Slashdot Mirror


South Korean Financial Blogger Faces 18 Months of Prison

eldavojohn writes "A South Korean blogger named Park Dae-sung has been arrested and charged with destabilizing foreign markets by blogging about declining companies. This is the same blogger who predicted the economic downturn that has been experienced the world over. The Korean Times offers more information on the community college graduate and the accusations levied against him." Several readers have also sent in news that Omidreza Mirsayafi, an Iranian blogger arrested and imprisoned for his writings earlier this year, has now died in custody.

177 comments

  1. News from the future by stox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Blogger arrested for allowing facts to get in the way of a perfectly good argument.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:News from the future by LaskoVortex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Blogger arrested for allowing facts to get in the way of a perfectly good argument.

      He was arrested, as you know, for "undermining the South Korean economy" with inaccurate ("false") statements on his blog. But if your country's economy can be undermined by a blog, then there is no hope for it anyway. In fact, barring the human rights component of these charges, S. Korea is doing worse harm to its economy by prosecuting this guy and thereby suggesting a mere blog has any influence whatsoever.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    2. Re:News from the future by thePig · · Score: 1

      Not quite. If you see the second linked article, page 2 - it seems that government has indeed asked the currency traders to stop buying foreign currency. So, the facts also bear it out.

      p.s -> The first linked article is rather light on facts - and more on sensationalism. Reading that, the view that we get is just the opposite of what they want to convey.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    3. Re:News from the future by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Same thing happened in the UK - the BBCs business editor was hauled into parliament to explain his writings, and just like in South Korea the MPs wanted to blame him for causing the trouble in the UK economy.

      OK he hasn't been threatened with prison, but its clear from incidents like this the world over that those that run the economy and especially the stock market traders actually have no idea what they are doing. For example the same man can apparently cause bank shares to fall just with his morning report on BBC news.

    4. Re:News from the future by Divebus · · Score: 4, Funny

      <stupidity>
      I'm glad they finally caught the guy. Maybe now the global economy can heal.
      </stupidity>

      --

      Most of the stuff on /. won't survive first contact with facts.
    5. Re:News from the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple products must be really bad as /.ers do not like their faults being pointed out!

    6. Re:News from the future by Daengbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Now that Korea doesn't allow anonymous postings (requiring the citizen's ID number to register) and has started a (mostly unregulated) Inter police taskforce, this type of arrest is surely to become more common.

      I live in Korea, and my friends and I have been blocked (with required scary Internet police warning) from websites they deemed morally questionable. Right now, these mostly appear to be dating and gay sites, but who knows where it'll go from here. Putting a force in place to watch your people and giving them carte blanche to block whatever they don't like is just inviting trouble.

      Two further comments:

      1. My alien ID doesn't seem to work with any sites, so I am effectively silenced.
      2. This law was passed in response to a celebrity suicide. The Korean govenment chose to protect people from themselves instead of having an intelligent discussion about why suicide isn't an appropriate response to online slander.
    7. Re:News from the future by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's nothing as cathartic as shooting the messenger, eh?

    8. Re:News from the future by OutOfMyTree · · Score: 1

      The BBC's Business Editor is in a different position from a blogger. And there is no doubt that his pronouncements can and do move markets. Guido has had several goes at him, and it is not surprising that a Select Committee wanted his evidence -- not at all the same thing as imprisoning him.

    9. Re:News from the future by SerpentMage · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As much I as I do like Free Speech. And I really do, there is one thing that is happening to the blogging world that does need control.

      Slander!

      Yes Slander! I see it all too often in the financial blogging world (I work there) where people will say things without having any evidence.

      Here is what he supposedly said:

      The 31-year-old blogger's crime: falsely reporting that South Korea had barred banks from purchasing U.S. currency. The authorities said the blogger, Park Dae-sung, will find out his sentence on April 20 for posting the inaccurate story that prosecutors said undermined the county's credibility

      That piece of inaccurate blogging is slander! He said something without having proof, and I for one think he should go to jail.

      The blogging world is a good world, but bloggers should think hard before posting things like, "oh the DOW will reach 3000" There are people who actually believe this crap.

      I could just as easily say the DOW will reach 20 gazillion, but it is a false statement and should not be said.

      I hope more bloggers become more careful about what they say. And if bloggers are silenced for posting the truth then I for one will be the first in line to defend the truth...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    10. Re:News from the future by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      Inter police -> Internet police.

    11. Re:News from the future by Daengbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you read up and know the story, you will find that the government actually did call up the banks and "strongly discourage" them from trading U.S. currency, In effect, he's being tried on a technicality and being railroaded, and the government -- for all intents and purposes -- did what he said they did. I suspect that they are just upset that he knew, and are looking for a way to silence his blog, which routinely reports anti-majority news.

    12. Re:News from the future by sussane · · Score: 0

      another poor fellow

      --
      Best Regards, Eliena Andrews
    13. Re:News from the future by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

      I don't think this case is as unusual or remote as you think:

      http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-64.htm

      US example, but many other countries have strict laws about spreading false rumors about the stock market. Sort of like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

      Now, this guy may or may not have been telling the truth, but that's a matter of fact, not principle. In principle, exactly the same thing could happen here.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    14. Re:News from the future by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      cyclical argument FAIL

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    15. Re:News from the future by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      If a journalist's pronouncements can influence the markets, then the problem lies not with the journalist but with the way the markets work. If the traders are so dumb that they cannot think for themselves and cannot decide what to buy or sell on its own merits rather than hearsay, then they are clearly unfit for the job and should be fired.

    16. Re:News from the future by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 1

      ...the DOW will reach 20 gazillion...

      Woah! BUY BUY BUY!!! I'm GUNNA BE RICH!

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    17. Re:News from the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What the hell?

      It's a blog. It's up to you as a reader to check facts before making decisions based on what someone writes. But the financial world doesn't seem very good at that. Somehow the word "speculation" comes to my mind...

      What do you plan to do when people realize it's impossible to blog without these kinds of things happening and start blogging anonymously (as in "impossible to track down the real identity of the author")? You can't accuse someone of slander... So... Ban the Internet?

      Don't mess with freedom of speech.

      And by the way... Where is the proof that what he said was slander? What you just said might as well be slander. Go to jail without passing Go, mister.

    18. Re:News from the future by teh+kurisu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Wired article author deserves 18 months in jail for that particular piece of writing. I had to follow through to the AP article to find out if the blogger had actually been found guilty or not (he hasn't).

      But if your country's economy can be undermined by a blog, then there is no hope for it anyway.

      Free markets the world over are based as much on confidence and rumour as actual assets. Why do you think we're in an economic crisis at the moment? It's because of a lack of confidence in the world market. Confidence can be undermined for legitimate reasons, but it can also be undermined maliciously by people spreading rumours that can be flat-out untrue, or can be self-fulfilling prophecies. Spread rumours that the stock of a company is going to tank, and investors will flee, forcing the stock to tank.

      And if you think that a blog can't possibly have that much effect, consider that a senior government advisor in the UK was forced to resign recently by a blog, and the media is awash with stories about how powerful blogs are becoming.

      It's important to note that nobody has been found guilty yet, and the 18 months sentence is merely an item on the prosecution's wish-list. Hopefully the judge will base the verdict on the following points:

      1. Did the blogger make untrue or misleading statements?
      2. Did he know that his statements were untrue or misleading?
      3. Did his statements cause material damage to the markets?
      4. Did he intend for his statements to cause material damage?

      I would hope that they take the fourth point into account, but it's probable that the first three would be enough for a conviction.

    19. Re:News from the future by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 4, Informative

      The 31-year-old blogger's crime: falsely reporting that South Korea had barred banks from purchasing U.S. currency. The authorities said the blogger, Park Dae-sung, will find out his sentence on April 20 for posting the inaccurate story that prosecutors said undermined the county's credibility

      First of all, slander is when people talk about it. When it's being written then it's libel.

      Saying that, is it libel when it's the truth? From this washington post article on Park Dae-sung's arrest:

      Prosecutors claim that one of his postings is clearly false. The government issued an emergency order Dec. 29, Minerva wrote, urging top banks to stop buying dollars. The government has denied issuing the order, but a number of currency traders have told the South Korean media that the government did urge banks that day to refrain from buying dollars.

      So, care to retract your comment? After all, it's in itself rather... libellous.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    20. Re:News from the future by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      What does it mean when I can't tell if a post is parody or not?

      Free speech is more important than the truth, because only through free discussion can the truth be found.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    21. Re:News from the future by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      If I want to write on my blog that I've heard that Steve Jobs has died just to drive the price of Apple stock down, there is nothing that can be done to me as long as I don't have some financial stake in Apple.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    22. Re:News from the future by debrain · · Score: 1

      Saying that, is it libel when it's the truth?

      In common law countries (U.K., Canada, U.S., Aus., Singapore, etc.) it's still libelous because it gives a negative image. However, as a general exception, if the statement is true you have a complete defence to libel and would not be prosecuted.

    23. Re:News from the future by orclevegam · · Score: 1

      I can only say for sure that truth is a defense to libel in the US. I know in at least part of the UK truth isn't considered a defense against libel.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    24. Re:News from the future by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      Same thing happened in the UK - the BBCs business editor was hauled into parliament to explain his writings, and just like in South Korea the MPs wanted to blame him for causing the trouble in the UK economy.

      Meanwhile, Jon Stewart blasts CNBC for not questioning the stability of the financial markets.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    25. Re:News from the future by blueskies · · Score: 1

      That piece of inaccurate blogging is slander! He said something without having proof, and I for one think he should go to jail.

      You wouldn't happen to be south korean would you?

      I think you should go to jail for libeling him. In countries with sane libel laws, truth is a defense in libel. So even if he didn't have proof, if he is right, there should be no penalty.

    26. Re:News from the future by blueskies · · Score: 1

      consider that a senior government advisor in the UK was forced to resign recently by a blog

      I can't wait to see the XKCD strip about that. Some blog bitch slapping an advisor until he resigns.

    27. Re:News from the future by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the problem lies not with the journalist but with the way the markets work. If the traders are so dumb that they cannot think for themselves and cannot decide what to buy or sell on its own merits rather than hearsay, then they are clearly unfit for the job and should be fired.

      You may choose to think of it as a problem, but markets are mostly fashion. Movement in the price of a stock is 80% fashion statement, 20% fundmentals. That's just th nature of the stock market. Geeks often have a very hard time undersanding this, given all the numbers that seem relevent, but facts about a company only dominate stock price over a 15+ year time horizon.

      Inside that timeframe, stock price is mostly about the popularity of companies, industries, and sectors. A good trader is focused on popularity, hearsay, rumors, malicious gossip, and all the other herd behaviours that affect popularity. Trying to determine what to buy on its own merits will *ruin* you in the stock market (if your tradiung with less than that 15-year outlook). Figuring out which way the herd is going and getting there first, completely unencumbered by reality, will make you rich.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    28. Re:News from the future by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      If the traders are so dumb that they cannot think for themselves and cannot decide what to buy or sell on its own merits rather than hearsay, then they are clearly unfit for the job and should be fired.

      Except they're perfectly fit for the job, where the job is making as much money for themselves as possible.

    29. Re:News from the future by Dragonslicer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow, which side of the North/South border is supposed to be the evil dictatorship again? Your politicians have been taking lessons from ours here in the United States, haven't they?

    30. Re:News from the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Movement in the price of a stock is 80% fashion statement, 20% fundmentals. That's just th nature of the stock market.

      You state this almost as if it was a good thing! As I recall, the whole point of the stockmarket was to increase the ways potentially productive and profitable companies could raise money; not become some sort of "fashion statement".

      P.S.
      My CAPTCHA phrase is "halter", are these questions somehow tied to thread content?

    31. Re:News from the future by trytoguess · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is just speculation on my part, but S. Korea is home to OhMyNews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohmynews) A major online newspaper who's articles are contributed mostly by it's readers. Think /. only more general, and with actual editing. So on that vein, it doesn't surpise me that blogs are taken more seriously.

    32. Re:News from the future by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      Figuring out which way the herd is going and getting there first, completely unencumbered by reality, will make you rich.

      Which is why when a journalist writes a story that somehow influences said herd (because as I said they have no individual thought) and then they start bleating like the sheep they are I'm quite prepared to look them in the eye and laugh.

      Running the markets like this was always a recipe for disaster and those that have lost their money quite frankly deserve it for not thinking about what they were doing. Even an idiot could see this crisis coming - when people are buying and selling non-existant goods its bound to go horribly wrong when someone says they want to cash in their investments and there's nothing there. If the traders had looked up even once from their piles of money they'd have seen that the whole thing was one enormous Ponzi scheme as well. But no, they were too greedy and too stupid.

      Schadenfreude is a wonderful thing, and in this case well deserved.

    33. Re:News from the future by CowboyBob500 · · Score: 1

      Except they've lost it all so they obviously weren't that good were they? It was all an illusion based on illusory money.

    34. Re:News from the future by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      No, the good ones either took their $20 million and jumped ship before it sank, or had a guaranteed bonus of $20 million even if they ruined the company.

    35. Re:News from the future by Seriousity · · Score: 1

      Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...

      Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas.

      --
      This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
    36. Re:News from the future by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      "OK he hasn't been threatened with prison, but its clear from incidents like this the world over that those that run the economy..."

      I know I'm so late that this will probably never be read, but I have to respond to that.

      One of the biggest reasons that things are so messy, and arguably the reason that your business editor example got hauled into Parliament, stems from a complete lack of understanding of basic economics.

      No ONE, and EVERY one, "runs" the economy!

      Not the stock market traders, not the banks, not the government. "The economy" refers to the sum of all economic activity within the referred to jurisdiction. Thus the "global economy" refers to all economic activity around the world and the "American economy" to all economic activity in the US etc.

      Economic activity simply refers to all rational action. That is, all action that is aimed at improving personal conditions. In an social environment this involves the division of labour, which involves exchange.

      So when you go to work in the morning that's "the economy". When you go to the grocery store that's "the economy". When a pro fisherman invents a new fishing rod that enables him to fish more efficiently that's "the economy". No one runs the economy.

      The most shining spark of intelligence in your post was when you said "they don't know what they're doing". You're almost there. Production entails anticipating consumer demand, which is constantly changing. Investors are those who own capital and are looking to lend it to entrepreneurs who anticipate consumer demand and produce goods and services to fill those demands. The element of risk comes from the fact that no one can anticipate the future with full accuracy. However, don't fall into the trap of believing that investing is just like gambling. In gambling the bigger the risk is, the more the gambler stands to win on chance. With investing, on the other hand, the less the investor is able to know about future consumer demand (ie: the more the risk), the less the potential for reward and the greater the potential for loss.

      When anyone steps in and attempts to "run the economy", THAT is when the market becomes more like a casino. When the banks issue more money (inflation) they raise commodity prices and lower interest rates. They can only do this with government creating a central bank and giving it the power to create and control the supply of money. Only THEN do investors and entrepreneurs not know what they're doing because all kinds of otherwise irrational behaviour is going on. Projects that would normally look unaffordable all of a sudden look affordable because of low interest rates. Yet once the project is underway prices rise and the entrepreneur needs to keep borrowing and borrowing and they never make any money. Eventually they realize what's going on and cut their losses. Then you have a depression when all of these companies default on their loans, declare bankruptcy and lay off their employees giving the banks possession of all of their worthless assets.

    37. Re:News from the future by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      Ever see the documentary "McLibel"? People in England got reamed for telling the truth about McDonald's.

       

    38. Re:News from the future by mpe · · Score: 1

      You may choose to think of it as a problem, but markets are mostly fashion. Movement in the price of a stock is 80% fashion statement, 20% fundmentals. That's just th nature of the stock market.

      This is also why stock market prices can vary rapidly and be affected by all sorts of things which do not appear to be that relevent to anything.

    39. Re:News from the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm... Like the guy who blogged about Steve Jobs, or the guy who reproduced the 6 year old article on United Air? And if they sold short just before they did it?

      Granted these aren't countries. But manipulation of financial markets can cause harm.

    40. Re:News from the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but you are using logic and reason, two concepts unknown and unused in government.

  2. Yay, we have a culprit! by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not managers driving their companies to the ground, it's not politics failing to watch over the markets. It's a blogger that warned people about it.

    Glad we found someone nobody misses when he disappears. Though, personally, I'd have missed a few managers and politicians less.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Yay, we have a culprit! by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Killing the messenger was always a good idea.

    2. Re:Yay, we have a culprit! by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Yeah, missing politicians and executives is why these problems get out of hand in the first place. Time to get back on the range.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    3. Re:Yay, we have a culprit! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, not like I didn't try. But try to aim steadily when you're in the middle of a crowd and everyone's nudging you and whispering "shoot, dammit, shoot!"

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. last time i checked... by nevbear666 · · Score: 0

    South Korea was a democracy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea are you sure youre not talking bout north korea? weird weird...

    1. Re:last time i checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because democracies can never do such things as break international laws, undermine their human rights "for greater good", etc... We both know exactly what examples I could give about USA, but I'll go with the "Nazi party got to power through democratic process".

      That said, the summary is funny to note that "he is the same guy who predicted...". I don't know how much publicity the mainstream media allowed to it in other countries (I would believe that it had popped up everywhere, seeing how the media loves scandals, threats, etc.) but at least here in Finland there has been constant speculation and talk about the possibility of a depression for many years.

    2. Re:last time i checked... by Captain+Hook · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what has democracy got to do with it?

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    3. Re:last time i checked... by nevbear666 · · Score: 0

      a lot actually... for one you dont get arrested for your opinion on things...

    4. Re:last time i checked... by palegray.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The USA is a democracy, and we've got this little thing called (ironically enough) the Patriot Act that can be used to make people disappear.

    5. Re:last time i checked... by nevbear666 · · Score: 0

      come over to austria we dont got that problem so far...

    6. Re:last time i checked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm posting this anonymously because I'm pretty sure I can get arrested for this in the US. I'm of the opinion that Osama did the world a favor when he burned down the phallus symbols of the infidels in NYC. Allah will burn american capitalist arrogance from this world, the credit crisis is just the beginning. Did you ever hear about Guantanamo?

    7. Re:last time i checked... by deraj123 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see no reason that a government run by majority rule, by definition, would prevent you from getting arrested for your opinion. Democracy does not necessarily mean freedom, or liberty. It could be argued that freedom and liberty cannot exist without a democracy, but it is certainly possible for the people to vote their freedom away.

    8. Re:last time i checked... by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      Oh, whats democracy got to do, got to do with it

      What`s democracy but a second hand emotion

      What`s democracy got to do, got to do with it

      Who needs a heart, when a heart can be broken

    9. Re:last time i checked... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      South Korea was a democracy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea are you sure youre not talking bout north korea? weird weird...

      South Korea has been a democracy for barely two decades. It has seen one 'peaceful' democractic coup d'etat shortly after the Korean War, and then three military coup d'etats in the fifty years since. The most recent was in 1979/1980, when the KCIA Director (acting essentially alone with no co-conspirators) assassinated the President of South Korea. This was not the coup d'etat--rather, three months later an unrelated two-star general and his school friends took control of the South Korean government by force, mobilizing several divisions to quash anti-coup forces. He held power for eight years, and decided not to run for reelection. His main partner in the coup ran for President, and in a seemingly fair election (the other two main candidates split the vote), won the seat and began instituting serious democratic reforms.

      Korea's democracy is brand new.

  4. Give him a break by oldhack · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, I mean the S. Korean prez. I mean, the guy's obviously trying to keep up with his comrade up north - you know, the dude with the misfiring missile. Hehehe, get it? Misfiring missile. I kill myself.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:Give him a break by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hehehe, get it? Misfiring missile. I kill myself.

      Kim Jong Il might just do the same if he keeps up with the missile antics.

    2. Re:Give him a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I kill myself.

      Yeah, please do :)

  5. O.D. by timeOday · · Score: 0, Troll
    Dare I cite facebook?

    "On 18 March, 29-year-old blogger Alireza Mirsayafi died while in Tehran's Evin prison. According to an account by Hesam Firoozi, a physician also imprisoned in Evin, Mirsayafi had taken extra doses of his medication. Firoozi's account, as provided by the Human Rights Activists in Iran, notes that Mirsayafi suffered from serious depression. Firoozi was present during the initial stages of Mirsayafi's treatment inside the prison's medical clinic and reported that the prison doctors failed to provide proper care by not sending him immediately to a hospital to save his life."

    Apparently this a problem everywhere:

    Young men, persons with mental illness, alcohol and drug addicts, and people who are in custody, are amongst the most at-risk groups for suicide.605 Given the prevalence of all of these indicators concurrently among prisoners in the United States, it is not surprising that suicide attempts are a serious problem inside prison. A nationwide survey conducted by prison suicide expert Lindsey Hayes in 1995 found that suicide rates in state prison systems ranged from 18.6 per one hundred thousand all the way up to 53.7 per one hundred thousand.606 According to The 2001 Corrections Yearbook, the average suicide rate in prison was 0.26 per 1,000 prisoners, or twenty-six per 100,000, two-and-a-half times the rate of suicide in the U.S.population at large, which for 2000 was 10.6 per 100,000

    Does that mean I hold Iran guiltless? Not at all. The guy should never have been in prison, and being in prison increased his suicide risk (assuming Iranian prisons boost the suicide rate like US jails do).

    1. Re:O.D. by timeOday · · Score: 0, Troll

      PS for the record, I realize the above statistics don't strictly prove throwing a person in jail increases their suicide risk, since it is plausible that people prone to hurting themselves are more prone to hurt others as well, and therefore more often put in prison.

    2. Re:O.D. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this a troll?

    3. Re:O.D. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Marginal increases in suicide risk are morally meaningless. If someone has murdered a person, does the fact that their risk of suicide increases from 0.000106 to 0.000260 weight carry a meaningful moral weight for not imprisoning them?

      If I were being facetious, I could say that people with racist views who are denounced and attacked are marginally more likely to commit suicide (they would certainly not be less likely!) - hence we should demolish the antiracist movement including HRW. This would especially be the case in areas where a substantial majority exhibit racism towards a minority, because the sum suffering by the majority of being criticised weighs more than the suffering of a smaller number of people.

      As to your veiled paralellism between Iran and the US (please state these in cleartext next time? inferences and subtext is rather tedious to deal with), the probability of suicide from imprisonment should by US standards have been 0.26%. I think the reasonable view is that the rate of 'disappearance' or untimely death for political dissidents is substantially higher for this.

      That he is stated to have committed suicide is no indication of whether he actually did or not, because in 100% of cases where someone is killed they would be stated to have died either by their own hand or from illness, making it irrelevant as a guide.

  6. What?!? A footnote for a death-in-custody?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure the family of the Iranian man, who reportedly died in custody, won't be impressed if / when they learn that their son's death was only deemed to merit a footnote... on another guy's report of imprisonment.

    What cost a 2nd article, SlashDot...? :-/

    1. Re:What?!? A footnote for a death-in-custody?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what I was thinking.

  7. Believe It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Expect it.

    Expect more of it. Even in the west.

    Its something I dont understand. Blaming companies when you should be blaming the central bank and the government, for creating artifical credit bubbles and the resulting mania thereafter.

    I mean really, they caused the last one, they'll be causing the next.

    Would you give the keys to your new car after your friend rode your last one into the ground, and you couldn't drive for 15 years?

    I think not.

    1. Re:Believe It. by blahplusplus · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "Its something I dont understand. Blaming companies when you should be blaming the central bank and the government, for creating artifical credit bubbles and the resulting mania thereafter."

      I don't know what planet you anti-government/free market extremist types live on but if you've been paying attention for the last 20 years and looked in your mailbox and see all the offers for lines of credit and credit cards that damn near every company's been spamming and wants to give you (grocers, wal-mart, etc) not to mention the banks and you'd have only one thing to blame: greed.

      Amex and visa are not government owned yet they charge between 1.5 and 5% for merchants just to debit a credit card. When you use your debit card for your bank it's only a few cents (roughly ~5-8 cents where I live), where as these parasites (credit card companies) are basically an economically inefficient leach on the whole god damn economy, if I were in charge I'd shut these people down, they add NOTHING to the economy except charging people exorbitant rates of a the clueless portion of greedy public the illusion of buying things they can't afford and then paying it off later /w interest.

      It's strange how the most vocal anti-government people lack any kind of insight into human nature at all because they have not read any serious history of corporate america. I have to wonder how old you are and just how well read, because you comments come off as painfully clueless.

    2. Re:Believe It. by Swizec · · Score: 1

      I don't know what planet you anti-government/free market extremist types live on but if you've been paying attention for the last 20 years /../ if I were in charge I'd shut these people down, they add NOTHING to the economy except charging people exorbitant rates

      Your argument doesn't quite add up. First you say we shouldn't be blaming the government because they aren't at fault, then you say how you'd fix it if you were the government.

      What is it then? Should we let the government go since they're innocent, or should we be knocking at their doors because they aren't doing enough to prevent things like these as your wonderful example suggests one way they could?

    3. Re:Believe It. by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To me it seems both are at fault; the corporations who lobbied for weaker regulation, and the people in the government who saw that regulation through.

      It's tough to point fingers when there's so many people who screwed up. But they all deserve the blame.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    4. Re:Believe It. by Jewfro_Macabbi · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you haven't noticed, but politicians are corporate owned goods.

    5. Re:Believe It. by jabithew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't know what planet you anti-government/free market extremist types live on

      I live on the planet UK. Here on planet UK our central bank has been measuring inflation based on CPI, and using this to set interest rates. This index excludes housing costs, unlike the previous RPI, in an era where house prices were the major inflationary pressure. In addition, though RPI has historically been about 1% higher than CPI, Gordon Brown reduced the target by 0.5%, giving more room for inflation.

      Your claim that corporate loan rates are at fault doesn't stack up; low interest rate loans from the Bank of England kept the cost of corporate lending low, and market forces kept price for corporate lending low. Effectively the BoE applied a price ceiling to the wholesale money markets.

      I remember years of being told we had only 2% inflation when the inflation we experienced was closer to 5%. Now we have a situation where the BoE has been forced to print money because the banks have so much of their capital tied up in inflated assets that nobody now wants to touch with a barge-pole. The LIBOR has decoupled from the BoE base rate because the BoE is simply not able to provide enough capital to service existing bank debts, let alone allow them to start loaning on more favourable terms.*

      All the while we're being told that it's ok to print money because RPI is currently zero, even though CPI is still above target.

      Finally, a warning for UK /.ers. Deflation is a myth! CPI will stay high, partly caused by the fall in the pound. If it does, Mr. King will have to raise interest rates, which will cause RPI to shoot through the roof, as the previously negative housing component turns positive. If you don't believe me, look at what the central bankers themselves think when they're forced to put their own money at risk.

      Actually, one more thing. This diatribe could be taken to be a criticism of the Bank of England. I think that the Bank and its staff have behaved with decency and competence. The criticisms I make are general criticisms of a central bank model, which may still be a least-bad one, and a criticism of the brief they were given.

      *The LIBOR also contains banks' mutual assessment of their reliability i.e. a risk premium. This is enlightening to see.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    6. Re:Believe It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "they add NOTHING to the economy except charging people exorbitant rates of a the clueless portion of greedy public the illusion of buying things they can't afford and then paying it off later /w interest."

      They add nothing to the economy- except to add something to the economy?

    7. Re:Believe It. by Aceticon · · Score: 1

      Politics is the art of managing image. More so in democratic countries - in large nations (most of them) the choice of a representative has everything to do with one's perception of said representative's qualities, not their real qualities: a politician whose only skill is to sell himself will almost always beat one who is a competent leader but a bad salesman.

      In democratic nations, the way politicians do it at the moment is:

      • Keep the idiots (that being the vast majority of people) deceived long enough for said politicians to get re-elected
      • Protect their high net worth buddies so as to get (more) campaign contributions and have cushy jobs in the private sector when not in power or when retiring from politics

      Finding a scapegoat is an often used trick in image management so this kind of thing is not at all unexpected.

      PS: In my personal opinion, the rougher the

    8. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Your argument doesn't quite add up. First you say we shouldn't be blaming the government because they aren't at fault, then you say how you'd fix it if you were the government.

      Right, in the same way that expecting help from the government in dealing with an earthquake or a forest fire means blaming the government for the earthquake or forest fire.

      Your argument is Not Scottish.

    9. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Its something I dont understand. Blaming companies when you should be blaming the central bank and the government, for creating artifical credit bubbles and the resulting mania thereafter.

      Yes, because it's the government's fault that investment firms took on 1:60 asset/liability ratios, inflated a few hundred billion in mortgages into a $45-$60 trillion bubble, and paid top executives vast sums of money even as they drove their companies into the ground.

    10. Re:Believe It. by Swizec · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between a natural disaster and a very preventable human disaster nobody wanted to prevent because they were having too much fun filling their pockets and putting it off for later.

    11. Re:Believe It. by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      20 years? How quaint.

      This is nowhere NEAR the first time the government has created policies which created a property boom supported by easy credit.

      The government spent too much money in 1812, expanding the money supply and artificially making credit easy to get. European governments artificially induced a state where US food producers were doing very good by fighting the Napoleonic wars and destroying a lot of food production capacity, which created a speculative bubble in US farming. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession.

      In 1837, the government began forcing people to pay for government land with gold or silver. Andrew Jackson had eliminated the central bank during his presidency, with the intent of removing cheap debt from the economy. The banks responded by printing paper currency, which meant debt was artificially easy to get(Why was this legal?). The restriction on buying government land drove up land prices, which led to a speculative bubble in which people took out paper debt to buy gold or silver. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession.

      In 1857, the California gold rush caused a huge influx of gold into the economy. This had two effects: First, a speculative bubble in railroads, and second, easy access to credit. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession.

      In 1873, following the end of the civil war, a huge number of people were released from military service, and the money supply was massively increased by federal spending. This created a speculative bubble in railway industries, and provided easy access to credit. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession.

      In 1893, the Sherman Silver Purchase act remonetized silver, causing inflation which led to an easy supply of credit. Unlike other recessions, this one was caused by massive protective tarrifs of the McKinley tarrif act, which instead of causing an artificial bubble, instead collapsed the value of healthy markets by forcing a heavy tax burden on manufacturers and farms who relied on imported parts.

      In 1907, J. P. Morgan stopped a recession from happening by providing capital during a period that saw many central banks around the world, which led to the creation of the New York federal reserve bank.

      European governments once again destroyed their agricultural output with the onset of World War I. Further, the creation of the New York federal reserve bank made credit easily available by eliminating the risk of bank runs. The Homesteader's act was altered to allow land that couldn't be irrigated to be sold. The combination of Europe's war and America's deregulation created a massive speculative bubble, which was supported by a few unusually wet seasons. The unusually wet seasons ended causing a collapse of the speculative market, one of the worst environmental catastrophes of American history. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back AND suddenly had farms they couldn't even farm on, causing a defaults, bank closures, and a recession.

      The Y2k bubble was one of the few bubbles fueled by non-government interference. A simple mathematics issue caused every industry on the planet to spend money ensuring their businesses would continue functioning during the year 2000, causing the incredible speculative bubble in tech. This speculative bubble was fueled by record low interest rates, leading to easy credit. When the bubble collapsed, a huge number of people couldn't pay their debts back, but a new speculative bubble in housing was brewed and interest rates were brought even lower.

      That brings us to today. Housing prices were artificially driven up by reducing legislation regulating lending standards

      --
      It's been a long time.
    12. Re:Believe It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and see all the offers for lines of credit and credit cards that damn near every company's been spamming

      And what does this have to do with the current economical crisis? Here is a clue for you: Absolutely nothing. Not a damn thing.

      The fact that most governments of the world have been running Ponzi schemes for decade after decade on the other hand...

      have not read any serious history of corporate america

      Please list one of those fantastic books that describe how "corporate America" destroyed the economy. If you want I can give you a ton of references to how governments have done so repeatedly over the decades. Also, I can give you a ton of references to how corporate greed has saved millions of lives, for example in Asia where starvation levels have been dropping dramatically for quite a while now, thanks to this corporate greed.

      To the degree there is a fault with companies it is that they lobbied for an bad system. You can't blame them for trying though, it is the job of the banks to make it as easy for them selves to make money. It is the job of a politician to govern, which means saying "no" to idiotic legislation. Sadly such politicians do not exist, and for some bizarre reason, the "give the fed all the money" crowd is now bigger in the Repugnican party than in the Democratic party, though that is going to change now that the Dems are in office.

    13. Re:Believe It. by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Interesting argument. So, if a three year old kid goes: I want to play with the gun daddy, I want to play with the gun, then it is the child's fault when he shoots mummy in the belly with daddy's gun?

      Companies will lobby for anything that will make them more money in the short term. It is the governments responsibility to govern. Can I also go to congress and beg for a trillion? Would it be my fault if they gave it to me?

    14. Re:Believe It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it is. It wouldn't be possible without the Fed, government intervention on the mortgage market, and fiat money.

    15. Re:Believe It. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      The central bank was lending at such a low rate that it was only rational, until proven otherwise, to keep on taking as much debt as possible at massive profits. Thanks to the housing market, which was artifically propped up by the government enacting legislation which greatly reduced lending standards and increased the number of people who would qualify for the debt for a house, even a foreclosure for a long time meant massive profits -- The bank could sell the foreclosed house and make much more than they lent out.

      If you ask me, the government should make lending more money than you actually have illegal -- It should be, since it's fraud. Then you could eliminate the federal reserve and give the power to print money to the congress. I used to be a gold standard advocate, until I realised that many bubbles are caused by the government artificially setting the value of gold and silver in maintaining such a standard. A fiat currency maintained responsibly would be as good as a gold standard, because hopefully supply would remain flat.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    16. Re:Believe It. by terjeber · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it's the government's fault that investment firms took on 1:60 asset/liability ratios,

      Yes, it is. Think Fannie Mae and politicians going "you gotsta lend money to my poor constituents, and I care not if they can repay or no"

      inflated a few hundred billion in mortgages into a $45-$60 trillion bubble,

      Yes, see the above.

      and paid top executives vast sums of money

      That is not the governments fault, but on the other hand, that had nothing to do with the current economic crisis. Granted, the sea levels do rise, and the ocean temperature does increase when I pizz in it, but only very theoretically.

    17. Re:Believe It. by gambino21 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget it's also the fault of all the voters who put those people in government. And the fault of the non-voters who didn't get out and vote against these politicians.

    18. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, it is. Think Fannie Mae and politicians going "you gotsta lend money to my poor constituents, and I care not if they can repay or no"

      I suppose you could say that, if you were a wingnut or a habitual liar, but then I repeat myself.

      Federal Reserve Board data show that:

      * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending
      * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
      * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

      Yes, see the above.

      No, you're lying. See above.

      That is not the governments fault, but on the other hand, that had nothing to do with the current economic crisis.

      Astronomical pay has everything to do with the crisis, because you give executives an enormous incentive to take enormous risk. What would you rather do: make a couple million a year with steady growth, or make $25 million a year by taking crazy risks? Even if your company goes up in 4 years, that's $100 million in your pocket.

    19. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The central bank was lending at such a low rate that it was only rational, until proven otherwise, to keep on taking as much debt as possible at massive profits.

      But those "profits" were all based on the (massive) overvaluation of assets. Enron squared.

      Thanks to the housing market, which was artifically propped up by the government enacting legislation which greatly reduced lending standards and increased the number of people who would qualify for the debt for a house

      If you're referring to the conservative whipping boy, the CRA, that's not the case:

      Federal Reserve Board data show that:
      * More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
      * Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
      * Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

    20. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Yes it is. It wouldn't be possible without the Fed, government intervention on the mortgage market, and fiat money.

      Uh, no. Before the Fed and fiat money, we had boom/busts and financial collapses every 10-20 years.

      The Fed isn't the problem. Greed, low taxes and lack of regulation are the problem.

    21. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Not for the basis of your comparison, it's not.

    22. Re:Believe It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame Europe. What little research I have done into this cherade points a big wagging finger at European investors. Flamebait me if you will, I've become a raging cynic.

    23. Re:Believe It. by Swizec · · Score: 1

      My comparison has as much basis as a porcupine in a hedgefund.

      That's what economists base their predictions on right?

    24. Re:Believe It. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I was referring to a lot of things. ARMs weren't even legal until the 80s, and securities banks weren't allowed to touch mortgages until the late 90s.

      Nobody KNEW the assets were overvalued, and in some cases, they still don't. In countries with better banking regulations, prices are still increasing in many markets, because the banking system hasn't yet collapsed.

      Income multiples are a good way to look at house prices. In the market I'm in, 2-3x income(In my case, 120-180k) will get you a VERY nice house. In big cities in Ontario or Alberta, however, that'll get you nice down payment on a house priced at 6-10x income (400-600k). Considering the average income in Canada is much less than I make, these prices aren't rational, unless lending standards are far too low. Until we see average house prices drop to more sane levels (or just stop increasing), we're due for a large correction in these markets, because people can't afford these houses.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    25. Re:Believe It. by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Your claim that corporate loan rates are at fault doesn't stack up; low interest rate loans from the Bank of England kept the cost of corporate lending low, and market forces kept price for corporate lending low. Effectively the BoE applied a price ceiling to the wholesale money markets."

      Man this is a gross distortion of my argument, No one FORCED the banks to give credit to people who couldn't afford it. To clue you in, I know people on disability who are offered 10,000-20,000 line of credit, who have 5+ credit cards all with 5-10,000 dollar limits.

      When you apply for these things at banks they have to be ok'd and green lighted by the banks themselves. It's obvious that people who run these institutions are just passing the buck (being irresponsible)

      Blaming government for private sector incompetence because "if it's there they will use it" is nonsense, it's like blaming guns for killing people.

      The banks are responsible, you act like just because cheap credit is there the banks HAVE to use it. Get real! The private sector deserve's all the blame here.

    26. Re:Believe It. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies will lobby for anything that will make them more money in the short term. It is the governments responsibility to govern. Can I also go to congress and beg for a trillion? Would it be my fault if they gave it to me?

      And yet day in and day out there are adamant posts on Slashdot that it's best to let these same companies regulate themselves...

    27. Re:Believe It. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Man this is a gross distortion of my argument, No one FORCED the banks to give credit to people who couldn't afford it. To clue you in, I know people on disability who are offered 10,000-20,000 line of credit, who have 5+ credit cards all with 5-10,000 dollar limits.

      This is unsecured credit, which is just plain daft. Giving secured loans to people who couldn't afford them actually made some sense short term when property prices were rising. Long term, since one of the factors for rising property prices was the availablity of credit (to people who had little or no money of their own), such a rise could not be sustained.

      When you apply for these things at banks they have to be ok'd and green lighted by the banks themselves. It's obvious that people who run these institutions are just passing the buck (being irresponsible)

      Especially since they did not take the risks themselves. IMHO banking executives should have had their assets confiscated before any taxpayers money was put into the banking industry.

    28. Re:Believe It. by mpe · · Score: 1

      Astronomical pay has everything to do with the crisis, because you give executives an enormous incentive to take enormous risk. What would you rather do: make a couple million a year with steady growth, or make $25 million a year by taking crazy risks? Even if your company goes up in 4 years, that's $100 million in your pocket.

      Except that it wasn't really a "risk", since these executives wern't themselves risking anything. Part of the problem is that people have been able to walk away from failed banks rich...

    29. Re:Believe It. by terjeber · · Score: 1

      if you were a wingnut or a habitual liar

      Or just simply misinformed. I have been corrected and my misinformation is now fixed. The fact that you are a moron probably is not fixable. I hope they find a cure.

      Astronomical pay has everything to do with the crisis

      You are, as you would put it, a habitual liar and probably a thief and rapist too. Just to keep the debate at a level where you would be able to recognize it.

      Now - to your point, no it doesn't. You are assuming there would be a difference in pay depending on whether they did well and took risks or not. The past few months proves that this is not the case. These guys get astronomical salaries no matter what they do or don't do, so their pay did not encourage any kind of behavior whatsoever, risky or not.

      You have to stop stealing, lying and cheating on your wife. Oh, and the last one is a compliment, I am graciously assuming you have the ability to find a wife, which seems rather improbable.

    30. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The fact that you are a moron probably is not fixable. I hope they find a cure.

      In general, people who have just been proven wrong don't get to call those who were right "morons". Only a moron would try that.

      You have to stop stealing, lying and cheating on your wife. Oh, and the last one is a compliment, I am graciously assuming you have the ability to find a wife, which seems rather improbable.

      Yawn.

      You are assuming there would be a difference in pay depending on whether they did well and took risks or not.

      Interesting. On what planet are CEO's not supposed to be paid according to the company's results?

    31. Re:Believe It. by terjeber · · Score: 1

      In general, people who have just been proven wrong don't get to call those who were right "morons"

      Actually, they do. You informed me that I was wrong, and I had no problem with that. You could have done that in an adult manner or you could have done it like a moronic child with Tourettes. You chose that latter, which makes you a moron whether you were right on the particular point or not.

      On what planet are CEO's not supposed to be paid according to the company's results?

      Reading apparently isn't your strong suit. Where did I say that CEOs are not supposed to be paid according to the company's results? If you can find an adult, try to have them explain the difference between "should be" and "are". The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions all got massive bonuses as their companies were in free-fall. Yes, you are right that theoretically CEOs should be awarded according to company results, but in the real world, into which your mother might let you out when you grow up (but the helmet stays on) they are in fact paid extraordinarily large bonuses whether the company goes up or in the toilet (look it up, it is something a lot of people have in their houses).

    32. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Nobody KNEW the assets were overvalued, and in some cases, they still don't.

      In the same way that "no one could have seen" the 9/11 attacks or the impact that hurricane Katrina would have on the Gulf coast. In other words: plenty of people predicted it, they were just ignored.

      In the market I'm in, 2-3x income(In my case, 120-180k) will get you a VERY nice house. In big cities in Ontario or Alberta, however, that'll get you nice down payment on a house priced at 6-10x income (400-600k).

      Whereas in Detroit, the average house goes for less than the price of a average new car. Housing is teh crazy.

    33. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      You chose that latter, which makes you a moron whether you were right on the particular point or not.

      First you chose to spread around tired old wingnut BS, which the country has little patience for after 8 years. Talk like a moran, get treated like a moran.

      The CEOs of the banks and financial institutions all got massive bonuses as their companies were in free-fall.

      Here's a case where executive pay had a direct relation to losses: the top 5 securities companies lost $25.3 billion dollars last year. How much did they pay out in bonuses? $26 billion. w/o the bonuses, they barely would have lost any money.

    34. Re:Believe It. by terjeber · · Score: 1

      First you chose to spread around tired old wingnut BS, which the country has little patience for after 8 years.

      Thanks for proving to the world that you are in fact completely retarded. You see, the bank crisis is a little newer than eight years, and claiming that someone has spouted anything at all related to a problem that is less than a year old for eight years shows a sever mental retardation.

      It seems you are one of those retards who jump to conclusions based on nothing whatsoever. It appears that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a repugnican fan and a "follower" of the retard called G. W. Bush. I am neither. Please try to avoid using your brain for something it clearly wasn't designed for, that is, stick to chewing gum and wiping your ass. Leave the more advanced stuff, such as actual thinking, to people who are not as handicapped as you are.

      Here's a case [thecro.com]

      Thank you again for proving my point - that CEO pay in this industry has no relations to his performance. Too bad it goes completely counter to your point that in this world CEO compensation is related to said CEO performance. Again you are showing that you are utterly retarded.

      Now, if you actually read the article you quoter, you would have read the following sentence, which is really, really important: "Some bonuses are contractually promised, and are part of compensation for many employees who aren't involved in the high-stakes shenanigans that have brought about the current problems". Now, you are using this article to "prove" me wrong when I said that executive bonuses had no real impact on the financial results of these institutions, and the article agrees with that too. You see, there is a huge difference between the concept "bonus" and "executive bonus". There are lots of employees who are contractually entitled to certain bonuses, and that is a lot more people than there are CEOs in the same companies. Since there are so many of them the total bonus payout is high, even when individual bonus payouts are reasonable. We didn't talk about bonuses in general though, we talked about executive bonuses, and the reality is still that they had no real impact on the magnitude of the crisis.

      Again, thanks for doing the leg work for me, proving me right and proving to the world that you are utterly retarded.

    35. Re:Believe It. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      In the same way that "no one could have seen" the 9/11 attacks or the impact that hurricane Katrina would have on the Gulf coast. In other words: plenty of people predicted it, they were just ignored.

      Obviously. Witness my own prediction, years before the "oh my god, nobody could have predicted this" collapse of the housing and credit markets.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    36. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Then why say

      Nobody KNEW the assets were overvalued, and in some cases, they still don't.

    37. Re:Believe It. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Thanks for proving to the world that you are in fact completely retarded.

      Problem: you're still 100% wrong, I'm 100% right, so once again you are firing a howitzer in a glass house.

      You see, the bank crisis is a little newer than eight years, and claiming that someone has spouted anything at all related to a problem that is less than a year old for eight years shows a sever mental retardation.

      This is what I'm talking about. Our banking crisis got rolling with the passage of the Gramm-Leach-Biliey Act, which removed depression-era firewalls between regular banking and investment banking. GLB was passed in 1999. Which was ten years ago. Which is a little older than 8 years.

      It appears that you have jumped to the conclusion that I am a repugnican fan and a "follower" of the retard called G. W. Bush.

      Yawn. If it walks like a wingnut, talks like a wingnut, doesn't know WTF he's talking about like a wingnut...chances are it's a wingnut.

      Thank you again for proving my point - that CEO pay in this industry has no relations to his performance.

      No, you dumb fat fuck, that proves my point that astronomical pay has everything to do with the current crisis, and that CEO's should be paid based on performance.

      "Some bonuses are contractually promised, and are part of compensation for many employees who aren't involved in the high-stakes shenanigans that have brought about the current problems".

      Funny how those "contractual obligations" don't apply to auto worker contracts. If the U.S. government is buying out these firms, there is no reason why they can't set stipulations in bankruptcy court. If your company has enough money to pay out bonuses, it has no business applying for taxpayer money.

    38. Re:Believe It. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Because in this case, it's "Nobody" within their little reality. The banks pretend not to know, the sellers pretend not to know, the buyers pretend not to know, but if any of the people in this loop dropped the charade, the market would crash.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    39. Re:Believe It. by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Problem: you're still 100% wrong, I'm 100% right

      What is it that you think I am wrong on? You corrected my misconception, I accepted your correction. I have said nothing since that was wrong, you have made a ton of assumptions that were absurd and you have stated things that were plain wrong.

      Which is a little older than 8 years.

      The cause of this predicament pre-dates the crisis, obviously, that is the nature of such things. The crisis on the other hand is not eight years old and claiming that it has been debated and looked at for that amount of time is absurd.

      No, you dumb fat fuck, that proves my point that astronomical pay has everything to do with the current crisis

      Given the fact that the article you quoted actually states that the bonuses in question are not executive bonuses to any degree actually proves that you are not only dumb, but a liar. Executive bonuses have no monetary impact on the magnitude of this crisis, and the quoted article says so. Are you actually this retarded or are you just unable to admit you are wrong. You see, adults can admit they are wrong. You should go back to my second posting in this thread where I admit to be corrected by your rude and stupid, but accidentally correct, post. When adults are wrong and we are shown that we are wrong, we have no problem admitting it. You will too, if you grow up.

      CEO's should be paid based on performance.

      Reminds me of that show with whatshisname, "Kids say the darndest things" or whatever. You do. Why are you arguing a point that nobody is disagreeing with? Why do you think that anyone would disagree that CEO pay should be based on performance. OF COURSE it should be based on performance. Everybody would agree with that.

      don't apply to auto worker contracts

      Of course they do. If GM has a sales person who is on commission pay you can bet your ass he gets his commissions. Why shouldn't he. If he sells the required amount of cars he should. No matter what happens to GM. It makes sense. That is what the article you quoted points out also makes sense for the banking industry. The article goes to some length explaining why the mixing of "bonuses" and "executive bonuses" is counterproductive in this debate, but since you probably aren't even able to read words as long as "counterproductive" I assume you didn't get the point.

      If your company has enough money to pay out bonuses, it has no business applying for taxpayer money.

      If GM stops paying GM sales people commissions when they sell cars (or bonuses if you will) then GM will not need any taxpayer money since they will not sell a single car more in 2009. Please read the article again, perhaps you will understand it.

  8. Omidreza Mirsayafi by Presto+Vivace · · Score: 1

    that is very sad news indeed.

    1. Re:Omidreza Mirsayafi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With respect to Slashdot, shouldn't the Mirsayafi story taken priority in the news/post title?

      Terrible news.

    2. Re:Omidreza Mirsayafi by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Quite so, but I guess this guy might survive-and publicity might help.

      For the Iranian guy it's too late.

        )-:

    3. Re:Omidreza Mirsayafi by Shard.Oglass666 · · Score: 0

      *Omidreza Mirsayafi* *Park Dae-sung*

  9. South Korea is a tribal democracy by incognito84 · · Score: 3, Informative
    Anyone who has spent any time in Korea figures this one out pretty quick. Especially if one finds themselves in a legal entanglement. Koreans think Western law is cold, formuliac and overly rational. Korean law often finds it's "reason" in emotional response, a response usually vocalized by the masses or the majority involved in the case.

    It is not the same legal process as one would find in the West, where technicalities and Habeas Corpus rein supreme. Someone made a joke about the goverment detaining this particular blogger because he was more intelligent and resourceful than the government, which made the government jealous. That is more true than you know.

    Additionally, Korea is the most Confucian country in the world which might add some understanding into why laws aren't always followed in a logical way. This blogger made the government "lose face", to be blunt.

    1. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by caitsith01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Laws which are not followed in a logical way are not laws. The whole point of following laws is to make people follow them even when that is not the most popular or expedient course - otherwise they would be unneccessary.

      You are talking about mob rule. It is an objectively worse and less just way to run a society, and it should be condemned.

      --
      Read Pynchon.
    2. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      Confucius say, that's no way to run a country.

    3. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by onionlee · · Score: 4, Interesting

      moderators please mod parent down.

      the above statement is clearly unqualified. and no, i am not a korean nationalist.

      i would agree that the korean justice system is not as established as it is in the united states. however, to simply state that it's "reason" is emotional response cannot be substantiated in ANY way whatsoever. no justice system can operate on such a weak foundation.

      furthermore, simply using a western paradigm to judge an eastern paradigm is also simply wrong.

      in all seriousness, though, a statement this ignorant and misleading in most context might even make me believe that this is trolling at its worst. but i think the parent is serious about this though.

    4. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by prefec2 · · Score: 1

      Well, if so, Western governments should tell them, that imprissioning someone for being right, results in losing their face again.

    5. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes and no.

      Laws should, if anything, reflect the "moral" code of a society, and they should be supported by the majority. If the Korean people, not just a ruling caste, feels that making someone 'lose face' is something that should be punishable, a law that does just that is quite justified.

      Bending a law to fulfill this role is not.

      What bothers me is that a law that exists for a completely different reason was bent to make this possible. But it's not like we don't have similar cases, where we can't punish someone for something we feel is 'wrong' but don't dare to make a law about it, so we don't look like we base our laws on emotions and personal 'moral' tastes instead of logic and reason.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by iwein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The grandparent just offers his analysis. No judgement is expressed if you read carefully. You may disagree, but from your post it seems that it was a good post sparkling an interesting discussion. I'm confused why you think that is "trolling at its worst".

      Further more, you write about the statements being "unqualified" and "cannot be substantiated in ANY way", while you offer no arguments to back this up other than "no justice system can operate on such a weak foundation" and "is also simply wrong".

      I'm reading: parent is so clearly wrong that I won't bother to give arguments, and because he is wrong he must be trolling.

      I'd like to see grandparents claims substantiated or refuted. Modding grandparent down will lead to less readers, and therefore the chances of someone offering more information, or refuting the claims will go down.

      --
      Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    7. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      aww. Isn't that cute. CTS got another account.

      --
    8. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument makes a lot of sense. The Korean guy did not do anything worse than any Bloomberg TV analyst or even Jim Cramer when giving opinions on equities or any other financial instrument. Those guys get it wrong all the time and nothing of value happens to them (except Cramer, but I digress).

      The Korean guy unfortunately pressed the wrong buttons and exposed the incompetency of the government. How dare someone harm the sensibilities of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and go unpunished?

      I wonder if a large financial institution published such report (minus the inflammatory language, of course), would it have its license revoked to do business in Korea?? If true, then I cannot trust any report on Korean economy from an institution with Korean interests....

    9. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      Confucius say, man who talk shit to government, get thrown in federal "pound me in the ass" prison.

    10. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by russotto · · Score: 1

      furthermore, simply using a western paradigm to judge an eastern paradigm is also simply wrong.

      Why, are Koreans somehow fundamentally different from Americans and other westerners? Assuming it is unjust (not merely illegal or unconstitutional, but fundamentally unjust) for an American to be jailed for saying unflattering but true things about his government, how can it be just for a Korean to be jailed for saying unlattering but true things about his government? And does the same apply for North and South? Should South Koreans refuse to judge Kim Jong Il for his actions, because he's on the other side of the 38th parallel?

    11. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      furthermore, simply using a western paradigm to judge an eastern paradigm is also simply wrong.

      It's not wrong for "right" to judge "wrong".

    12. Re:South Korea is a tribal democracy by incognito84 · · Score: 1
      moderators please mod parent down.

      Why?

      the above statement is clearly unqualified. and no, i am not a korean nationalist.

      Why?

      would agree that the korean justice system is not as established as it is in the united states. however, to simply state that it's "reason" is emotional response cannot be substantiated in ANY way whatsoever. no justice system can operate on such a weak foundation.

      Maybe I need to be more clear. Korea has only been a democracy for a very short period of time. While the concepts of rationality and due process are favoured in law here, they do not take precedence in a lot of cases when the public or another group of (powerful) people have a strong emotional connection to the case.

      I could go on for hours and hours about it, but suffice to say, the legal system in Korea is very different and most Westerners wouldn't agree with some of it's outcomes.

      using a western paradigm to judge an eastern paradigm is also simply wrong.

      I think blind cultural relativism is wrong.

      a statement this ignorant and misleading in most context might even make me believe that this is trolling at its worst. but i think the parent is serious about this though.

      Again, why? It's like saying: "I don't like him because he's a big-nosed, poo-poo head so mod parent down!"

  10. Restricted freedom of blogging? by rsukumar · · Score: 1

    Freedom of blogging is restricted??? And how would it destabilise the market without the substantial data to support the news? Bullshit!

  11. Just kill the messenger by DeltaQH · · Score: 2, Insightful

    enough said

  12. Summary is inaccurate by physicsphairy · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the first link "The 31-year-old blogger's crime: falsely reporting that South Korea had barred banks from purchasing U.S. currency" which doesn't seem to describe the claim of "blogging about declining companies" the summary purports.

    This also apparently had a real impact on the value of South Korean currency.

    I would hope the SK courts don't punish him for making an honest mistake, if that's what this was, but either way it is not about "free speech." They are not punishing him for expressing a view or opinion. They are punishing him for telling a very expensive lie.

    1. Re:Summary is inaccurate by Dionysus · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the Washington Post article:

      Prosecutors claim that one of his postings is clearly false. The government issued an emergency order Dec. 29, Minerva wrote, urging top banks to stop buying dollars. The government has denied issuing the order, but a number of currency traders have told the South Korean media that the government did urge banks that day to refrain from buying dollars.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    2. Re:Summary is inaccurate by freedom_india · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, is it so?
      Then how come these moronic South Korean courts don't punish Samsung or Hyundai by imprisoning their execs when they played the markets?
      Just because they are HUGE corporates? Just because their leaders bowed deeply and said sorry to everyone?
      This is just because the blogger is a poor guy who has no money to defend himself with high powered lawyers against a corrupt system.
      While we are at that why don't we throw out democracy? After all the rule of Kings was much better: genetic intelligence versus mob rule.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    3. Re:Summary is inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I am a South Korean, and I'll clarify.

      The blogger (Minerva) claimed that South Korean government issued an "official order" for Korean banks not to purchase USD for a certain (short) period. IIRC, the average exchange rate during that particular day was going to be used in a lot of financial charts, so by gaming the system, many companies would look financially better in documents and the government will boast it to the people.

      Turns out that there was no official order. Why create an official document when a phone call would suffice?

      And, ladies and gentlemen, in South Korea, this is a felony that will ensure 18 months in prison. Only if he had correctly said "phone calls"! (Well, of course the government would've found yet another even more ridiculous excuse to punish him, so it won't matter much in the end. They are immune to logic. Why follow logic, when you can just throw one bullshit argument and another and still have half of the nation vote for you?)

    4. Re:Summary is inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter??? Since when do blogs have to be factually accurate. Since when do people look for international financial advice on blogs. Since when do economies rely on blogs for propagating information. The whole ordeal is stupid.

    5. Re:Summary is inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well we can't be too surprised. They do live next to North Korea. I think the Stalinism is starting to leak over the DMZ. ;)

    6. Re:Summary is inaccurate by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      In case you didn't realize this. The mega corporations in SK completely and thoroughly own the government. It makes the collusion in the US look like a walk in the park.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    7. Re:Summary is inaccurate by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I'm not Korean, but I've been in Korea for almost five years now. How do you feel about the new online identity laws? Most Koreans I know seem to be for the laws, but very few of these people are technically literate. Personally, I think the laws are terrifying.

    8. Re:Summary is inaccurate by dangitman · · Score: 1

      While we are at that why don't we throw out democracy? After all the rule of Kings was much better: genetic intelligence versus mob rule.

      Wait, "genetic intelligence" (whatever the fuck that is) is better than mob rule? What the hell are you smoking? The mob is better than a bunch of inbred dumbfucks any day of the week.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    9. Re:Summary is inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm Korean as well... and am astonished as why the existence or not of such an order really matters. Let people say whatever they want and the markets will test those assertions. If they are untrue, then, well, his reputation takes a hit, as well as the people who made decisions believing he's right.

      In my head this situation is similar to the bailout, but in a perverse way: the government is trying to save face by locking him down and not allowing him to eventually fail (as he'll be in jail, not being able to write). This will fuel the suspicion that the guy actually was on something real which leads to a full blown Streisand effect.

      Anyway, Korean law never made much sense to me. It's copied from German civil law alright, but the underlying Confucionism is so pervasive that it makes the law itself just decorative.

      And Confucionism is Korea's way of sidestepping the law, similarly to the US-style Patriot Act.

    10. Re:Summary is inaccurate by freedom_india · · Score: 1

      If mob rule is so Great, why then does our congress and stupid fuck senate, consisting of "outbreds" do nothing except shovel our tax money to private companies without oversight?
      Is it because they are exceptionally brilliant having a combined IQ of 20,000+?

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    11. Re:Summary is inaccurate by ihavnoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am a native South Korean who live in Seoul, and maybe I can (sort of) explain a bit about the law.

      Yes, the websites hate the law pretty much (because it requires the companies to add 'ID authentication system', which isn't cheap in a market with razor-thin profits), and many Koreans who do care about privacy also hate it, too. I also feel sort of sad when that law passed.

      Well, the reason behind this law was something like this. In slashdot, if you see a troll, you simply moderate that reply a '-1, troll', and move along. In Korea, people start 'feeding' the troll in more cruel ways, e.g. track down the real-world identy of that guy, bomb his personal website with hate spams, bomb his e-mail, and in some occasions, even e-mails of people close to him. Yup, the replies on that troll became the real-world identy of that guy, rather than another troll, or any reasonable reply.

      The horrifying thing was that this phenomenom wasn't limited to real-world celeberities. It could be you, or me, or anybody on the net. Yes, being a troll, or saying something stupid isn't a good thing to do, but we all do make mistakes. I've seen people ranging from teenage girls to senior citizens getting horribly bullied by anonymous mobs. Occasionally, there were news reports on people commiting suicide because of the mental horror they had to undergo. It got so serious that people needed to stay completely anonymous on all occasions, or having some way to stop this maddness.

      Yes, I feel that many of the Korean people don't think political freedom is such an important thing compared to things such as security or wealth. This may be because their history of democracy has been so short, and they have been living a hard life for many years suffering from poverty, hunger, and North Korea. Republic of Korea is merely some 60-years old, and approximately half of that period was under the rule of dictators. In such a society, it is difficult to teach why political freedom is important and dictatorship is bad, because those people who benefited a lot from the dictatorship still exists in many core positions of the society. I believe it may take some time, patience, education, and continuous struggling.

    12. Re:Summary is inaccurate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the blog posts about the Korean blogger and the Korean government are misleading.

      He was not caught because he criticized the government. There are so many people who criticize the current Korean government. Freedom of speech is not in danger. What's 'remotely' in danger is their freedom of monopolizing media with anti-market ideology. Anti-government voices have been dominate the Internet, and TV (beginning to change). Pro-government (and pro-market) people are either too old or too busy minding their own business. The share of political activists of the left is far above the right.

      By the way, don't confuse Korean left with American liberal. South Korea still has many radical socialists/communists who support North Korea. The blogger, Minerva, was reported to have read a Korean equivalent of Marx for Dummies while in jail. I don't know whether he is a Marxist, but he probably knew that what he read would be some signal to the people.

      Many Western news reported it as rather casually, but the demonstration about US beef last year was a national crisis that could have turned into something similar to Thailand today. Can you believe a demonstration (closer to a riot) based on false claims (about US beef) endangered the democratically-voted presidency? That's how fragile current Korea is, however developed it seems technologically or commercially.

      You don't complain about your diet program to people who are starving to death. Or, you may be against prosecuting someone who set a fire in a mountain. But what if that fire killed many people?

      Last year, the Korean government (and the people who supported it) almost collapsed. I am happy it survived.

    13. Re:Summary is inaccurate by mea37 · · Score: 1

      For the sake of argument, let's say you've got the facts exactly right.

      How would that not be about free speech? That a position or view is at odds with facts -- even if it is at odds with facts known to the speaker -- does not make it "not a position or view", or "not experssion".

      Certain lies are illegal even in countries with strong concepts of free speech; but not all iles. Fraud, defamation, reckless endangerment... these can all limit free speech. I'd question whether this blogger's contribution (if any) to financial decline should rise to that level.

      Either way... nowhere I'm aware of is free speech unlimited, but if a case challenges whether speech should be inside or outside the limitations of free speech, then it is indeed a case about free speech.

  13. Bloggers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He was arrested, as you know, for "undermining the South Korean economy" with inaccurate ("false") statements on his blog. But if your country's economy can be undermined by a blog, then there is no hope for it anyway. In fact, barring the human rights component of these charges, S. Korea is doing worse harm to its economy by prosecuting this guy and thereby suggesting a mere blog has any influence whatsoever.

    True enough, and in this situation Minerva probably did very little to cause the "global economic downturn" nobody except a few unreconstructed pessimists such as my self and Minerva were expecting since about 2006 at the latest. This looks like petty revenge by humiliated S-Korean politicians. However, a blog, posted at the critical time during a crisis can have the potential to swing events in a disastrous way. Of course we didn't have the internet back in 1962 but if we had had it; I wonder what would have happened had a conservative right wing blogger swung US public opinion in favour of war with a stirring patriotic blogging campaign about how world democracy had been unjustly attacked by the evil Soviet Union without the slightest provocation. And this just as the JFK administration was on the cusp of resolving that ungodly mess in a peaceful way. I suppose those of us that survived the aftermath would now be discussing the intricacies of flint-knapping spearheads over a roaring fire while the womenfolk argued about leather sewing techniques while that blogger would probably enjoy the same status in that post-appocalyptic society as Judas does in ours.

    1. Re:Bloggers... by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      However, a blog, posted at the critical time during a crisis can have the potential to swing events in a disastrous way.

      Blog / newspaper editorial / talk show / politician's speech / comment overheard in an elevator. Anything can swing events, and as much for good as ill. History is littered with such events - indeed, you might say it is composed of them.

      Or to put it another way, your right to a deterministic timeline ends at my nose. Or keyboard. :)

    2. Re:Bloggers... by moranar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, there was no way at all of being widely read or commented in the 1960s. Not a newspaper, not a radio out there where a nutcase could make a point. William R. Hearst sure needed a blog to swing opinion.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
  14. Popcorn... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe I shouldn't blog about how bad the popcorn had gotten at the local movie theater since the economy went into the crapper. The movie theater could go out of business. Actors could be laid off. Hollywood could demand a federal bailout. Then I could be arrested for causing chaos in the marketplace of recycled ideas.

    Then again, the popcorn really does suck. Maybe I should call a food inspector instead.

    1. Re:Popcorn... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Ohhh, please do! I'd love to see the MPAA sue the FDA because bad reviews cause a dive in sales!

      I'll grab some Popcorn and watch. Or, thinking about what you said, better some other snacks.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  15. Re:Frosty Kimche by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Frosted Soju would have fit better. Not that I'm criticizing it as a drink.

    Ok, I am criticizing it as a drink. Basically imagine vodka cut 50% with water, and you know what soju tastes like.

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  16. Yes, you can make the economy plunge ... by Slayer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anyone remember the UA debacle last September? If the markets are sufficiently hysterical, you can make them plunge with a single headline, regardless whether it's correct or not. The wrong reporting about UA was corrected immediately, yet it sent the markets into a nose dive from which they haven't recovered yet. Regardless of whether the blogger is correct with his statements or not, I would call the reaction of the south korean gov't alarming and telling of the economic troubles soon to emerge there.

    So what this incident with the south korean blogger tells me:

    • The south korean economy is on the verge of big trouble
    • The south korean government is aware of it and desperately tries to keep this concealed
    • The south korean government has never heard a thing about the Streisand effect
    1. Re:Yes, you can make the economy plunge ... by French31 · · Score: 1

      For reference: Streisand Effect.

      The Streisand effect is an Internet phenomenon where an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information backfires, causing the information to be widely publicized.

      --
      They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security. --Ben Franklin
    2. Re:Yes, you can make the economy plunge ... by NereusRen · · Score: 1

      The wrong reporting about UA was corrected immediately, yet it sent the markets into a nose dive from which they haven't recovered yet.

      This is the same ridiculous, absurd reasoning that makes the summary sound so crazy. (In the case of the summary, it seems the real story is a bit more complicated. A misleading summary on Slashdot? I'm shocked, SHOCKED etc.)

      UAL's stock (symbol:UAUA) recovered most of its value later that day, and the rest shortly after that. You can't even tell when the false story broke if you look at the last year of the stock's price.

      The US market nosedive is a symptom of the bust portion of the latest boom/bust cycle driven by low interest rates in the 90's/00's. (If you thought a nation-wide personal savings rate closing in on zero was unsustainable, you were right!) While it's true that specific news events can pop a bubble in a sudden and dramatic way, that doesn't mean those events were the cause of the subsequent problems! The problems have been slowly building up as more houses were being built than people wanted to buy, and as artificially low interest rates caused stocks to be priced higher than (as it turns out) they were worth. There's nothing to be done now but watch the pendulum swing back the other way, as it would in any market where there's more supply than demand.

    3. Re:Yes, you can make the economy plunge ... by Slayer · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid my post was not entirely clear and/or you misread it. The fact that UA stock plunged after a single wrongly reported article shows that the whole stock market was in a state of panic at that time, due to the immanent burst of the housing bubble and the much larger bubble created by structured financial products, and reckless banks/insurances betting on these products way beyond their financial capability. Poor journalism just accidentally triggered the whole mechanism of panic sales, plunging stock price, general panic and slow recovery. Poor journalism however was not responsible for the general panic ridden market condition which allowed a single head line to cause all this.

      That is why the original slashdot article is so alarming: If South Korea panics about a single blogger, their whole economy may be in a morbid state which reeks of collapse. Obviously their actions backfired badly. Who would seriously invest in a country which shows so obvious signs of panic?

      So once again: I don't blame the blogger. Even if his blog triggers a market melt down, he is not responsible for the current market condition. And as South Korea has left the slave labor market decades ago, oppressing the free flow of opinions is certainly not going to help the recovery of their economy in any way.

    4. Re:Yes, you can make the economy plunge ... by NereusRen · · Score: 1

      Okay, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

  17. Stupidity by Davemania · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Accurate or not, the arrest of this blogger does more damage than bloggers will ever do. It undermines the judicial code and transparency, I really wonder how foreign investor will feel when a country's judicial and political system acts like this.

    1. Re:Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds like a good place for foreign investment. That last thing corporations need is normal people being able to muck up the works.

    2. Re:Stupidity by jyx · · Score: 1

      you would think: Will I make a bucket load of cash in this market? As the value of "yes" increases, the less qualms you will have of investing in the country - regardless of the social/political situation.

  18. I'd buy you a beer, if you were near! by rts008 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's the problem with basing the economy on IP, it's all smoke and mirrors, nothing tangible to base it on...when it's all just 'numbers' somewhere, those numbers can be easily manipulated.[as per your post]

    Then you have to license thoughts and ideas...How soon before your kid's DNA/genome/*sequence is violating some MegaCorp.'s IP?(do some research here, it's scary already)

    [Not a bash on the U.K., it's arguably far worse here in the U.S.A.]

    You can only trade /sell/buy speculations and play numbers for so long until it all has to be backed by something material.(collateral)

    No one should be surprised by all of this. It was set up decades ago...added onto, and added onto- never looked at head on and fixed.
    White-washing a mud fence only works for fair weather...what could you realistically expect otherwise?
    The rains have come....[get your hip-waders!!]

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:I'd buy you a beer, if you were near! by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's the problem with basing the economy on IP, it's all smoke and mirrors, nothing tangible to base it on...

      I don't think it's really because the economy is based on intellectual property, but because the stock market and financial businesses operate entirely on speculation that comes from invented numbers (the smoke and mirrors part). There were no copyrights, patents (unless someone has patented a method for building up a fake economic system and profiting from the collapse, which sadly wouldn't really surprise me), or trademarks directly involved in the failure of stupidity in the banking industry.

    2. Re:I'd buy you a beer, if you were near! by demachina · · Score: 1

      There is a pretty good article on Atlantic from a former official at the IMF call The Quiet Coup. There isn't a lot that is news in it, but it does have a compelling idea, that the U.S. crash has a LOT in common with other crashes around the world in the last couple of decades, including in South Korea a while back.

      The main theme is that Wall Street started growing in economy influence and power in the 80's, THANKS REAGAN, as it recovered from being boring and regulated in the wake of the Depression. As its power grew its control of Washington grew, and Washington started relaxing regulation like repealing Glass Steagel and allowing 30-1 leverage, thanks to Hank Paulson then Goldman Sachs CEO, and killing every attempt to regulate credit default swaps before they turned in to weapons of mass economic destruction.

      Wall Street and Washington became so fused it became an oligopoly or a plutocracy. Worked great for a while because as regulation disappeared Wall Street made buckets of money and grew to be a completely disproportionate percentage of the economy which just made it even more powerful in Washington... until it crashed.

      If it were any other company the U.S. would be begging the IMF for a bailout and the IMF would be forcing austerity measures that would seek to break the power of the plutocrats and those in government feeding them. South Korea is notorius few extremely powerful corporations which completely dominate the entire country, both economically and politically, so its not surprising they would lock up a blogger for criticizing their corporations.

      Since the U.S. dollar is still the world's reserve currency the U.S. can just print money to bail itself out, and change the rules like "mark to market", a luxury no other country has. We just get to hope that in a couple of years there wont be hyperinflation that will wipe out the dollar and all those responsible people who saved instead of borrowed, squandered and gambled. If you are deep in debt inflation is great because it basically wipes out your debt.

      Its no accident Rubin and Paulson went from Goldman Sachs to Treasury secretary, and Larry Summers spent the last couple years making $130K for one speech at Goldman and $5 million the last couple years working a day a week as a big hedge fund, D.B. Shaw. Wall Street does for all practical purposes run the financial parts of our government using a revolving door with people moving from Wall Street to the Reserve and Treasury and back again, plus campaign contributions to control Congressmen. They are using the Federal Reserve, the U.S. Treasury and its printing press to bail themselves out of the mess they made, while workers and tax payers get killed. They are for all practical purposes reinflating the same financial bubble that caused the problem in the first place.

      The guy at the IMF rightly points out the U.S. is avoiding taking the medicine for its wrecklessness, or really fixing its plutocracy.

      --
      @de_machina
    3. Re:I'd buy you a beer, if you were near! by garett_spencley · · Score: 1

      You're almost there.

      People talk a lot about greed these days, but greed refers to self interest and a man who's interested in his own self interest is not going to gamble his money on wild speculation.

      An entrepreneur does need to anticipate future consumer demand and since we cannot know exactly what will happen in the future there is an element of risk. However, the smoke and mirrors are not the means used to anticipate consumer demand. Market research is pretty sound, and it doesn't even have to be intrusive or an invasion of privacy. Simply paying attention to your customers and finding ways to make your goods and services better and cheaper falls under "market research" and becomes "speculation" when it comes time to employ capital into production.

      The smoke and mirrors is market manipulation, and more importantly money manipulation. Whenever there is a change in the supply of money, prices change. Prices then become those "invented numbers", because they become irrelevant historical facts and not a reliable prediction of future events. Entrepreneurs are excellent at accounting. When a new project is started all costs are accounted for. A plan is created complete with market research to back it up etc. Included in the cost are interest that must be paid on borrowed capital.

      When there is an increase in the supply of money it happens through the banks. The central bank prints new money and uses it to purchase bonds from the commercial banks. The commercial banks have more in their reserves and they do what comes naturally to them. They lend it out. In order to encourage people to borrow they lower their interest rates.

      Lower interest rates cause more projects to be undertaken. However, with an increase in the supply of money also comes distortions in market prices for commodities. People have more to spend so they bid higher until the money spreads throughout the economy. Those projects that looked profitable on paper really aren't. It was smoke and mirrors.

      That is Keynesian economics in a nutshell. It's the cause of the boom / bust cycle. It has a little to do with speculation, but it has even more to do with encouraging stupid speculation through well-intended but logically void market intervention.

      It should also be noted that increases in the supply of paper money does not have to occur because of deliberate market manipulation on the part of the government. Traditionally governments use inflation as a way to fund wars and to debase the national debt. Governments also avoid deflation because when prices go down, wages go down and people feel like they have less. Any change in the supply of money will be felt but deflation is a lot less harmful because it doesn't encourage malinvestment. It would have the opposite effect of keeping speculation limited to the more reasonable.

  19. Good idea, thanks for the message by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    *me* shoots DeltaQH

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  20. then they came for by onionlee · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Then they came for the bloggers,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a blogger.

    1. Re:then they came for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was a reference to the First They Came poem.

      The last sentence is "And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

  21. Enlightenment, what enlightenment? by soporific16 · · Score: 1
    Here we have the financial equivalent of the thankfully age old superstitious and usually religious belief that one person or a group of people could cause the weather to go bad or cause some other crisis-producing natural event.

    The enlightenment put paid to that didn't it?

    We need another one it seems, an enlightenment from out of the darkness of the deluge of economic dogma we all live under ... or in other words ... capitalist mythology is soooo the matrix.

  22. From the country that... by SupremoMan · · Score: 1

    From the country that brought you outrageous adultery laws.

  23. Re:Frosty Kimche by adavies42 · · Score: 1

    actually you can get 80-proof soju, or at least shochu, the japanese version. it's not half bad if you go in with no expectations. (it's a bit odd by western standards--the taste is a bit like sake, though not usually as strong.)

    --
    Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
    -kfg
  24. Promises, promises... by rts008 · · Score: 1

    I kill myself.

    Apparently not soon enough...

    I hear that Jack Kavorkian can help you out though. Give him a call, why waste time the way the economy is going?

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Promises, promises... by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Screw you guys. I'm going home.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  25. News is what isn't expected by mangu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    their son's death was only deemed to merit a footnote... on another guy's report of imprisonment

    Imprisonment and death in Iran are more or less common things, Iran's theocracy is one of the harshest regimes in the world, but South Korea is considered a democracy, therefore someone being in prison for publishing a blog in South Korea is more newsworthy than someone dying in prison in Iran.

  26. Remedial Education needed by zoomshorts · · Score: 0

    The U.S. is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC. Based on democratic principals. That is
    NOT a Democracy. Please revisit Government 101, and pass the class this time.

    1. Re:Remedial Education needed by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      May I interest you in learning about representative democracy? You'll notice the U.S. is included on that page. Republics and democracies aren't mutually exclusive.

    2. Re:Remedial Education needed by palegray.net · · Score: 1

      What the other poster said, minus the attitude problem you displayed in your post.

  27. Short Selling + Reverse Pump N' Dump..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    If his comments were targeted with the intent of creating dischord in the markets, then yes, he should be punished.

    Being able to distinguish "Creating market volatility" from "Informing about possible future problems" is not that difficult.

    Personally, this sounds like he wanted to make some cash off of shorting stocks using a "Reverse Pump And Dump" scheme to drive the prices down.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Short Selling + Reverse Pump N' Dump..... by ihavnoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, the problem is that he didn't have any stocks or any assets. He was merely a jobless man on his early thirties who didn't have any formal education on economy. That's why the DA is not convicting him for some kind of law on securities or market arbitration, which is far more severe than publishing false information. what he claims is that the DA is charging him because he was merely grumbling that the government is a stupid big liar, though some of the information was not throughoutly fact-checked.

      Of course, there are conspiracy theories that there are other people behind him, since they was shocked that his real-world identy was a jobless man who merely graduated community college, and still could post articles with in-depth analysis on the current financial situation. However, that's another story.

  28. The Observer effect by initialE · · Score: 1

    definitely applies when it comes to something like economics. You change the severity simply by reporting its existence. Somewhat related to the Barbara Streisand effect.

    --
    Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
  29. Wonderful by piemcfly · · Score: 1

    This from the same country that lets corrupt corrupt, fraudulent Samsung and Hyundai bosses off with a warning and fines because imprisoning them 'would hurt the national economy'.

  30. So judging by the categories for this story... by mea37 · · Score: 1

    Yesterday we learned that some people believe it is "censorship" when a private company chooses which results to return in its web site's search feature...

    Yet now we have a true case of censorship -- a government using force of law to control what its citizens say -- and nobody seems to notice.

    Reference this if ever you wonder why I (and others) argue for using terms according to their definition, rather than just picking the most inflammatory term for any disliked action.