mediapro's Comments

Trying to Understand Airline Executive Compensation

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:19:14 -0500

I've logged more air miles and flown more carriers than I care to remember. United (UA) used to be my California carrier of choice for my frequent bucket trips between the north and south until the early 90's. Began to notice that the "stews" weren't so affable and the reliability of the carrier wasn't as precise. That perception went deeper throughout the company. Phone clerks to pilots to flight attendants to baggage handlers -- it was pretty apparent that this line was in decline. The rats would have left the ship long before the last ridiculous salary increase after the latest money-losing year had there been any place to go. And that damn pension and seniority system!

Recently, I decided to use the last of my remaining frequent flyer miles only to find that I was about 7,000 short. No problem. I'll just transfer over a few of my wife's miles. Sure, there would be a transfer fee, but well worth using up the remaining miles. Imagine my shock to learn that miles already earned -- even a transfer between family related accounts -- would need to be "repurchased". That little transaction would be $210 for the miles + a $35 processing fee + a 7.5% excise tax.

Thank you for being a loyal member of United's Frequent Flyer Program.

The problem isn't executive compensation. It's the isolation experienced by these executive darlings (probably from spending too much time in an unpressurized, poorly ventilated bucket that they call an airline seat) that makes them think they still set the rules.

I would gladly flush my remaining miles down the same toilet that United is swirling through right now, but they would probably charge me a "processing fee".

What to Do with This Rally?

Wed, 06 May 2009 14:35:13 -0400

AH. "Smart Traders" ("or they will have to become smart traders").

This was the author's central point. We have a lot of brilliant converts to "smart investing" digging the grave for buy and hold (I would say annually re-adjust), while plowing the ground with the latest new schemes for "smart investing".

The authors' drunk analogy is another way to state efficient market theory. As Burton Malkiel clearly illustrated in his time tested book, "A Random Walk Down Wall Street", a variation of the authors' ETF recommendation still rings true. In another world "technical investing" would be put in the same class as witchcraft and these green eye shade monsters would be burned at the stake. As for picking individual stocks, no matter the investing style, it's a fools game no better than Vegas.

What's a "smart investor" to do with his/her money? Balance a potfolio across broad indexes (yes ETFs are the newest, smartest vehicles) of stocks, bonds, real estate, and even precious metals if you have enough to invest. Rebalance that portfolio at least annually as market fluctuations dictate. Malkiel proves in his writings that this nets an average of 6.5% over any analysis period longer than twenty years over the past 150 years.

On May 05 08:47 AM manya05 wrote:

> Agree with Gary Gallo, buy and hold will not work for people that
> saw their 401(k)s decimated and are a few years to a decade from
> retirement. Those people are either screwed (and will have to work
> much longer that they had hoped for), or, they will have to become
> smart traders and hope for the best. At some point people in the
> US will have to get to the core of this and realize the complete
> insanity of privately-funded, market-invested, retirement. call it
> savings, call it gambling, call it whatever, but it is NOT retirement
> (just as homes are NOT investments, they are a roof over your head).

'U.S. Banking System Is Effectively Insolvent' - Soros

Wed, 08 Apr 2009 19:49:02 -0400

And we have James Baker to thank for orchestrating the takeover of the U.S. electoral process which led to the culmination of Friedmanomics' wacky trickle-down (gimme all your money and I'll decide what to do with it) scheme.

Why should one listen to someone who led the coup d'etat?

On Apr 08 02:15 PM dcb wrote:

> How Washington can prevent 'zombie banks'
>
> By James Baker
>
> Published: March 2 2009 02:00 | Last updated: March 2 2009 02:00
>
>
> Beginning in 1990, Japan suffered a collapse in real estate and stock
> market prices that pushed major banks into insolvency. Rather than
> follow America's tough recommendation - and close or recapitalise
> these banks - Japan took an easier approach. It kept banks marginally
> functional through explicit or implicit guarantees and piecemeal
> government bail-outs. The resulting "zombie banks" - neither alive
> nor dead - could not support economic growth.
>
> A period of feeble economic performance called Japan's "lost decade"
> resulted.
>
> Unfortunately, the US may be repeating Japan's mistake by viewing
> our current banking crisis as one of liquidity and not solvency.
> Most proposals advanced thus far assume that, once confidence in
> financial markets is restored, banks will recover.
>
> But if their assumption is wrong, we risk perpetuating US zombie
> banks and suffering a lost American decade.
>
> Evidence - a mountain of toxic assets, housing market declines, a
> sharp economic recession, rising unemployment and increasing taxpayer
> exposure through guarantees, loans, and infusion of capital - strongly
> suggests that some American banks face a solvency problem and not
> merely a liquidity one.
>
> We should act decisively. First, we need to understand the scope
> of the problem. The Treasury department - working with the Federal
> Reserve - must swiftly analyse the solvency of big US banks. Treasury
> secretary Timothy Geithner's proposed "stress tests" may work. Any
> analyses, however, should include worst-case scenarios. We can hope
> for the best but should be prepared for the worst.
>
> Next, we should divide the banks into three groups: the healthy,
> the hopeless and the needy. Leave the healthy alone and quickly close
> the hopeless. The needy should be reorganised and recapitalised,
> preferably through private investment or debt-to-equity swaps but,
> if necessary, through public funds. It is time for triage.
>
> To prevent a bank run, all depositors of recapitalised banks should
> be fully guaranteed, even if their deposit exceeds the Federal Deposit
> Insurance Corporation maximum of $250,000 (€197,000, £175,000). But
> bank boards of directors and senior management should be replaced
> and, unfortunately, shareholders will lose their investment. Optimally,
> bondholders would be wiped out, too. But the risk of a crash in the
> bond market means that bondholders may receive only a haircut. All
> of this is harsh, but required if we are ultimately to return market
> discipline to our financial sector.
>
> This is not a call for nationalisation but rather for a temporary
> injection of public funds to clean up problem banks and return them
> to private ownership as soon as possible. As president Ronald Reagan's
> secretary of the Treasury, I abhor the idea of government ownership
> - either partial or full - even if only temporary. Unfortunately,
> we may have no choice. But we must be very careful. The government
> should hold equity no longer than necessary to restructure the banks,
> resume normal lending and recoup at least a portion of taxpayer investment.
>
>
> After replacing bank management with new private managers, the government
> should have no say in banks' day-to-day operations.
>
> The FDIC can assist. Just this year, it has placed over a dozen American
> banks - admittedly all small - into receivership. We might also consider
> setting up something akin to the Resolution Trust Corporation, created
> in 1989 to liquidate the assets of failed savings and loans. The
> RTC eventually disposed of nearly $400bn in assets of more than 700
> insolvent thrifts.
>
> To avoid bank runs and contain market disruption, the Treasury should
> announce its decisions at one time. Washington will also need to
> co-ordinate its actions with other major capitals, especially in
> western Europe and east Asia. At best, this will encourage other
> countries to take similar steps with their own banking systems. At
> a minimum, other governments can prepare for the financial turmoil
> associated with the announcement.
>
> This approach is not pretty or easy. It will cost a lot of money,
> with the lion's share coming from US taxpayers, at least in the short
> to medium term. But the alternative - a piecemeal pumping of more
> public money into insolvent banks in the vague hope that things will
> improve down the road - could truly be historic folly.
>
> Eventually our banks and economy will start to recover. When they
> do, we would be wise to avoid another Japanese mistake - raising
> taxes. To counter mounting debt created by government stimulus packages,
> Japan increased taxes in 1997. Consumption dropped and the country's
> economy collapsed.
>
> Our ad hoc approach to the banking crisis has helped financial institutions
> conceal losses, favoured shareholders over taxpayers, and protected
> senior bank managers from the consequences of their mistakes. Worst
> of all, it has crippled our credit system just at a time when the
> US and the world need to see it healthy.
>
> Many are to blame for the current situation. But we have no time
> for finger-pointing or partisan posturing. This crisis demands a
> pragmatic, comprehensive plan. We simply cannot continue to muddle
> through it with a Band-Aid approach.
>
> During the 1990s, American officials routinely urged their Japanese
> counterparts to kill their zombie banks before they could do more
> damage to Japan's economy. Today, it would be irresponsible if we
> did not heed our own advice.
>
> James A. Baker III was chief of staff and Treasury secretary for
> President Ronald Reagan and secretary of State for President George
> H.W. Bush
>
> Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Krugman vs. Sachs on PPIP Loopholes

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:04:21 -0400

If all of these gaming-the-system options are true, then why don't we just do away with the private banking system and run the Bank of the United States of America? If the balance sheets demonstrate under a stress test that the most egregeous of the lot are fundamentally insolvent, then receivership (and I would argue) without re-organization is the only viable option.

BTW, to the smart cookies who posted these various options: Don't you see how these thoughts are a good illustration of why private-capitalism is a failed model? What? Did most of you recently get laid off from the financial sector?

Buy and Hold is Dead

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:51:42 -0400

Thanks for the clarification, but as other posters have pointed out, "buy and hold" is a slippery term (1 minute, and hour, a lifetime?)

I don't think that you missed the point of my post. There's a difference between those who think that they are bright enough to pick individual stocks (trading or investing) and Malkiel's point that no individual can ever have sufficient information (how bad is that airplane engine anyway?) to correctly predict the movement of individual companies.

I'm sure as an investment professional that you understand the historical evidence presented by Malkiel. His and my point is that the safest route for anyone is to invest in broad index portfolios (the Wilshire 5000 ), bonds, real estate if possible, and, yes, to balance these portfolios over time.

Even Malkiel recognized that his advice runs counter to human nature, so he allows for those who wish to use real dollars as "play money"; at least don't fall into the technical analysis trap. Use due dillegence and fundamental analysis if you must.

On Apr 06 04:01 PM bobrien@mywealth.com wrote:

> II am sorry Media, but you need to go deeper than that! You do
> not fly on a plane that has been experiencing some engine problems
> just because there is a low probability of any plane crashing!
>
>
> But as long as you are balanced and re-balancing you are not buying
> and holding!

An Open Letter to John Galt

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:29:33 -0400

Thank you Jeffrey Small.

Trying to shorten the trail that led to Rand's pseudo-intellectual ramblings is a challenge in a brief post.

At least your obsession with Rand is well-thought. Though you see the connection between Plato and Objectivism and thereby, Objectivism to Rand, there is none. To explain the schism, Plato recognized that inherently man embodies truth as a priori knowledge (though he never called it that). The allegory of the cave was to illustrate that truth is the opposite of the shadows on the cave wall that we perceive as real, when all that we need to do to to turn around (go inside oneself to seek truth).

To the contrary, Hobbes and Locke were rationalists and empiricists who rejected anything that one could not "see" using the five senses. They recognized that social existence without order and structure leads to chaos. Hobbes, and Locke especially, since both greatly influenced the social contract we call the United States Constitution, would have never recognized the idealized, solitary man (whether you call him Superman or ordinary man makes no difference) as a viable construct.

In fact, Hegel continued this semi-rationalist/objec... tradition. And Nietsche was so influenced by Hegel's thought, the two are virtually indistinguishable, except for Nietsche's "uberman". The direct rip-off of that "realized being" emblemized by Galt is merely disguised by Rand recognizing the connection and attempting a weak effort to distinguish her Galts from the overlord.

It was Rousseau that recognized the original purpose of Plato's writings and the inherent interdependence of man as each strived to realize his/her true self.

This is the key point of the earlier post. In fact, there are tremendous similarities between Rousseau and Rand up to a point. Each recognized the importance of freedom and choice, but Rousseau also recognized that without social order, man would eventually either live on separate islands ( a la your desire to choose your own world and invite those in that wish to join you) or devolve into tribalism. The absurd reduction that Rand never fully explains is how these Galts actually live in the real world.

I'll ask you:

Do you use the road system?
Do you ever buy gasoline?
Do you own a home with a mortgage...?

None of these nor many other social niceties would be possible without social order and contracts. A true Galtian would never participate in such "slavery". Do you?

Thanks again for adding an interesting voice to this otherwise intellectually dismal site.

On Apr 06 04:42 AM Jeffery Small wrote:

> mediapro:
>
> It all sounds very sophisticated, but I honestly haven't got a clue
> as to what you are saying. However, I do agree completely that the
> tribalist view or society you describe does rest squarely upon the
> philosophical shoulders of Plato, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. However,
> by placing Rand in the tradition of Nietzsche, you demonstrate that
> you really do not understand her philosophical position at all.
> Rand's Objectivism is Aristotelian in its roots and stands in direct
> counterpoint to the lineage you describe. Objectivism rejects Nietzsche's
> master-slave morality and see the proper relationship between men
> as one of voluntary traders interacting without force. The Atlases
> of Objectivism are not supermen; they are simply men who have realized
> their full potential.
>
> But let's just forget all the pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo and
> get grounded back in practical reality. There is one phrase in your
> statement that stands out as significant, that being:
>
> "Plato's call for a democracy ruled by philosopher kings may never
> be attainable, but our present circumstances offer an opportunity."
>
>
> Here is where the rubber meets the road. You seek to be ruled.
> Call it what you will; a "philosopher king" is as good a tittle as
> another. Well help yourself to whatever sort of subservient role
> you wish to place yourself in in relation to your master. I will
> not stand in your way, nor will I stop others from following you
> on that path. But leave me and other self-reliant, independent individuals
> out of your grand plan. We seek neither to be ruled nor to rule
> others. Can you agree to our autonomy? Somehow, I don't believe
> that you and your "king", Obama, would be willing to leave those
> of us who choose independence and freedom, to our own devices. I
> suspect that ruling us is exactly what is desired, with the rest
> of the talk merely a diversion from the true agenda.
>
> You can ridicule us all you like. But don't believe for a moment
> that that ridicule has any effect. And more importantly, don't believe
> that we are going to quietly be led to slaughter as sacrificial lambs.
> Take a look around. There is a rebellion brewing between Aristotle
> and Plato. It appears that we have each selected our sides in that
> battle.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffery Small

An Open Letter to John Galt

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 01:08:34 -0400

"WTP" sums up the essence of sensible reaction to an escapist utopia founded on ME suggested by Rand. It might be helpful to other readers to understand the basis of Rand's reductio ad absurdum.

The progression of Platonic and Socratic teachings reached the great schism with the abandoment of Plato's great observation about the basic nature of man as possessing truth corrupted by society. The British philosophers Hobbes and Locke agreed with the corrupted part of Platonic thought and described the only workable social contract as one built upon the recognition that the fundamental nature of man as being selfish.

There was another view of man's nature, however, best expressed by Plato in his allegory of the cave and man's eventual recognition of his true nature, later expounded by Rousseau.

We are experiencing the fruits now of this schism because we have lost hope in another path. But out of crisis comes opportunity.

While most of the posters extolling Galt here express that hopelessness in the form of rather silly revolutionary, reactionary language found in Rand's utopian nothingness, there are a growing number I believe that see the only solution to the greed-is-good view of human nature as a fundamental shift in what constitutes true value.

No, I don't expect the Walmart shopper to suddenly change into that idealized man. Yet, if we relegate the nature of man to the surface conclusions of Hobbes and Locke, then we all deserve the circumstances in which we find ourselves now.

Plato's call for a democracy ruled by philosopher kings may never be attainable, but our present circumstances offer an opportunity. I'm not saying that he was talking about Obama, but we have in Obama a unique opportunity to merge the role of politics with the possibilities of man.

It doesn't take all the monkeys agreeing to change that direction -- only the thousandth monkey to crystalize that change.

Standing in the land of Atlas envisioned by Nietsche and re-visioned by Rand never was and never will be a real world. It's for the lost souls that model their lives after Galt that will be doomed to their own, miserable, selfish world, ultimately silent and alone.

G20 Summary: Goodbye Tax Havens?

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 22:26:19 -0400

This is good news, and none too soon.

It took a world financial crisis to expose the fabulously wealthy tax cheats, but one step in the right direction.

And "fireball's" privacy justification is just a smokescreen for a long-overdue lifting of the veil that has allowed Bush's "base" to escape from shared responsibility.

Is Monsanto a Template for Agribusiness?

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:30:04 -0400

I was wondering when someone would point out the risks of introducing GMO seeds into the environment.

What "Sober Realist" left out for those that praise Monsanto and other GMO'ers is the very real risk of massive lawsuits for releasing these Frankenseeds into the environment. Active multi-billion dollar efforts are already underway in Canada and India.

Canadian organic farmers are targeting Monsanto for promoting GMO soybean and other seed stock to non-organic farmers with a dusty roadway as the only barrier preventing contamination. Same for promoting these to lower tier countries, such as India.

The programs tagged in the post from "Sober Realist" are really only the tip of the iceberg, and I wouldn't be dismissive of the potential that this company could go the way of "Bhopal".

On Apr 04 11:35 AM Sober Realist wrote:

> Monsanto = Corporate control of our food source. I didn't realize
> how evil this company was until I saw this documentary last night
> (first time aired on TV in America:
>
> March 23, 2009
> Link TV to air The Future of Food this week
> By Rady Ananda
>
> Joining the growing conversation about genetically modified foods
> and the tactics of transnational corporations, Link TV will air The
> Future of Food this week. Click here for air times:
> www.linktv.org/program...
>
> Deborah Koons Garcia's groundbreaking film from 2004 can also be
> found at Google video:
> video.google.com/video...
>
> This is Link TV's intro:
>
>
> Is there anything more important than knowing where our food comes
> from, and who controls what we eat? The documentary The Future of
> Food has the disturbing answers. Today's food chain is far more complicated
> than the traditional farmer to table model - it has become a vertically
> integrated industrial complex. And with government looking the other
> way, genetically modified seeds have found their way into our food
> supply. The time has come to take back our food.
>
>
> This Link TV special, hosted by celebrated environmental journalist
>
> Mark Hertsgaard, investigates the corporate dominance of our world's
> food systems. We are joined in the studio by the filmmaker of The
> Future of Food, Deborah Koons Garcia, as well as University of California
> biologist Ignacio Chapela, founder of The Mycological Facility in
> Oaxaca, Mexico, a facility dealing with questions of natural resources
> and indigenous rights. Koons Garcia's documentary The Future of Food
> offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind
> the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly
> filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
>
>
> From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca,
> Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods
> have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health
> implications, government policies and push towards globalization
> are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction
> of genetically altered crops into our food supply. The film also
> explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing
> organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm
> crisis today.
>
>
> LEARN MORE:
> Link TV's Food issue webpage
> www.linktv.org/food
> The Future of Food official site
> www.thefutureoffood.com/
> Ignacio Chapela at UC Berkeley
> ecnr.berkeley.edu/facP...
>
> www.seedsofdeception.c...
>
>

Buy and Hold is Dead

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 23:17:05 -0400

I guess that it's the fun of the game motivating stock pickers with the latest "system".

The audacity of the human mind to assume that there is a foolproof, part-time, or any other system to time entrance in and out of stocks can easily be proved wrong with just a bit of effort through historical analysis.

I still keep Burton Malkiel's words in my head. "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" doesn't guess at how the market works. It demonstrates the futility of trying to read squiggly lines, heads and shoulders, or any other green eye shade mumbo-jumbo. Technical analysis is as laughable as the Laffer Curve.

It demonstrates the only investment strategy that has a long-term chance in a market so unfathomable that even the smartest cookies throughout history eventually got crushed --- a balanced portfolio, dollar-cost averaging, and a risk spread across various investment vehicles.

Keep ignoring the dependability and sustainability of a balanced portfolio filled with broad (ETF or Mutual) indexes of stocks, laddered bonds, real estate, and maybe even a little precious metal at your own peril.

I know that this advice won't resonate on a site fueled by financial testosterone-laden geniouses, but it doesn't hurt to remind the occassional reader who might actually be fooled into thinking that someone like this author and his ditto-heads has something new to offer.

Pres. Obama: Counterfeiter-in-Chief?

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:54:11 -0400

This will be tough for you to understand, but sending money down the rathole in Iraq and Afghanistan is the least of our worries.

Check true or false to the following. Maybe you'll at least think about the consequences of war:

1. More than 4000 mostly young American lives were lost in a war we have yet to define.

2. An untold number of Iraqi lives have been lost from relentless shelling of an urban population.

3. By year three of this war even the most fervent war supporter saw the coalition of the willing dwindle to a precious few.

4. For the next two generations we will be paying the bills as grateful Americans to the more than 100,000 war veterans who were damaged by this war.

Since you pegged the reason for going to war as the last one that Bush could dreamup -- unseating Saddam -- I'll ask you:

Were the Khmer Rouge terrorists? Was Idi Amin a madman? Pick your dictator and let the wars rage. If you really want to know the source for Hussein's weaponry and WMD, go back to the 1980-1984 period of U.S. support for Iraq against Iran and you will find numerous reports of extensive weapons sales, chemical stockpiles and even photos of Donald Rumsfeld making nice-nice with this hated dictator who killed his own people.

If you can't learn the lessons from recent history, you my friend will repeat them.

On Mar 26 01:05 PM milkchaser wrote:

> The cost of the war in Iraq and the cost of the "stimulus package"
> are comparable. But the stimulus package will be spent in less time.
> The war in Iraq arguably enhanced national security. The stimulus
> package was predominately a payoff to various Democratic constituencies.
> I doubt that either the war or excessive Federal gov't spending will
> result in economic growth, but at least the war accomplished something:
> it's hard to argue that the world would be safer if Saddam were still
> above ground and breathing.
>
> Besides which, Bush is gone. It's all on Obama now.

Congress' Handling of AIG Bonuses Is Shameful

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 00:23:48 -0400

Gentle author and posters.

I realize that this site is populated by the fabulously wealthy, but please look at what prompted the arguments from "realty chk", "responsibility" and "leftfield" before standing on the sanctity-of-contracts soapbox.

What made Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" great was living through the devastation of unprecedented greed and plunder of our national treasure by the robber barons of the late 1800's, the monopolists, and finally an eeirily similar derivatives and leveraging gambit by no other than JP Morgan and Company and declaring through their sweat and WW II sacrifice -- never again.

Though some decry Social Security, the GI Bill and other depression/WW II era investments in our shared responsibility, it was this shared sacrifice IMHO that created our wealth as a nation.

What have we come to when one man for his labor makes 300, 400, 600 times the person who actually makes the goods or delivers the services upon which a company depends? The justifiable reaction to a $750,000 retention bonus as reward for having the ability to unwind a highly leveraged, wink-wink scam has an apt methaphor -- obscenity.

The path that we have traveled since the innocent post-war days should leave any of us ashamed that our country has come so dangerously close to the wastebin of history. The steady, yet persistently rising gap between the haves and have-nots; our ridiculous belief that by re-distributing middle class wealth up to the most priveleged under the Friedman/Laffer economic model; and passing along the risk until it reaches the greatest fool has made fools of us all.

Standing on the sanctity of contracts, citing the Federalists papers, and pity for the person who can obviously afford to give back $750 K and not feel much pain pales in comparison to the guy one paycheck from poverty. What is understandable is the rage and outrage from the rest of us who might be fortunate to make that amount of money in a productive lifetime.

Until we have a shared sense of outrage at our lack of concern for these innocents in this latest greed-fueled gambit, we will continue down a road that thankfully few honest, genuine people travel.

A More Modest AIG Bonus Proposal

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 20:21:51 -0400

Here's the data compiled by Greentech (below), a part of the energy group, though focused on non-polluting alternatives. The title of the article is "Oil Industry Subsidies for Dummies", and it presents a rather unbiased assessment of oil industry subsidies.

"The American oil and gas industry might receive anywhere between $15 billion and $35 billion a year in subsidies from taxpayers.

Why such a large margin of error? The exact number is slippery and hard to quantify, given the myriad of programs that can be broadly characterized as subsidies when it comes to fossil fuels. For instance, the U.S. government has generally propped the industry up with:

* Construction bonds at low interest rates or tax-free
* Research-and-development programs at low or no cost
* Assuming the legal risks of exploration and development in a company's stead
* Below-cost loans with lenient repayment conditions
* Income tax breaks, especially featuring obscure provisions in tax laws designed to receive little congressional oversight when they expire
* Sales tax breaks - taxes on petroleum products are lower than average sales tax rates for other goods
* Giving money to international financial institutions (the U.S. has given tens of billions of dollars to the World Bank and U.S. Export-Import Bank to encourage oil production internationally, according to Friends of the Earth)
* The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve
* Construction and protection of the nation's highway system
* Allowing the industry to pollute - what would oil cost if the industry had to pay to protect its shipments, and clean up its spills? If the environmental impact of burning petroleum were considered a cost? Or if it were held responsible for the particulate matter in people's lungs, in liability similar to that being asserted in the tobacco industry?
* Relaxing the amount of royalties to be paid"

One example of how oil companies shortchange the American taxpayer:

XOM earned $7.6 Billion on domestic production in 2007 and paid $2.7 Billion in U.S. income taxes. Worldwide they earned $45 Billion and paid $23 Billion in foreign taxes. That's a 36% U.S. rate compared with a 52% rate foreign. That source is XOM's 10-K filing.

Additionally, the U.S. allows

On Mar 24 12:56 PM WayneS wrote:

> P.S. There are over 500 oil companies in the US, not three.

Did CDS Cause All the World's Ills? Confronting the Crisis Backlash

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:50:13 -0400

Please write an expanded article applying this metaphor!!!

An outstanding crtitique. BTW, I looked at the "DTCC" table. If that's what transparency means, then I'm opening up an FP unit tomorrow!

On Mar 24 04:14 AM Mbuna wrote:

> My impression of reading this- CDS's are a relatively recent drug
> introduced that has become highly addictive such that many addicts
> go through great and sophisticated lengths to explain the reason
> for their addiction. Case in point #1: "Allow banks to get regulatory
> capital relief on their loan books letting them free up capital."
> Translation- banks have a loophole on their capital requirements
> thus allowing them greater leverage and thus greater risk but also
> the possibility of greater profits. Case in point #2: "Allow banks
> to more efficiently manage credit risk." Translation- We don't have
> to be responsible! Let someone else be responsible so we can then
> get even greater leverage and greater profits!
>
> Geez, haven't we seen the result of this already? Why on earth would
> anyone want to go back there? Addiction perhaps? Banks actually worked
> before CDS's were around. This is just addict talk on many levels
> because CDS's are an artificial inducement into the market. Financial
> engineering of this sort ultimately serves only one purpose, greed,
> (while generally playing everyone else for a fool at the same time)and
> ultimately does not benefit the broader economy. And the proof
> of that statement has already demonstrated itself, in spades. When
> you can financially engineer a product whose purpose is obviously
> broad over many sectors of the economy I'll listen. Otherwise this
> is just a C(rack)DS addict scheming for his next hit using technically
> sophisticated language about how wonderfully the drug works. Ultimately
> it is a lie.

Regulating Compensation: Where Does It Stop?

Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:34:57 -0400

If I combine the range of comments from many sides of this compensation bubble, let's see if we can agree on a set of principles that might govern the excesses of the few with the money of the many.

I would invite comment from anyone on why the following is or is not a good idea.

1. Reinstate Glass-Steagall. None of these shops (Citigroup, B of A, etc.) should have ever been allowed to dally in businesses about which they knew nothing. AIG has (had) 111,000 employees. It's an insurance company. How can it effectively manage its core business while allowing thse AIG FP geniouses to manipulate the financial markets with CDO's and CDS's?

2. Eliminate bonus structures altogether. Why are salaried employees and small businesses hit time and time again, while big business always seems to 'bend' the rules and still come out on top? Think of it this way, if I’m an average corporation and I pay a qualified employee 100k as their salary, I am required to withhold taxes, insurance and a host of other items – in addition to setting aside money for federal programs. However, if I pay that individual 60k, and a bonus 40k, the situation looks much better. The employee has to handle withholding taxes on the 401k and I am only required to deal with the payroll effects of 60k. If we want to stimulate productivity, then structure compensation the old fashioned way. Provide a salary/commission structure, but don't play games that allow some to escape taxation by fiddling with the code.

3. If we are stuck with an income tax, level the field and fix the code by eliminating subsidies. Free market preachers always talk about existing in a world without artificial props. Eliminate oil and gas subsidies. While we're at it, eliminate import tariffs that stifle free trade.

For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the "bonus structure", offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, let's treat everyone as the workers they are. Those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system is an obscenity that is finally being recognized through this crisis. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

4. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$106 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security? Then, at the tail end of the SS contribution cycle, these same wealthier individuals garner an elevated SS income based on their historic salaries. If we are to cap SS contributions, then why not put a means test on the back end when those same SS scoflaws come to the trough for their share?

A More Modest AIG Bonus Proposal

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:14:58 -0400

I won't bother to correct your outrageous assumptions about income and tax payments, but if you want a balanced presentation of the annual subsidies enjoyed by big oil, follow this link. My $30 Billion annually was, as you will read, a rather conservative estimate.

cleantech.com/news/nod...

On Mar 23 08:45 PM WayneS wrote:

> Mediapro - Last year the "Big Three" oil companies combined to make
> $71 billion. They paid $169 billion in taxes. Where are the subsidies
> you are talking about? XOM paid $16 billion more in taxes than they
> made in the US over the past several years.

The Bonus Tax: The Redistribution of Both Wealth And Talent

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:03:58 -0400

If you want Facism, look in the rear view mirror. Facism is shredding the First and Fourth Amendments in an ill-defined "War on Terror". Facism is committing extreme rendition on American citizens. Facism is the right to go through anyone's emails, phone conversations, etc. on the suspicion of it being related to terrorism.

Even a staunch conservative like Bob Barr had enough of the putrid actions during the previous Administration. His performance during the much-too-late Impeachment inquiry last year spelled out in exquisite details the Facists who almost managed to destroy this country.

On Mar 22 10:31 PM User 187593 wrote:

> This situation is not humurous--it is facisist. Congress is doing
> nothing less than targeting a specific group group for persecution
> (banking employees) just as the Nazis targeted jews. The reason
> I say employees is that the test is household income, not individual.
> Imagine a $40,000 secretary who received a $1,000 bonus, who is married
> to a $210,000 non-TARP company executive. That secretary willed
> be taxed at 90%. IT'S NOT JUST THE FAT CATS!!!

The Bonus Tax: The Redistribution of Both Wealth And Talent

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 20:57:06 -0400

So, what's new with these tax cheats and persons that have enough money to hire tax cheating lawyers?

Any wonder why the average Joe is outraged? While the wealthy shelter their income through "legal" and nefarious means such as foreign "tax havens" offshore accounts, shell businesses, and illegitimate deductions posing as business expenses, the working stiff paying his/her honest taxes for an honest wage looks that who gets rewarded under our current system and who gets the shaft.

1. Reinstate Glass-Steagall. None of these shops (Citigroup, B of A, etc.) should have ever been allowed to dally in businesses about which they knew nothing. AIG has (had) 111,000 employees. It's an insurance company. How can it effectively manage its core business while allowing these geniouses to manipulate the financial markets with CDO's and CDS's?

2. Eliminate bonus structures altogether. Why are salaried employees and small businesses hit time and time again, while big business always seems to 'bend' the rules and still come out on top? Think of it this way, if I’m an average corporation and I pay a qualified employee 100k as their salary, I am required to withhold taxes, insurance and a host of other items – in addition to setting aside money for federal programs. However, if I pay that individual 60k, and a bonus 40k, the situation looks much better. The employee has to handle withholding taxes on the 401k and I am only required to deal with the payroll effects of 60k.

3. Fix the tax code. Just a few examples:

A. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simply need to bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.

B. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar, milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's neck.

C. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the "bonus structure", offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits, adjusted rate schedules for wage earners and such put into the pockets of those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

C. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$106 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security?

While we are all arguing about the validity of the clawback option, we are missing the larger point of just how egregiously the average Joe has been pummeled by a tax system that redistributes wealth from the working middle class up to the 2% Captains of America that continue to rape this country and its resources.

On Mar 22 03:35 PM Rob Viglione wrote:

> Increasing political hostility to wealth and productivity will have
> dire long-term consequences. Many people I know are actively getting
> capital out of the country, while others develop escape plans for
> themselves.
>
> This is not the America we have come to believe in. The social contract
> with our government is fast eroding.

Why I Think Paul Krugman Is Wrong

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:11:03 -0400

So, to whom do you intrust our country?

Arthur Laffer, Jude Wanniski, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld?

They did a fine job of running this country into the ground.

On Mar 23 12:59 PM Steve in Greensboro wrote:

> Generally, you can't go too far wrong assuming whatever Paul Krugman
> says is complete garbage. The same is true of Brad DeLong.
>
> But what to do when these two disagree? It is a puzzlement.

A Natural Gas-Centric Revitalization Program

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:47:08 -0400

Thanks.

On Mar 22 09:43 PM optionsgirl wrote:

> That's the Marcellus Shale Field.

The Bonus Tax: The Redistribution of Both Wealth And Talent

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:45:58 -0400

Perhaps you missed the news item reporting that 20% of these "retention" bonus babies left the company AFTER they got their bonus money.

Still comfortable with AIG?

Actually, your point is well-taken in one sense. This isn't about bonuses paid to a batch of AIG FP geniouses. What this sorry episode has exposed is the incestuous nature of our economic structure. Merrell takes the B of A (taxpayer donated) TARP/Fed-structured buyout and pays BILLIONS in bonuses. AIG takes TARP and pays off BILLIONS to Goldman, Morgan and others sitting on their insured obligations that the worthless AIG'ers wrote.

This madness will only stop when we admit that w/o TARP and TALF money, these financial giants would be bankrupt midgets sitting on worthless assets enough to torpedo the companies should they ever write down those assets.

Nationalize the financial industry, GM, GE, and every other company that has brought this ruin upon our country!

On Mar 22 10:23 PM User 187593 wrote:

> AIG bonuses were not based on performance. They were retention bonuses,
> paid solely on obligation to stay on the job and perform during 2008.
> Since the affected employees stayed throughout 2008 they deserve
> the benefits of their contractual commitments, which they fulfilled.
>

Taxing the $5 Million-a-Year Brigade

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:32:46 -0400

SO have fun on your lonely planet, where you have made it all on your own, where you never participated in any of the shared benefits of living in this Republic, where your concern for your fellow citizens led you to retire so that you don't have to participate in the solutions.

This means that you never had any employees I assume, from whose sweat equity part of your retirement fortune was derived. If no employees, then your investments in other companies depended on the sweat of labor.

My opinion of your protest makes no difference because you have divested your being from any shared responsibility to try and make a better world and participate. Your sad end will be a slow dissolve into the nothingness that your philosophy has created.

May God have mercy on your soul.

On Mar 22 09:38 PM fireball wrote:

> mediapro
> i have never cheated on my taxes. each year i sit with my accountant
> and carefully with great fear have paid through the nose.
> i have always worked hard for a living, thus the ability to retire.
> the money i have made was on my own. no one helped. it was made in
> spite of bad govt..
> i have concern for my country and fellow citizens.
> after i answered you i noticed your cut and paste answer on another
> article. that is probably why it did not seem to apply.
> i won't resort to profanity. i will save that for politicians.
> opinion of my protest makes no difference. you will have to find
> your own answers about war/fuel and taxation. i do not know what
> course others should take. maybe if you have issues with fuel don't
> drive a car. i can't help you. individuals must find there own way.
> that is one of the problems. one person thinks their vision is best
> and seeks the force of law to force others to follow their idea of
> what is best.
> my refusing to profit from embryonic stem cell research was my own
> problem. not generating an income has the added benefit of not participating
> in programs where govt. should not go. the abortion dilemna is finally
> resolved. revisit (4) to understand paying portions.

A More Modest AIG Bonus Proposal

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:21:41 -0400

Actually, unlike some commenting, I read the article. I would go along with the stock compensation scheme suggested by the Zack's writer. If they (the FP folks) are truly committed to righting their wrongs and unwinding their mess, then building the compnay back to a sustainable footing through a stock incentive makes sense for all of us.

As to your points about the best way to do this, you totally missed the point of the article. To use a silly alternative such as "the janitor" or "intern" is a false choice. The folks in the FP division are mostly living in other countries (the British bunch are the biggest majority). Why should they give a whit about a law that doesn't affect them?

DO you recall that nearly 20% of these bonus babies who got "retention bonuses" left the company immediately AFTER the bonuses were granted?

And if you are so concerned with protecting our taxpayer assets, then exert your energy towards something constructive. For five examples:

1. Reinstate Glass-Steagall. None of these shops (Citigroup, B of A, etc.) should have ever been allowed to dally in businesses about which they knew nothing. AIG has (had) 111,000 employees. It's an insurance company. How can it effectively manage its core business while allowing these geniouses to manipulate the financial markets with CDO's and CDS's?

2. Eliminate bonus structures altogether. Why are salaried employees and small businesses hit time and time again, while big business always seems to 'bend' the rules and still come out on top? Think of it this way, if I’m an average corporation and I pay a qualified employee 100k as their salary, I am required to withhold taxes, insurance and a host of other items – in addition to setting aside money for federal programs. However, if I pay that individual 60k, and a bonus 40k, the situation looks much better. The employee has to handle withholding taxes on the 40k and I am only required to deal with the payroll effects of 60k.

3. Fix the tax code. Just a few examples:

A. Our effective cost per gallon of gas is ~$10.00 when one factors in the roughly $30 billion dollars in tax subsidies ANNUALLY provided to the oil and gas industry. This is the most egregious, downscale tax imaginable. Moreover, the oil and gas companies simply need to bid and secure future leases and INTENT to drill for the largess we reap upon them every year. This ponzi scheme against the American taxpayer is one of our dirtiest tax secrets.

B. Add to that tax subsidy the protectionist import rules on sugar, milk, etc. Removing sugar tariffs alone and replacing this supply with a much more efficient cane sugar ethanol source could end the corn producer/fertilizer manufacturers stranglehold on the taxpayer's neck.

C. For people who don't count the payroll, FICA, SUI, etc. automatic worker payroll contributions while conveniently ignoring the "bonus structure", offshore accounts, shell businesses, and other manipulative uses of the tax code by those who can afford tax attorneys, don't be so quick to condemn the extra pittance through earned income tax credits, adjusted rate schedules for wage earners and such put into the pockets of those who actually contribute a day's labor for a fair wage vs. the incredible sums paid to those who move money through the system. Look where that system of rewards has put us.

C. Finally, would someone please explain to me why there is a ~$106 K cap on wage contributions to Social Security?

While we are all arguing about the validity of the clawback option, we are missing the larger point of just how egregiously the average Joe has been pummeled by a tax system that redistributes wealth from the working middle class up to the 2% Captains of America that continue to rape this country and its resources.

On Mar 23 04:42 PM fbcx wrote:

> Again, the talking heads and their lemming followers miss the point.
> Many of those bonuses were performance bonuses based on actual production.
> Whether the entire firm made or lost money is immaterial. Whether
> those people saw no future at AIG for reasons beyond their control
> and left, does not mean their bonuses should be returned. For those
> that were retention bonuses, lets put hipocracy aside for a moment
> and think like businessmen. You've got a BIG problem...$2.7 trillion
> of very complicated assets that need to be unwound and sold for the
> highest dollar amount possible in order to be able to pay back the
> $170 billion the government has loaned you. Who do you want doing
> that? The janitor, an intern (neither of whom can even spell derivative
> asset) or the people who created the damn things to begin with an
> probably understand them better than anyone else. These people know
> they aren't wanted at AIG (but don't kid yourselves there are plenty
> of private equity shops who would hire them in a heart-beat with
> very nice comp packages to help them filter through the inventory
> and buy the bargains), so how do you keep them long enough to unwind
> their mess? It doesn't take a Harvard MBA to know you have to pay
> them not to leave and to stay and power down the the shop while making
> as many saves as they can on the downside. I don't care which private
> equity shop they go to after they finish cleaning house, but I do
> need them to stay and clean house. If I have to I'll pay .00619%
> ($167 million) of the $2.7 trillion to keep them around and do that
> job as best they can. I would. If you are thinking like an investor,
> which you should since you just invested $170 billion of taxpayers
> money in this outfit, you would do the same thing and quit thinking
> like a vengeful idiot talking head on TV. Christ, no wonder this
> country is go F***ed up! We've got Senators and Congressmen acting
> like uneducated juveniles instead of guardians of our nations wealth
> and wellbeing.

AIG: Time to Put Away the Pitchfork and Focus on the Real Problems

Mon, 23 Mar 2009 17:00:55 -0400

I guess you probably realized that writing a column under such a headline would provoke response.

On one point I agree.

"It is not that we should turn a blind eye and forgive the guilty and the negligence on Wall Street, but instead should focus more of our energy on the solutions to our problems, beginning with identifying and admitting its root causes."

Yet, it is the "flip" comment you used about the "flipper" in Nevada that skirts the real cause of the problem. Remember when there was no Citigroup (it was Citibank.)? Remember when AIG had no AIGFP (it was illegal for insurance to be in the investment banking and derivatives business)?

The repeal of Glass-Steagall and Phil Gramm's literal eleventh-hour insertion of an amendment to the repeal that eliminated oversite of derivatives markets which was the most significant blow to a rational financial products market.

But I submit that if we are to go at the larger problems, we must admit and change the dangerous path that we have been following for at least the past thorty years, if not since WW II.

The problem with our economic contstruct is that we are not doing enough to right the wrongs of a failed, simplistic, silly policy direction that we have suffered through for at least the past thirty years.

The introduction, ascendency and idolatry of Milton Friedman's brand of shock economics has done more to destroy the world's economy than any economic hypothesis in our lifetime. This is not just Reaganomics /Bushanomics, but the pitting of haves/have nots in a global play orchestrated through Milton's disciples within the IMF, World Bank, and governing neo-conservative world view since at least 1975.

Cutting taxes on the wealthy and re-distributing middle class income up to those captains of industry combined with wholesale deregulation and record deficits under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and conveniently leaving the $1 Trillion dollars of Iraq war spending off the books while the national debt ballooned from around $5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion at last peek is an ingenious spin on what constitutes supply side stimulus, if not outright delusion.

Count the change left in your pockets, unless of course you are one of the few who benefitted from this latest episode of Shock Economics so popular with necons. I'll just ask you the same question Reagan used to ask: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

If you're in the same boat as the rest of us, our "staying the course" has undeniably run the lot of us aground. If you have benefitted, then you're one of the lucky 2% that control 80% of America's wealth, completely comfortable that you'll ride out the storm until the next lunatic can covince most of the people all of the time into something completely counter to their own self interest.

Taxing the $5 Million-a-Year Brigade

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:00:34 -0400

Fireball.

Do you actually live on this planet? Wherever you are hiding, I hope that the incongruity of your position someday strikes you as odd.

Your assumptions about my moniker and myself are as off-based as your notion that puts you above everyone who actually works for a living.

Bless your heart that you have, I assume, a moral position about abortion and embryonic research. So everyone who doesn't believe in taxing gasoline should drill their own wells and avoid paying for the environmental degradation caused by oil exploration and refinement. Everyone who disagrees with invading a country and spending more than $1 trillion off-book dollars should deduct that portion from their "tax contributions".

At one point you might have made a buck or two enjoying the benefits of living in the U.S. It's high-minded tax cheats such as yourself that strike a familiar chord when I look at the mess created by a dangerous economic philiosophy that we have been operating under since WW II. Your kind are comfortable with your own moral high-mindedness that essentially says, "I got mine, now f**** everyone else."

On Mar 20 11:28 AM fireball wrote:

> mediapro
> your four points of "corruption" are supposed to make me want to
> continue with punitive taxation?
> 1. the federal government has no constitutional authority to own
> land other than military bases, d.c., and very few minor exceptions.
> the lease money is stolen from the states. why would entrenched corruption
> make me want to pay taxes?
> 2. inneficiency is supposed to make me want to pay more taxes? actually
> protected inefficiency. from what i gather there are even better
> methods than sugar cane/beet production.
> 3. sounds exactly like my complaint. please show me one phrase in
> the u.s. constitution that allows the u.s. govt. any right to tax
> or harass citizens or businesses on profits generated outside the
> u.s. borders. i have yet to find a handful (5) of other countries
> that do this but will readily admit i have done little searching,
> as other countries are not my priority.
> 4. your beef about socialist security makes no sense to me. the ponzi
> scheme is failing. i'm going to give the druggie $5 and say you can't
> spend that five on crack, use some other five? so he spends my five
> on cheap wine and another five for crack, please. my question again,
> show me constitutional authority for the failing socialist scheme.
>
>
> o.k. mediapro
> i believe you are exactly what your moniker implies. i rarely watch
> the u.s. media unless i am in a circus mood and want to laugh at
> the editorial comment passed off as reporting the news. most of the
> "reliable" sources come from outside the realm of t.v. land and most
> of the "print" and radio media are little better. it is difficult
> for americans to find unbiased journalism. you name injustices and
> think i should want to participate. i have an issue with abortion
> and embryonic research. i do not ask anyone to believe what i believe.
> through taxation i am forced to participate. excuse me, was forced
> to participate. i had a heads up on gern but chose to sit it out
> as i would shun the knowledge gained by the nazis as they learned
> about anatomy on helpless victims.
> you make the argument for me because you make innaccurate assumptions
> about me. so you continue paying as much as you wish. pay extra to
> be a "biden patriot." i will continue to resist injustice nd tyranny
> in a peaceful manner.
> if you are a media pro, a hint, cartoons are on t.v. but they are
> not real either.

Outing AIG's Bonus Babies: What's the Point?

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:48:00 -0400

Campbell,

You are an astute observer. The game of deffered compensation, bonuses, offshore tax havens, writedowns and other manipulative tactics are the same ones that most taxpayers will never enjoy.

Ask yourself, why should it be legal for one employee and employer (usually the self-employed and small business owner) to play by the rules and receive salaried compensation, while another employee and employer (usually large corporations) to avoid their share a taxes through these manipulations? IRS, are you listening?

While you're at it, why not ask anyone to explain to you why salary compensated employees with gross incomes above $106K/year and their employers are exempt from social security taxes for any sum above that amount?

I've asked the brilliant Captains of America, who seem to populate this site, that question in numerous posts and have yet to receive an answer, ANY ANSWER!

On Mar 22 01:24 AM campbell wrote:

> Did the financial products division in London operate on its own
> without knowledge of top executives of the risk they were taking(rogue
> trading) or did top execs okay taking these risks with the whole
> company so the traders were just following orders?
>
> If the company had not been bailed out with TARP and gone bankrupt
> would these bonus payments take precedence over other claims in a
> bankruptcy court?
>
> Did I read in another post that these bonus opayments were not based
> on performance but just a way of getting around paying with holding
> tax at an earlier time and actually regular compensation?

The Bonus Tax: The Redistribution of Both Wealth And Talent

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:35:58 -0400

The article is almost as humorous as most of the comments.

The one who wrote the violin music about the porr financial guy who has a bunch of unredeemable stock options, a taxed salary (OMG!) and a bleeding Grandmother lost in Europe was better than the afternoon soaps.

Let's get real folks. What these guys do, in the list of TARP companies provided in this article, is literally move money around for their living. Where's the equal outrage and concern for the working stiff who is now supposed to renegotiate his union contract to spare the poor Detroit idiots?

I for one am sick and tired of hearing the outrage over confiscation of ill-gotten gains while the smart people who populate this site can't seem to realize that the role of the financial sector is to provide capital for people who actually produce things.

The problem with our economic contstruct is that we are not doing enough to right the wrongs of a failed, simplistic, silly policy direction that we have suffered through for at least the past thirty years.

The introduction, ascendency and idolatry of Milton Friedman's brand of shock economics has done more to destroy the world's economy than any economic hypothesis in our lifetime. This is not just Reaganomics /Bushanomics, but the pitting of haves/have nots in a global play orchestrated through Milton's disciples within the IMF, World Bank, and governing neo-conservative world view since at least 1975.

Cutting taxes on the wealthy and re-distributing middle class income up to those captains of industry combined with wholesale deregulation and record deficits under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and conveniently leaving the $1 Trillion dollars of Iraq war spending off the books while the national debt ballooned from around $5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion at last peek is an ingenious spin on what constitutes supply side stimulus, if not outright delusion.

Count the change left in your pockets, unless of course you are one of the few who benefitted from this latest episode of Shock Economics so popular with necons. I'll just ask you the same question Reagan used to ask: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

If you're in the same boat as the rest of us, our "staying the course" has undeniably run the lot of us aground. If you have benefitted, then you're one of the lucky 2% that control 80% of America's wealth, completely comfortable that you'll ride out the storm until the next lunatic can covince most of the people all of the time into something completely counter to their own self interest.

A Natural Gas-Centric Revitalization Program

Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:51:57 -0400

I always enjoy reading your posts because of your obvious, studied commitment to this issue. NG is an interesting critter, and we all should know more about one of our most abundant, less-polluting fossil fuels.

Most of all, I appreciate your attention to reader posts. The follow-up and comments are almost as informative as the articles. Too many authors post and article and, when challenged, simply ignore the reader posts.

I heard something recently about a new NG find in New York and Pennsylvania, previously inknown fields so rich that they are holding lotteries for land use rights with farmers getting in line to be the first selected for land leases. Do you have any info on this?

Five Lessons from AIG and Merrill Bonuses

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:44:00 -0400

Options and Econ.

Nice head fakes and diversions, but the Corporate Captains of America and neo-cons can claim full ownership to this latest debacle. Just make sure you and poster "dcb" know who to train their 2nd Amendment rights upon.

The introduction, ascendency and idolatry of Milton Friedman's brand of shock economics has done more to destroy the world's economy than any economic hypothesis in our lifetime. This is not just Reaganomics /Bushanomics, but the pitting of haves/have nots in a global play orchestrated through Milton's disciples within the IMF, World Bank, and governing neo-conservative world view since at least 1975.

Cutting taxes on the wealthy and re-distributing middle class income up to those captains of industry combined with wholesale deregulation and record deficits under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II, and conveniently leaving the $1 Trillion dollars of Iraq war spending off the books while the national debt ballooned from around $5 Trillion to $10.6 Trillion at last peek is an ingenious spin on what constitutes supply side stimulus, if not outright delusion.

Count the change left in your pockets, unless of course you are one of the few who benefitted from this latest episode of Shock Economics so popular with necons. I'll just ask you the same question Reagan used to ask: "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

If you're in the same boat as the rest of us, our "staying the course" has undeniably run the lot of us aground. If you have benefitted, then you're one of the lucky 2% that control 80% of America's wealth, completely comfortable that you'll ride out the storm until the next lunatic can covince most of the people all of the time into something completely counter to their own self interest.

On Mar 20 03:39 PM Econ 101 wrote:

> Options,
> I dont understand either. I guess there are too many "good germans"
> out there. Afraid to criticize the corruption in congress and afraid
> of losing what they have. Hoping, like little children, that it
> will just go away. Or maybe or schools have produced so many incapable
> of understanding they dont know. KENNNEDYKID, for example.

Five Lessons from AIG and Merrill Bonuses

Sat, 21 Mar 2009 21:37:26 -0400

Uh, dcb.

I know that your heart was in the right place, but the Constitution doesn't speak to covering one's arms or leaving them bare. If you meant "the right to keep and BEAR arms", please consider the much-disputed purpose of the phrase. It's not about hunting. It's not about personal protection. The framers had a very specific intent when phrasing the 2nd Amendment.

The prefatory clause of the Second Amendment is a shortened version of language found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, largely the work of George Mason. Similar language appears in many Revolutionary Era state constitutions. This Declaration states:

That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

As to your point upon whom to use your arms, the government was a player in this latest episode, but the real culprits have been plying their trade at least since the the end of WW II. Read John Perkin's, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" and Naomi Klein's, "The Shock Doctrine".

If you are ready to take up arms now, just wait until you see who are the real culprits!

On Mar 21 10:43 AM dcb wrote:

> I believe somewhere in the constitution we were given the right to
> bare arms. I believe the founding fathers had something like this
> current episode in mind when they decided the populace should always
> have the means to rebel against and unjust and corrupt government.
> This is tyranny and taxation without representation.