stance/platform of a political party a dig? That's what really gets me with political discourse these days, much of what comes out of the tea party and the republican party sounds so stupid that even they think its offensive once read back to them. Not that you are a tea partyer, it just seems odd that you'd take issue with a fairly to the point op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the NYT for it having an opinion.....
Nah not even that much. I just meant saying something like, "...unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people." doesn't help to further the point of the other 90% of the article. I can't see that statement, even if true, doing anything besides having a bunch of people take an immediate close-minded position against the rest of the article. The support for my argument with that comment is that the Tea Party isn't mentioned at all for the remainder of the article because they're irrelevant to the actual point of the article.
He's just stating a fact... the tea partiers ARE angry at the wrong people.. they can't help it because they are totally ignorant and uninformed.. but it's still true.. Also Tea Partiers will always take the close minded position regardless, so what's the point in trying to spare their feelings.. they deserve the digs they get.. they don't care about anyone else but themselves so why should we care about them?
It's also a relevent statement in that a lot of comparisons are being made all over the media between the Tea Party and OWS. When the tea partiers were all angry and protesting, all the conservative commentors commended them for being "patriotic" and "true everyday americans" blah blah.. but with OWS the same conservative commentators refer to them as "un-american" "against America" "lazy liberal hippies" etc etc. Sean Hannity is the best example of this, but they are all doing it.
Also before OWS the GOP would stress how unemployment was this HUGE problem in the country and it's all OBAMA's fault. Now with OWS, all of a sudden "if your not rich or don't have a job it's your own fault" (yes Herman Cain actually said this) and "unemployment isn't an issue if you have a degree" or even better "take responsiblity and get a job" yea... the hypocrisy of the republican party never ceases to amaze me.
I'll admit the Republicans(sans Paul) are barely covering their true colors. It's not much better on the other side, and that's without considering personal preference in ideology.
I wish he wrote the article with less digs at the Tea Party or some of the other parts that seem like their only purpose is to alienate readers of opposing political views, but great article none the less.
Since when is repeating the stance/platform of a political party a dig? That's what really gets me with political discourse these days, much of what comes out of the tea party and the republican party sounds so stupid that even they think its offensive once read back to them. Not that you are a tea partyer, it just seems odd that you'd take issue with a fairly to the point op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the NYT for it having an opinion.....
Nah not even that much. I just meant saying something like, "...unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people." doesn't help to further the point of the other 90% of the article. I can't see that statement, even if true, doing anything besides having a bunch of people take an immediate close-minded position against the rest of the article. The support for my argument with that comment is that the Tea Party isn't mentioned at all for the remainder of the article because they're irrelevant to the actual point of the article.
He's just stating a fact... the tea partiers ARE angry at the wrong people.. they can't help it because they are totally ignorant and uninformed.. but it's still true.. Also Tea Partiers will always take the close minded position regardless, so what's the point in trying to spare their feelings.. they deserve the digs they get.. they don't care about anyone else but themselves so why should we care about them?
It's also a relevent statement in that a lot of comparisons are being made all over the media between the Tea Party and OWS. When the tea partiers were all angry and protesting, all the conservative commentors commended them for being "patriotic" and "true everyday americans" blah blah.. but with OWS the same conservative commentators refer to them as "un-american" "against America" "lazy liberal hippies" etc etc. Sean Hannity is the best example of this, but they are all doing it.
Also before OWS the GOP would stress how unemployment was this HUGE problem in the country and it's all OBAMA's fault. Now with OWS, all of a sudden "if your not rich or don't have a job it's your own fault" (yes Herman Cain actually said this) and "unemployment isn't an issue if you have a degree" or even better "take responsiblity and get a job" yea... the hypocrisy of the republican party never ceases to amaze me.
A couple of things:
1) The tea party and OWS demographics are completely different. The tea party IS middle class America. OWS is predominantly young people -- many, if not most, unemployed or students -- and unions. OWS is also still pretty small. It's no where near as large or influential as the tea party, which is driving politics right now. I seriously doubt that OWS becomes even half as influential. It doesn't even have a coherent message. We'll see though.
2) Herman Cain is100% correct. There are jobs out there if you go look for them. Hell, I've created my own employment out of thin air twice over the past four years. I know a lot of people who have done the same through sheer persistence and force of will. If all you're doing is sending out resumes and cover letters, then you're not doing enough. Also, no one is entitled to a dream job. If you can't find your dream job right off the bat, then do something else until the dream job comes along. Sitting around and bitching isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
Also, there's nothing hypocritical about also blaming Obama/democrats for the current high employment. They are imposing regulations that constitute barriers to job creation.
It's not hypocritical (wrong word choice) but it is contradictory to say that Obama is creating unemployment and that the protesters should blame themselves for being unemployed.
If it's the protesters' fault, then Obama's policies would allow these people to be employed but they are simply choosing not to try hard enough.
I guess one could resolve the conflict by arguing that, while Obama has caused unemployment to be at 9.1%, if those specific people had worked harder then it would be a different group of people who were unemployed. But that's an argument that really misses the forest for the trees.
On October 08 2011 03:56 Signet wrote: It's not hypocritical (wrong word choice) but it is contradictory to say that Obama is creating unemployment and that the protesters should blame themselves for being unemployed.
If it's the protesters' fault, then Obama's policies would allow these people to be employed but they are simply choosing not to try hard enough.
I guess one could resolve the conflict by arguing that, while Obama has caused unemployment to be at 9.1%, if those specific people had worked harder then it would be a different group of people who were unemployed. But that's an argument that really misses the forest for the trees.
You're playing the game of the 1% when you think that the politician matters to such an extent. I do think it does matter who you vote for, but I find it very strange when people think that today's problems are not the result of decades of policy making.
On October 08 2011 02:14 yarkO wrote: Money sucks.
Yes, because bartering is so much easier. Money is nothing more than a common medium eliminating the need to find someone who needs whatever product or service you provide, in exchange for what you need.
lol I said the same thing to a girl at my college a few minutes ago at lunch. I think this is an accurate comparison to compare the tea party to OWS. Ones liberal and the others conservative. the 2 different sides of the media will cast the other as being of the devil. It just happens like that because that's they're audience.
What a stupid idea. The whole reason why we're in this mess is because government got involved in banking in the first place rather than letting bad banks (and other enterprises) fail. Now he thinks the solution is to double down? Brilliant. Let's create more opportunities for government corruption!
Interesting clip from this musical documentary I recently saw. Gets at the idea of yeah sure there are jobs out there, but are these jobs economically livable and sustainable for people?
Satyajit Das puts world turmoil in perspective NewsOnABC
Damage control: Risk management consultant Satyajit Das - Interview with Australia Network australianetworknews 211 video's
Satyajit Das
Satyajit Das works in the area of financial derivatives and risk management. He is the author of a number of key reference works on derivatives and risk management include Swaps/ Financial Derivatives Library – Third Edition (2005, John Wiley & Sons) (a 4 volume 4,200 page reference work for practitioners on derivatives) and Credit Derivatives, CDOs and Structured Credit Products –Third Edition (2005, John Wiley & Sons). He is the author of Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives (2006, FT-Prentice Hall), described by the Financial Times, London as " fascinating reading … explaining not only the high-minded theory behind the business and its various products but the sometimes sordid reality of the industry". He is also the author (with Jade Novakovic) of In Search of the Pangolin: The Accidental Eco-Tourist (2006, New Holland).
(bit of a rant) To bring in perspective what this protest is about, its not just a American thing, its a world thing people have started and have been in protest against the government because most of us have simply become debt slave.
The government inherented from the Banks and it has spilled over to the citizens, we can clearly see these in all our policies from America to Europe (sovereign debt crisis).
There has been nothing but austerity policy made for the last few years, (thats why people are protesting) and i ask you for what?
Il give you an example of what is happening in The Netherlands In the Netherlands because of the sovereign debt crisis, We have to pay 16 billion on rent to not let it increase. How do goverment pay this? by applying austerity policies. And yet we can't still pay our debt. Funny fact, it is expected that next year the rent on sovereign debt will be 16.5, meaning we diddn't pay our due rent (otherwise it wouldn't increase) So clearly we can see that Austerity policies do not work. If you want to repay you debt.
Now another funny thing, which makes it even more ironic.
According to the Trouw, and other Dutch Mainstream Media.
Our government has agreed to increase the Emergency European Fund from 52 billion to 98 billion. What does this mean? It means we (Dutch Citizens) are being put in more debt because were else is our government going to get that money? So wen i read this i though, why in the hell are we cutting 16 billion in our budget but we can spend 42 billion extra on banks only? Imagine if alllll that money would be spend in dutch infrastructure, dutch innovation, dutch enterprise, local utility banks?
Would that be more effective method of spending this money? Because it not even sure that the fund wil even be big enough to save the banks, and then i ask myself this, at what cost must we save the banks?
Now are the trouble in Europe that much different then that in America? I think not I think most people share the same fate, that is more debt, more cutting, less chances and that will lead to even more frustration. We can see this around the world can't we?
On October 08 2011 07:51 BioNova wrote: The bad debt only goes away under two circumstances. 1.) Liquidation (not team liquid economics) 2.) Alien Invasion and/or Armageddon
Bailing out companies that fail, dumps that failure on the people who had nothing to do with the company. Why Ron Paul is the man
There are different ways to the remove the debt that really isn't the issue the issue I believe is more important is who is in control of making money.
The private banking system (criminal organisations) has clearly not being really good at, and that`s just and understatement.
Don't forget that Central Banks are not state government they are "independed". My current view of how we could change our banking problem is by making banks a utility instead of a profiteering scam.
Clearly we have been able to observe the obscene and criminal behaviour of international banks.
For example Go look up which players owns the entire gold derivatives and look up the amount sum of global GDP and compare those to numbers. You will see how much of scam (Contemporary Debt based Money) the entire world is living in. (see Japan they have been in debt for 20 years and they still have the same problems. It looks like a big part of world is going that way slowly, since we are interdependent from each other. For example the American Debt crisis also affects the Dutch Debt crisis, it just doesn't do it immediately.
A good alternative of dealing with the current situation is looking at North Dakota banking system. Were state banks are used as utilities and just look up the result. Look up http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act/ for a comprehensive alternative for the current banking/sovereign debt crisis.
Also I believe we should persecute the people making the current day decision (bunch of criminals) their fraudulent, corrupt behaviour, that should be my demand
On October 08 2011 07:37 Saji wrote: (bit of a rant) To bring in perspective what this protest is about, its not just a American thing, its a world thing people have started and have been in protest against the government because most of us have simply become debt slave.
Nah. I think it's about a generation trying to be "historic". Yay, let's elect Barack Obama, what a historic accomplishment for our generation !!! Yay, let's join our revolutionary brethren around the world who are standing up for their rights. What a historic event we are creating !!!! Yay. Getting a job is so passe. People want to do something historic, to make their mark in the history books, regardless of consequences since they don't even know what they want. They just want... to protest ... something...
One big difference I've noticed in comparisons to the Tea Party rallies, since the news seems to like to compare them. Any picture of a Tea Party rally has people dressed in Red, White, and Blue, with Old Glory everywhere. Can someone post a picture of a single American flag at any one of these "Occupy" rallies across this great Country ?
On October 08 2011 07:51 BioNova wrote: The bad debt only goes away under two circumstances. 1.) Liquidation (not team liquid economics) 2.) Alien Invasion and/or Armageddon
Bailing out companies that fail, dumps that failure on the people who had nothing to do with the company. Why Ron Paul is the man
There are different ways to the remove the debt that really isn't the issue the issue I believe is more important is who is in control of making money.
The private banking system (criminal organisations) has clearly not being really good at, and that`s just and understatement.
Don't forget that Central Banks are not state government they are "independed". My current view of how we could change our banking problem is by making banks a utility instead of a profiteering scam.
Clearly we have been able to observe the obscene and criminal behaviour of international banks.
For example Go look up which players owns the entire gold derivatives and look up the amount sum of global GDP and compare those to numbers. You will see how much of scam (Contemporary Debt based Money) the entire world is living in. (see Japan they have been in debt for 20 years and they still have the same problems. It looks like a big part of world is going that way slowly, since we are interdependent from each other. For example the American Debt crisis also affects the Dutch Debt crisis, it just doesn't do it immediately.
A good alternative of dealing with the current situation is looking at North Dakota banking system. Were state banks are used as utilities and just look up the result. Look up http://www.themoneymasters.com/monetary-reform-act/ for a comprehensive alternative for the current banking/sovereign debt crisis.
Also I believe we should persecute the people making the current day decision (bunch of criminals) their fraudulent, corrupt behaviour, that should be my demand
Heh, speaking of fraud in banking there are a few running cases in Denmark about those issues. In one case a CEO and a board of directors leader made some rediculous golden handshakes of many millions behind the back of the rest of the board of directores while the bank was insolvent. I don't think the case is really going anywhere... Another one is 2 local banks granting eachother loans and thereby averting taxes. That one will most likely give a heavy sentence to both. The bankingsector in Denmark is very strong for the top 4 banks, while the small and local banks are hurting because of a raised liquidity-requirement. Right now laws to force the small banks to fusionate are being talked about and there is a company for taking over the worst loans, However I think Denmark can get through the crisis. Having a negative debt, aaa in credit-rating and stable and having a pretty conservative national bank (thereby meaning very cautious) tends to give a lot of options in a crisis-situation. The big problems for Denmark is the partial economic cooperation with the euro and the housing-market having bubbled heavily.
Looking at the contributers to the crisis: In my opinion a big part of the problem is in the debt-acceptance. Debt has been accepted as a part of living and some even saw it as stupid not to have extensive debt. Now people has become cautious. However the hangover from the age of debt will be felt for many years to come, while things gradually get back to normal. Now finansial companies accepting and encouraging that behaviour is the next problem (In Denmark it was worse with loans outside banks). The loans were giving out new financial investment-possibilities and the lack of sufficient knowledge of the risks in those products is a truely disturbing aspect: The investers didn't bother to research it enough. That is the third problem. The fourth and final problem is actually problem zero too. Politically legalizing those products in the first place in a semi-controlled market was the most discusting problem and without it the crash would not have been a crash. Bailing out like it was done in the end is a controversial solution, but having the whole market collapse is downright irresponsible since it takes time to start it up from scratch again. However it is a problem to bail them out because a lot of other people will be more careless since they expect a bail out later if they end in the same situation.
On October 08 2011 10:11 Kaitlin wrote: One big difference I've noticed in comparisons to the Tea Party rallies, since the news seems to like to compare them. Any picture of a Tea Party rally has people dressed in Red, White, and Blue, with Old Glory everywhere. Can someone post a picture of a single American flag at any one of these "Occupy" rallies across this great Country ?
Really? REALLY? Should they wear flag pins too? Because that's what is important isn't it? If you aren't within 10 feet of a flag you CLEARLY don't love your country. I'll leave the "historic" bs alone for now, but man that last part just hurt my brain.
Both the Tea Party and OWS represent very legitimate outrage, but of course partisan media outlets and their forum troll proxies will demonize and misrepresent both movements so that any real understanding or dialogue becomes impossible.
I wish he wrote the article with less digs at the Tea Party or some of the other parts that seem like their only purpose is to alienate readers of opposing political views, but great article none the less.
Since when is repeating the stance/platform of a political party a dig? That's what really gets me with political discourse these days, much of what comes out of the tea party and the republican party sounds so stupid that even they think its offensive once read back to them. Not that you are a tea partyer, it just seems odd that you'd take issue with a fairly to the point op-ed piece by Paul Krugman in the NYT for it having an opinion.....
Nah not even that much. I just meant saying something like, "...unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people." doesn't help to further the point of the other 90% of the article. I can't see that statement, even if true, doing anything besides having a bunch of people take an immediate close-minded position against the rest of the article. The support for my argument with that comment is that the Tea Party isn't mentioned at all for the remainder of the article because they're irrelevant to the actual point of the article.
He's just stating a fact... the tea partiers ARE angry at the wrong people.. they can't help it because they are totally ignorant and uninformed.. but it's still true.. Also Tea Partiers will always take the close minded position regardless, so what's the point in trying to spare their feelings.. they deserve the digs they get.. they don't care about anyone else but themselves so why should we care about them?
It's also a relevent statement in that a lot of comparisons are being made all over the media between the Tea Party and OWS. When the tea partiers were all angry and protesting, all the conservative commentors commended them for being "patriotic" and "true everyday americans" blah blah.. but with OWS the same conservative commentators refer to them as "un-american" "against America" "lazy liberal hippies" etc etc. Sean Hannity is the best example of this, but they are all doing it.
Also before OWS the GOP would stress how unemployment was this HUGE problem in the country and it's all OBAMA's fault. Now with OWS, all of a sudden "if your not rich or don't have a job it's your own fault" (yes Herman Cain actually said this) and "unemployment isn't an issue if you have a degree" or even better "take responsiblity and get a job" yea... the hypocrisy of the republican party never ceases to amaze me.
A couple of things:
1) The tea party and OWS demographics are completely different. The tea party IS middle class America. OWS is predominantly young people -- many, if not most, unemployed or students -- and unions. OWS is also still pretty small. It's no where near as large or influential as the tea party, which is driving politics right now. I seriously doubt that OWS becomes even half as influential. It doesn't even have a coherent message. We'll see though.
2) Herman Cain is100% correct. There are jobs out there if you go look for them. Hell, I've created my own employment out of thin air twice over the past four years. I know a lot of people who have done the same through sheer persistence and force of will. If all you're doing is sending out resumes and cover letters, then you're not doing enough. Also, no one is entitled to a dream job. If you can't find your dream job right off the bat, then do something else until the dream job comes along. Sitting around and bitching isn't going to get anyone anywhere.
Also, there's nothing hypocritical about also blaming Obama/democrats for the current high employment. They are imposing regulations that constitute barriers to job creation.
About your number 2. It's anecdotal evidence.
I can say the same thing in reverse about being homeless and on downtrodden times before. I'm not now, which is a blessing of course but just keep in mind because YOU found a job doesn't mean across this entire nation that someone else will be just as able.
Poverty rates, hiring habits, the industries available, etc are all factors to take into account and trying to act like just because you had jobs there for you that there will be everywhere is honestly just plain ignorant and haughty to say.
Also, I want sources on the last sentence of yours. It's very similar to when the minimum wage being abolished is proposed. If you believe in that, I want to make sure you also understand that will be one of the marking points of USA becoming a 2nd world country before it begins slipping more into a 3rd world country.
EPT
