Slashdot Mirror

> Trying to force your preferred coding style on to developers who operate differently will never end well. Unless you are uncommonly versatile, adapting yourself to a standard you hate will also not go well.

The better programmers leave their ego at the door. As Neil Peart brilliantly said recently:

Q. I think that a lot of people are surprised to learn that you still take drum lessons. You're seen as this drum master by most everybody.
A. What is a master but a master student?
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/q-a-neil-peart-on-rushs-new-lp-and-being-a-bleeding-heart-libertarian-20120612

If programmers have that much ego, it is probably better that they leave since they have shown that they aren't interested in learning a different perspective. (This can apply to both the young-whipper-snapper or old-crotchy ones equally.)

Every time I was forced to use a new coding style I initially disliked it. But I always was able to put my ego and biases aside and ask myself:

  * What are the advantages of this way?
  * What are the disadvantages?

Only by understanding BOTH answers can one really grok what works and what doesn't work. The rationale is more important then the rules.

The same thing applies to naming conventions.

Likewise, I've worked on code where there NO getter-setters allowed at all, where you MUST write getter-setters (even trivial ones), and ones where there no trivial getter-setters. The 3 different styles made me appreciate the different trade-offs.

> 1) Hastily-written code makes the trade show date
> 2) Writing very clean code, and then keeping it clean

Yes, completely agree there are 2 extremes:

* Ship it
* Over-Engineer it

> Successful businesses will find a happy medium between these two extremes,

Again I concur 100%. A pragmatic programmer knows when to just "let it go" and when to "rip everything out" -- the code is good enough, and when to re-architect, re-engineer, re-factor, etc. because the original code no longer solves (or handles) a different set of requirements.

It is a tough balancing act but there is one general guiding principle.

If you can achieve the same solution with less code then that is preferred. Less code has less bugs, and less edge conditions.

Smaller code is usually more beautiful then Large code. :-)

Another example: HSBC where one of the penalties was to reduce bonuses for executives.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

Do we really want a world where a person could face 35 years for trespassing (normal max: 30 days in jail and $100 fine) (1) but merely have to defer a portion of their bonus for laundering money for drug kingpins and terrorists (2)?

(1) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/feds-go-overboard-in-prosecuting-information-activist/

(2) http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213

You mean the scum who have no power and influence. And of course the innocent who get railroaded. Those are the people prosecutors go after. But in our two-tiered justice system, the type of scum with vast sums of money and political friends -- slap on the wrist.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/outrageous-hsbc-settlement-proves-the-drug-war-is-a-joke-20121213 :

Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement? Are you fucking kidding me? That's the punishment? The government's negotiators couldn't hold firm on forcing HSBC officials to completely wait to receive their ill-gotten bonuses? They had to settle on making them "partially" wait? Every honest prosecutor in America has to be puking his guts out at such bargaining tactics. What was the Justice Department's opening offer â" asking executives to restrict their Caribbean vacation time to nine weeks a year?"

Fair-use excerpt: ""Australia is the canary in the coal mine," says David Karoly, a top climate researcher at the University of Melbourne. "What is happening in Australia now is similar to what we can expect to see in other places in the future." As Yasi bears down on the coast, the massive storm seems to embody the not-quite-conscious fears of Australians that their country may be doomed by global warming. This year's disasters, in fact, are only the latest installment in an ongoing series of climate-related crises. In 2009, wildfires in Australia torched more than a million acres and killed 173 people. The Murray-Darling Basin, which serves as the country's breadbasket, has suffered a decades-long drought, and what water is left is becoming increasingly salty and unusable, raising the question of whether Australia, long a major food exporter, will be able to feed itself in the coming decades. The oceans are getting warmer and more acidic, leading to the all-but-certain death of the Great Barrier Reef within 40 years. Homes along the Gold Coast are being swept away, koala bears face extinction in the wild, and farmers, their crops shriveled by drought, are shooting themselves in despair.

The first 1-pager is Paulson's talking points for the bank. It basically confirms that he put a gun to all their heads. It says they must agree to take their cash, and that if they protested, then each bank's regulator would force them to take it anyway.

No. The banks jumped at the money but they and Paulson didn't want the public to panic if they found out how shaky the banks really were. So Paulson made up that BS story about forcing the banks to take the money.

Source

As time goes on, we're hearing more and more about the shenanigans that were done at the expense of the US taxpayer.

That the banks were forced to lend to low income people and that caused the problem is more of a tale than anything else. Certainly it wasn't helpful, but it was at worst a tiny percentage of the problem.

Nobody was twisting Countrywide's arm from making loans and crappy CDOs (*), but the real problem was Credit Default Swaps on the CDOs. These are a type of insurance a lender can take out on a loan (didn't even have to be a loan the lender made) wherin the insurance company would pay the loan off if the creditor defaulted. Back in the Clinton administration, it was decided that this type of insurance did not need to be regulated, i.e., there were no standards for how much the insurance company had to have on hand to cover obligations.

No regs. So what happened? The insurance companies sold policies willy nilly and when the subprime mortgages started going bad, they had no money to cover those costs. This started a domino effect.

And what was the problem? No regulations requiring adequate funds to backup to the swaps. So the whole idea that businesses will act rationally in the absence of regulation is crazy. Or maybe not really -- they made obscene profits by selling bogus insurace and then got bailed out. Win/Win I guess, if you are a greedy asshole.

The guys who do Planet Money had a very informative show about Credit Default Swaps. You should listen to it (particularly acts 2 and 3):

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/365/another-frightening-show-about-the-economy

(*) http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/angelo-mozilo-former-countrywide-ceo-claims-he-doesnt-know-what-verified-income-is-20121228

Congratulations on getting a +5 informative moderation on your post for referring to UK tabloid bullshit that was debunked the very same day by Willis' wife on Twitter.

10 years will give him time to wonder if maybe he shouldn't play like some kind of untouchable omnipotent God at a keyboard. I look forward to hearing of more tough sentences in the future.

Compare to the recent settlement where HSBC laundered billions in drug money and no-one will be charged.

What a messed up country; a guy gets 10 years for cracking accounts and posting pictures of boobies, and corporations actively participating on the wrong side of the "war on drugs" get off with a few weeks lost income for the share holders, yet those who facilitated do not get charged. How pissed off would you be being locked up for a few grams of dope and reading about these guys getting no personal penalty for laundering drug money for tonnes of hard drugs!

If you're suspected of drug involvement, America takes your house; HSBC admits to laundering cartel billions, loses five weeks' income and execs have to partially defer bonuses

Best post, ever! Usually I don't reply to AC, but I can see why you may feel the need to shelter your ID. Shoot, our own military was found to have used psyops against our own government's representatives! Nothing, today, is too far-fetched. Especially with how easy it is to alter evidence that was once considered bedrock, e.g. photo, video, audio.

Congress has become government of the highest bidder, by the highest bidder, for the highest bidder. I assume the advertising industry donates quite a bit to Congress. I'd be quite surprised if they did anything to annoy a big donor, or do any harm to that business model. The example of the financial sector is illustrative. Trillions of dollars of FederalReserve and government spending (which the taxpayers will ultimately pay) have been funneled directly to the financial sector, and yet there's been no serious reform in that industry to avoid a crash in the future.

So - we'll see how this goes.

> what's not to love?

I think your Devil's advocate deserves a response, so here's one: the wanton destruction of future civilizations and the mass extermination of a large percentage of the species on the planet perhaps?

Give or take some fluctuation in the actual numbers, this article is still well worth the read, the math doesn't change:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

Well, I don't know about the crime rate, but there are areas of Detroit that are ruled by feral dogs. I'd imagine that that would stop production.

False equivalency. The Obama / Holder justice department has cracked down on pot 4 times as hard as Bush ever did, even conducting twice as many raids on medical marijuana facilities in 4 years than Bush did in 8. And this from the President that promised (as a candidate) to leave them alone.

This is my favorite:

Black Keys to Nickelback

...about how the tea party was full of racists.

I'm quite sure that one was a documentary.

You might find this entertaining and informative: The Truth About the Tea Party.

Well if you want actual unethical behaviour from Romney at Bain look at how he bailed out Bain & Company (where Bain Capital spun off from). The basic deal was Romney took out big loans from the banks (and the FDIC) to try and save the company and avoid bankruptcy. But they were still losing money and the creditors wanted Bain & Company to declare bankruptcy so the remaining money would go back to the creditors. Instead Romney stated that instead of declaring bankruptcy he would pay out all the assets as loans to the top executives (though not the other employees), unless the creditors agreed to only get back 35% of the loan they'd get nothing at all. After one such round of bonuses the creditors agreed.

I think my two main issues with Romney are ethics and uncertainty. You can see the reputation for Romney's dishonesty at politifact as compared to Obama. As well there's a huge uncertainty about how he will govern. He's gone from very moderate in Massachusetts, to far right wing in the primaries and early as last week, and back to moderate in the debates, and not just in tone, but policy as well. I think there is a real outstanding question about how he will govern.

So far, Obama's supporters have only convinced me that voting for him would be a bad idea. Especially his running mate Joe Biden who effectively announced that we're worse off now than we were four years ago.

This actually makes me doubt your sincerity, who cares if we're better off than four years ago? That's just a talking point.

We were at point X in a massive economic collapse, shift X a couple months and you get a completely different answer. The question is about what will happen in the next 4 year.

I can't wait until carrying a telephone is mandatory.

How would people with low income, who until now have relied on payphones for the occasional call away from home, meet such an unfunded mandate?

If you don't believe some governments would be willing to further marginalize those already disenfranchised, please note that some states are making it more difficult to register to vote.

Looks like the name is trademarked, so this looks like a way to request money for "Pono compliance"

Don't worry Skylar, there's a holiday coming soon.

Does it matter? To prove the critical point - that Bain under Romney was involved in predatory investing - a single example suffices. It happens that there are several. Rolling Stone - Why Bain is the Worst.

Romney is an asshole. To be fair, the Stone doesn't like Romney at all; but there's not a lot to like. He's a Republican John Kerry.

for a crime that no one has indicted him for here

The indictment is sealed.

Either way, neither of them are at any imminent risk of being turned over to the US.

Assange has stated that he will voluntarily return to Sweden if they promise not to hand him over the U.S. Rather than making such an easy promise, TPTB have put Assange's attorney on a terror watch list instead.

Sounds like you've mistaken this site for Fox News.

I think you meant to go here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

And in addition to graphs, here are a few terrifying numbers. Read at least the first two pages of this article.

The best explanation of Romney's flip flopping was pretty simple: He just wants to win so he says whatever people want to hear and does whatever the loudest voices in his party tell him to do. As president he'll probably do whatever the real power controllers in the Republican party tell him to do. That will probably start with pay backs to his billionaire backers.

its worse than that - they werent just passing the bill to the taxpayer - they were ripping them off right across the U.S. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620. and yes as you say they want every cent everyone else has.

There have been several that were known to be terrorists who, under a sting operation, the TSA were waiting for.

I think you're thinking of the FBI.

"After a yearlong investigation, the Justice Department said Thursday that it won't bring charges against Goldman Sachs Group Inc. or any of its employees for financial fraud related to the mortgage crisis."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443537404577579840698144490.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"But Goldman, as the Levin report makes clear, remains an ascendant company precisely because it used its canny perception of an upcoming disaster (one which it helped create, incidentally) as an opportunity to enrich itself, not only at the expense of clients but ultimately, through the bailouts and the collateral damage of the wrecked economy, at the expense of society. The bank seemed to count on the unwillingness or inability of federal regulators to stop them - and when called to Washington last year to explain their behavior, Goldman executives brazenly misled Congress, apparently confident that their perjury would carry no serious consequences. Thus, while much of the Levin report describes past history, the Goldman section describes an ongoing? crime - a powerful, well-connected firm, with the ear of the president and the Treasury, that appears to have conquered the entire regulatory structure and stands now on the precipice of officially getting away with one of the biggest financial crimes in history."

"To recap: Goldman, to get $1.2 billion in crap off its books, dumps a huge lot of deadly mortgages on its clients, lies about where that crap came from and claims it believes in the product even as it's betting $2 billion against it. When its victims try to run out of the burning house, Goldman stands in the doorway, blasts them all with gasoline before they can escape, and then has the balls to send a bill overcharging its victims for the pleasure of getting fried."

"So let's move on to something much simpler. In the spring of 2010, about a year into his investigation, Sen. Levin hauled all of the principals from these rotten Goldman deals to Washington, made them put their hands on the Bible and take oaths just like normal people, and demanded that they explain themselves. The legal definition of financial fraud may be murky and complex, but everybody knows you can't lie to Congress.

""Article 18 of the United States Code, Section 1001," says Loyola University law professor Michael Kaufman. "There are statutes that prohibit perjury and obstruction of justice, but this is the federal statute that explicitly prohibits lying to Congress."

The law is simple: You're guilty if you "knowingly and willfully" make a "materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation." The punishment is up to five years in federal prison."

"Lloyd Blankfein went to Washington and testified under oath that Goldman Sachs didn't make a massive short bet and didn't bet against its clients. The Levin report proves that Goldman spent the whole summer of 2007 riding a "big short" and took a multibillion-dollar bet against its clients, a bet that incidentally made them enormous profits. Are we all missing something? Is there some different and higher standard of triple- and quadruple-lying that applies to bank CEOs but not to baseball players?"

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511?print=true

Yup: To stay below 2C warming, we can afford to emit another 565 Gt of CO2, but five times as much is in proven gas, oil and coal reserves, the reserves that corporations lend money against and that states plan their budget around. Now who thinks that those reserves will remain buried?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
4 to 6 C, here we come. Good luck with that, next generations. Yeah I'm too old to see it.

Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened.

I disagree. It still would have happened, but it wouldn't have been as bad as it was without the Fed raising interests rates a few months after Greenspan encouraged everyone to buy Option-ARM mortgages (to name one of their bad decisions). The mortgage crisis was really a perfect storm of deregulation, fraud, hubris and greed. Had AIG not been selling un-funded CDS's with it's left hand, while loaning out it's AAA securities to investment banks and investing the cash collateral in junk (but AAA rated) mortgage back securities with it's right hand, Goldman Sachs wouldn't have been able to hold a metaphoric gun to the head of the country and force the Fed to pump billions into that sinking ship (just so they could pay back GS, Societe Generale, DeutcheBank and the rest).

Further reading:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/01/25/aig-treasury-fed-business-wall-street-bailout.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/mailbag-aig-parking-meters-and-being-a-crappy-husband-20110214

Without TARP, HAMP, HAMA, AIG bailout, and trillions in secret Federal Reserve life support, the banks would have been forced to accept the consequences of their own actions, and the damage could have been repaired.

I wouldn't say the damage could have been repaired. In fact, an argument could be made that the short term (i.e. 0-10 years) effects would have been much worse. However, by not removing the moral hazard from the equation, Congress and the Fed insured that something like this will happen again. As long as there are no criminal or financial penalties for people making bad bets or engaging in fraudulent behavior, you are guaranteed to see that behavior repeat.

Not all billionaires are such decent people.

Though, to be honest, if had that kind of dough I'm not sure I wouldn't spend it all on strip clubs and blow and $1300 limited edition video games.

But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't run around poisoning small towns for fun and profit.

Really? By what mechanism can the Federal Reserve, all by itself, without consent or support from the president, bail out banks, investment banks, homeowners, and auto companies?

Interest free loans made by the Federal reserve:
Citigroup - $2.513 trillion
Morgan Stanley - $2.041 trillion
Merrill Lynch - $1.949 trillion
Bank of America - $1.344 trillion
Barclays PLC - $868 billion
Bear Sterns - $853 billion
Goldman Sachs - $814 billion
Royal Bank of Scotland - $541 billion
JP Morgan Chase - $391 billion
Deutsche Bank - $354 billion
UBS - $287 billion
Credit Suisse - $262 billion
Lehman Brothers - $183 billion
Bank of Scotland - $181 billion
BNP Paribas - $175 billion
Wells Fargo - $159 billion
Dexia - $159 billion
Wachovia - $142 billion
Dresdner Bank - $135 billion
Societe Generale - $124 billion
"All Other Borrowers" - $2.639 trillion

Now, can you put some meat into your claim that Romney could be a disaster for the country? I really don't see on which dimension he could be worse than Obama.

You must be lacking in imagination, all Romney needs to do is trigger another recession to be worse than Obama, and he could easily do that with any of the big Republican policies. Romney has a number of billionaire backers who want him to cut taxes for the very rich even further than they already are. With the help of a Republican congress and senate he could very well cut the rates even further and increase the debt (doing so would probably trigger an across the board downgrade of the U.S. debt, but since he can insulate himself and his wealthy patrons from paying the costs, why should they care?). Sharp cuts to government spending are particularly likely to trigger another recession, something that the Tea Party base wants to see because they really know nothing of economics. Romney's also promised to start a War with Iran, it's stupid, but I didn't think Bush would invade Iraq in 2000, either. Bush taught me one great lesson: the greater evil can be pretty damn bad.

Or in other words, Romney could be worse than Obama on every dimension. Romney has a history of enriching himself at everyone else's expense, what makes you think he will act any different as President?

What Romney's backers want is the elimination of federal pollution regulations, billion dollar earmarks, and reduced taxes. If he wins, they will likely get what they want.

Koch Bros.?

Those are the evil task-masters that are controlling the world energy markets?

Let's compare federal government subsidies for solar and wind power to the entire revenue stream of Koch Bros... Which is greater?

How can little-old Koch Bros. control the world oil/energy market? They have near zero influence over the President/Senate...

According to Rolling Stone magazine, the Koch Brothers have poured about $100 MIllion over the past 30 years into supporting organizations, politicians, and think tanks that they agree with - the US Gov't poured $528 Million down the drain at Solyndra in just under two years.

Put another way, over the last thirty years the Koch Brothers have (in your mind) controlled the Repubican Party and hence the controlled the country while Senator Obama spent nearly 8 times as much on his campaign to become President in 2007-2008.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility,

Until an elected conservative gets caught doing something wrong, then it's the fault of someone else... Most likely Liberals, or possibly the infamous Overzealous Staffer.

limited government,

Unless you're a woman, or gay, or an atheist.

free markets,

Even if they've demonstrably failed or the premises for a workable free market don't even exist, like in healthcare.

individual liberty, traditional American values, the plain-language meaning of the Constitution,

I like buzzwords too. I also recognize that some "traditional American values" - like virulent racism directed, at varying times and places, against almost every group on earth including nigh every ethnicity in Europe - are repulsive.

and a strong national defense.

So the government you claim will enslave us all if it goes and says Exxon can't dump oil anywhere it pleases, you'll willingly support having more firepower than the rest of the world combined? And why is big government spending now suddenly OK?

We believe as the founders did that the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals. Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems rather than expanding the size, scope, and power of government to solve them.

Have you ever actually read the words of the founding fathers? Like those of Ben Franklin, saying quite forcibly that anything more than the bare essentials of life are owned by Society as a whole, because it is Society's laws that made them possible.

And we finally get to where didnt-think-your-cunning-plan-through.jpg would go if slashdot allowed image embedding: how, precisely, do you propose that the people of the gulf coast acquire remittance from BP for destroying it? Who was it that finally had to step in once corporate dumping polluted the Cyuahoga River to the point it literally caught fire? How precisely can I be "empowered" to solve the problem of investment banker insanity crashing the world economy, other than by shooting one? And I'm sure this despicable behavior is the fault of the government too somehow. The bottom line is, we tried your ideas back when America and Europe first industrialized: The horrifying results of unregulated capitalism are exactly what made Karl Marx predict that the workers would revolt.

FDR, any closing remarks? But, they are guilty of more than deceit: When they imply that the reserves thus created against both these qualities will be stolen, they attack the integrity and the honor of American government itself! Those that suggest that are already aliens to the spirit of American democracy.

Interesting that Rolling stone magazine wrote this article a while back. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

Note the whole thing about oil prices having been spiked as a bubble, and in the process of being respiked. Also note the whole thing on carbon tax credits etc. If true, I wonder how much longer the world at large will put up with such shenanigans?

By the same token, there are two types of communism - a pure type where all resources are shared by the people for the good of the people. The other is what we end up with, and is closer to fascism.

Except that no one is arguing for "pure corporatism." Instead, capitalism breeds corporatism which converges on fascist corporatism as corruption takes root. The fallacy of pure communism is that it expects everyone to follow the rules without enforcement. When that fails, government steps in to enforce the rules and eventually becomes corrupt as no one can effectively enforce the rules on the government. The fallacy of pure capitalism is that it expects everyone to follow the lack of rules (i.e., allow market forces to exert themselves completely) without enforcement. When that fails, government steps in to enforce contracts, the concept of ownership, and to underwrite capital itself. The corporate form, which should be the most efficient vehicle for capitalism, then becomes entwined with the government as the distinction between capital and power is erased and the government becomes completely corrupt. This metamorphosis was demonstrated handily by the recent Senate hearings in which the Banking Committee performed public falacio on Jamie Dimon for the better part of the day. Talk about propping up a failed business model with government intervention.

Goldman Sachs. Colloquially "The Squid" after Matt Taibbi: "The Great American Bubble Machine".

Which party is trying to enact consumer protection laws,

Neither of them. At least, not anything with any teeth. Look at the absolute joke Dodd-Frank has turned into, in no small part thanks to members of the Democratic party.

regulations to protect home buyers,

Neither of them. Seriously, what regulations have been passed since the '08 meltdown that does anything to protect home owners and buyers? None I can think of.

regulations to reign in bank fraud?

3 for 3.

Which party passes laws protecting the rights of women and minorities or makes environmental protection a priority?

Again, neither of them. Where's the evidence? Sure, Obama pushed a law forcing insurance companies to cover women's reproductive medications, but as soon as the right balked he withdrew support of his own initiative. What good does it do women and minorities if the leadership reneges every time the opposition harrumphs?

I could go on and on, listing substantial policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

Which wouldn't do a lick of good, considering that their differences pale in comparison to their similarities. It's like you're implying a bulldog and a German shepherd are two completely different species, because they have different color fur. But really, your perception isn't what matters - it's the fact that no matter what you think of them, they're both going to lick their own balls before they put tongue to your face.

I accept that both parties want power, but it seems like only one party even pretends to have a token interest in using the least bit of that power to protect my interests in even the most minimal of ways.

So, in other words you prefer leaders who will lie to your face about how their about to fuck you, rather than ones who will straight up say, "we're going to fuck you"?

That's smart.

The recently enacted JOBS Act:

1) "Once again, the Puppets on Capitol Hill are about to slam the Muppets on Main Street. The country still hasn’t recovered from the Wall Street-induced financial cataclysm of 2008, yet Congress is preparing to enact the Orwellian ”JOBS Act”—a bill that should in fact be called the “Return Fraud to Wall Street in One Easy Step Act.” The bill will undo some of the most important reforms placed on Wall Street in a generation."
Slate link

2) "In fact, one could say this law is not just a sweeping piece of deregulation that will have an increase in securities fraud as an accidental, ancillary consequence. No, this law actually appears to have been specifically written to encourage fraud in the stock markets."
Rolling Stone (Taibbi) link

3) “Simply, the JOBS Act will make funding more accessible for startups by allowing non-accredited investors to participate in the funding rounds, and this alone, I believe will be the main factor driving the increase in new companies being founded. And with new companies comes the need to hire staff. Without a doubt, this will help the current unemployment rate,” said Tanya Prive, founder of Rock The Post, a social networking platform for entrepreneurs to fund and swap resources."
Forbes link

4) "It is self-defeating for us to say this because as criminologists and anti-fraud specialists we would have job security for life if this bill was adopted. It is literally composed of the wish list in regard to fraud-friendly provisions that those intent on cheating have been dreaming about and salivating to achieve for decades. This bill will kill millions of jobs because financial frauds are weapons of mass financial destruction. It will start an international fraud-friendly deregulation race to the bottom and will become the basis for further criminogenic U.S. Congressional actions."
Huffington Post Link

5) "Amy Borrus, a spokeswoman for the Council of Institutional Investors, an investor watchdog group, said small companies — the focus of the new bill’s relaxed regulations — are particularly prone to fraud and accounting scandals. Senators did add some investor protections, but not enough, she said."
New York Times link

So... we might be looking at a jump (bubble?) in the stock market. I don't quite know what to make of it yet, but the initial reviews seem to be pointing to such a thing. Investigate and plan accordingly (and try not to lose your shirts).

He monetized.

$280k to charities, $250k to production costs, $250k as bonuses to his staff, and $220k for himself.

I don't see how your position is any less childish or black-and-white. You make blanket statements about people you couldn't even name and you take complex economic issues and simplify them to the point of "itz all cauzed by teh greedy banksters!". Do you honestly claim to understand the complexities of the events you just listed... or are your "facts" based in populist sentiment? (it's a rhetorical question, the answer is obvious).

You mean, it's obvious that I track economic developments and read economics related news articles?

Good, I was worried you were being a hyperbolic, presumptive ass.

Do we put the government in charge of distributing wealth? If you think that rich greedy people are a problem now, just wait until their money/power is controlled by a bureaucrat who not doesn't care about wasting huge sums of money, and has even less consequences for wrongdoing.

Don't follow the news, do we?

Isn't it interesting that you have so much hatred for people with more money than you...

I don't hate anybody. I hate the way people let their greed blind them to the suffering they cause others, but I don't hate the people themselves.

do you care about the 98% of the worlds population that has far less than you do?

Indeed. I would love to live in a world where those with the most willingly and happily share their excess wealth with the less fortunate so that everyone can live a better life. Did you even read my OP, or were you so amped up about posting your argumentum ad hominem that you didn't bother?

How would you feel if someone told you that you had to give up 75% of your property to make society more fair?

short answer: I'm a survivalist :) material possessions (outside those necessary for survival) mean nothing to me.

Long answer: It wouldn't bother me in the least, although I would question the intent of the person telling me that, as I personally own very little; save the house and the car (which one would assume would be part of the 25% I keep, as we're trying to lessen poverty here, not increase it) might bring a few thousand dollars if you could manage to get retail out of my old, used junk...

I'm not defending the super-rich here, just pointing out that the threshold for how much is too much is conveniently above what *you* think it should be.

And what, precisely, do "I" think it should be?

Oh please, I seriously doubt you understand the true complexity of the world around you.

Considering all the baseless accusations and speculation you've offered thus far, I'm somehow not surprised.

I know it's much easier to understand a half-truth that appeals to emotion than to put in the effort required to really understand something.

See response above.

The idea that the "elites" must be overthrown to get "justice" for the "people" is not new, it has been tried many times but always fails miserably.

Yea, just look what happened in 1776; no good came of that, did it mate?

As soon as group X overthrows group Y, group X then becomes just as greedy and selfish (many times more so) than group Y was.

Change "as soon as" to "eventually" and I have to agree with that one.

The altruistic utopian world view where everyone is equal *and* prosperous is a fantasy that has never existed.

A guy can dream, can't he? (Answer: Yes, b

Rolling Stone explained it a few years ago, and it actually is: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

The mainstream media has finally started talking, barely, about the speculation that is the actual source of the problem.

Alright, I had to post so I wouldn't waste / abuse my mod points because some of the commentry that I am reading just really pisses me off. I understand that I am the minority here (a gay geek), but those of you who do not understand what it is like to be afraid of society finding out your "deviance from the norm" seriously need to have some empathy and try and see how hard it really is. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

Government has no vested interest in getting a good deal and because of that it pretty much asks for being milked dry.

Why is that? Just because you say so? What is that "government" you are talking about?

Government officials have a natural tendency, like anybody else, of trying to do a job they can be proud of. There are many reasons why they don't manage (just look at the Jefferson County disaster). But lack of interest in good results by officials is currently not the most important one.

Do some research into the relationship between the SEC and the banks they are supposed to regulate, then get back to me.

Matt Taibbi's blog is a good place to start.

Does the book go into the fact that OWS was a smokescreen to blame private corporations for the results of government misregulation for the aid of the Obama re-election campaign?

If you honestly believe the de-regulation of private business (that subsequently led to multiple economic implosions) has only been going on as long as Obama has been president, you haven't been paying attention.

I don't disagree; but I think it is fair to say that without the complete and utter lack of accountability or perceived risk on the part of investors, things could/would not have gotten so far out of hand. I do, however, think that you are giving the government too much credit (no pun intended). The Fed controls interest rates, not Treasury, and the Fed is designed to act independently of the federal government. In fact, if it weren't for Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders we wouldn't even know about the ~$14 trillion the Fed loaned to the banks at ~0%, the numbers behind "quantitative easing," or nonsense like this. One could even argue that the Fed lowered interest rates at the behest of the banks to juice the mortgage market after Clinton (and Rubin) eliminated the last remaining vestiges of post-depression regulations.

Oh not at all, you see, unless you're a big corporation with a lot of lawyers, you can't own any content. So they look "oh it's the little guy again" and "yeah this content would be nice to own" and with that, it's theirs.

Hey, they do it with houses now, so why not intellectual property? http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-courts-helping-banks-screw-over-homeowners-20101110