frakin, frakers. When I was at the hospital we lowly peons got a bonus one year. The only one in 10 years of working there. Come to find out directors and up received 80% of the bonuses handed out.
an ex-employee of my old firm released the names and dollar amounts for top exec bonus'
Maybe you can answer a question I have. Is the bonus for these exec's really a bonus? Or is it just a back door way to increase salary? I get a bonus but its not going to happen if any of 7 programs slip in performance. Increases in performance get more. How does it work in banking?
celtic, in this case, it IS bonus on top of salary.
Firm revenues were down 30% from the previous year, so no answer to why they top brass warranted a bonus at all. . .
Speaking of Goldman Sachs (and their cohorts in crime, Morgan Stanley)...
Morgan Stanley Plans to Turn Downgraded Loan CDO Into AAA Bonds
Toward the end of this article, it says:
“Somebody does something and it seems to make magic, and the other guy says ‘Hey, let’s do that, too,’” Raynes said.
New York-based Goldman Sachs plans to sell $216.9 million of repackaged commercial mortgage debt, according to people familiar with the sale who declined to be identified because terms aren’t public.
It's this same kind of "me-too-ism" that got us into this mess in the first place. If these guys tried doing this with foodstuffs or pharmaceuticals (i.e. using filler to make it look like more than it really is), the FDA would be all over them. But somehow, becuase it's a "financial instrument," it's perfectly legit.
How long will we have to wait before this latest scheme blows up in everyone's face? And when are these thieves going to spend some serious time in jail?
I've been reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged for the first time (I'm up to page 601 of this 1168-page epic). One of the chapters in entitled, "The Aristocracy of Pull" - the concept being that who you know is the basis of the new aristocracy.
This inbred bunch of crooks (Rubin, Paulson, Geithner, Bernanke et al.) transcend party affiliation. It doesn't matter who's in the White House or who has control of Congress, they always seem to get exactly what they want - and never what they deserve.
And when are these thieves going to spend some serious time in jail?
Never, CT. The banks own this country. That much has been made clear.
What's wrong? Is the reality of Osama's (directed by Rahm) "Change" scaring you guys into silence?
celtictexan,
It's called "cognitive dissonance."
Prodigal Son compiles a list of "spending you cut out when out of work and busted" (which is sound economics, I might add), and then Vice President Biden tells us that "we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt."
Speaking for myself, and myself alone, I've been busy with work and family and really don't have much to say. The Conservative False Narrative has been proven exactly that, false. The country is deep in the shitter and it's primarily conservative baby boomer ideology that brought us here. If that isn't obvious at this point, then what else could I possibly say?
Overall I remain supportive of Obama, but I'm disgusted by his handling of the Big Banks. And Biden just needs to STFU.
It's called "cognitive dissonance."
LOL
The country is deep in the shitter and it's primarily conservative baby boomer ideology that brought us here.
Well you got the baby boomer part right. But it's the liberal, to hell with teaching a man to fish, give him the fish so he'll be trapped into voting for us, ideology thats got us here.
We have, and I'm speaking of both parties, totally lost our way as a nation. The government we have now, and have had for far to long, has no coherant national purpose. It's swayed to and fro by an increasing number of minority pressure groups
It bases almost all policy on shortsided, partisan consideration, drifting from one crisis to the next, thinking only so far as the next election. Things that are good for the majority of Americans is the last thing cared about in DC.
At the same time, this same government is nothing but traitorous (As Newsguy George pointed out)in the way it so willingly tranfers American wealth and indutry to China and other enemies of freedom.
They all suck people. And they are about to kill the dream the founders created for us.
Well you got the baby boomer part right.
I got it all right. Boomer Cons and their G. Gordon Geckoism have been slowly wrecking this nation for 2+ decades.
They all suck people
We at least agree on that point.
At the same time, this same government is nothing but traitorous
Speaking of traitorus. In Chicago home to the first Muslim POTUS, just coincidence ?
Overall I remain supportive of Obama, but I'm disgusted by his handling of the Big Banks. [Emphasis added]
A very enlightening article on the role of Goldman Sachs (and the "Aristocracy of Pull" that I mentioned earlier) is Matt Taibbi's Inside The Great American Bubble Machine in the July 9-23 issue of Rolling Stone.
The final paragraph (at the very end of section 5 of the online version I've linked to) provides a preview of what the next big bubble might be:
Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm's co-head of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon-credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.
Bush and Paulson may have been complicit in this whole mess with Goldman Sachs, but I'm afraid the Obama Administration may be taking it to new depths never dreamed of before.
Yeah, extremely busy here, too, and following a rule that I'm not going to say anything unless I have something original to say (or, at the very least, an originalish way to say it). That's not good blogging, but it's good time management and what the hell do I care about good blogging, anyway? (An in-joke so in, I'll have to inform you it's a joke.)
But, really, why should we have to justify ourselves to someone whose blog was last updated on February 27th, 2009?
And, CT, as for Biden's comment, I can't find it anywhere but Fox News and partisan sites, so I can't be sure it's accurate.
But, the sentiment, if said sincerely by anyone, is obviously as stupid as the 2001 notion of going out and spending money so the terrorists don't win.
And, CT, as for Biden's comment, I can't find it anywhere but Fox News and partisan sites, so I can't be sure it's accurate.
There's an old adage that goes, "Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear."
See it here.
"Must be an optical illusion." Quote from the Flat Earth Society on July 20, 1969.
If there were more context to explain it away, don't you think the mainstream media would have provided it, like ABC News did with President Obama's "wandering eyes" in Rome?
I can appreciate your cognitive dissonance, though. After all, Vice President Biden has a much higher IQ than any of us. If you don't believe me, just ask him.
The fact that you couldn't find Biden's gaffe "anywhere but Fox News and partisan sites" says more about the lack of objectivity in the mainstream media than it does about Fox News and "partisan sites."
"And comrade, as for Chairman Khrushchev's comment, I can't find it anywhere but Radio Free Europe and Voice of America, so I can't be sure it's accurate."
And you wonder why we call you Panhandle Правда Squad!
But, the sentiment, if said sincerely by anyone, is obviously as stupid as the 2001 notion of going out and spending money so the terrorists don't win.
Translation: Bush did it too! Bush did it too!
Mm-hm.
You focused on the sections of my comment I'd expect you to. You have nothing else to grasp on to.
Thanks for provide a better source; obviously, I believe what I see. And I'm a bit offended at your idiotically comparing me to Flat-Earthers and Moon Landing deniers. I've been a space geek all my life, my grandfather (btw, a religious nut you'd probably get along with) worked on programming for the Lunar Rover, and I have his framed commemoration photograph of Apollo 15 in my media room.
So Biden said it; so Biden is a dumbass. Yes, as dumb as politicians were who suggested we spend our way out of 9-11. Bush certainly is, as you suggest, one of those politicians, though I actually had others in mind.
I won't defend Biden blindly. I won't defend Obama blindly. Until you understand that, there is really no point to a discussion such as this one.
spacedark,
I'm sorry if I offended you. I was just trying to have a little good natured fun. Maybe a couple of strategically placed smiley faces would have made that a little more clear.
I won't defend Biden blindly. I won't defend Obama blindly. Until you understand that, there is really no point to a discussion such as this one.
Fair enough. Let's change the subject.
What was your reaction to the position taken by Matt Taibbi (no Sean Hannity he) that cap-and-trade, if enacted, would be a nothing more than a quid pro quo to Goldman Sachs, masquerading as an "environmental plan"?
Interjecting here, I think the Tabbi article was spot on. His articles are worth the price of the 'scription to RS
My first exposure to Matt Taibbi was on this very blog, back in March of this year.
Suggested reading from Barry Rithotlz, posted by blogarillo on 03/22/09; followed by Matt Taibbi's Article, posted by lequino on 03/24/09.
Looking over lequino's comments about Ayn Rand, and having read about 3/4's of Atlas Shrugged in the interim, I think he mischaracterized her philosophy a little.
In the novel, Rand differentiates between people like Hank Reardon, a workaholic who develops and produces a product (Reardon Metal) that benefits all of society; and Orren Boyle, another steel magnate who makes his fortune not by producing a superior product, but through his connections with top government officials (the "aristocracy of pull" I mentioned earlier). Boyle, and others of his ilk, are the "looters" that expropriate the earnings of producers like Reardon - not unlike today's well-connected class at Goldman Sachs, AIG etc.
Please bear in mind that Atlas Shrugged hasn't turned me into a dyed in the wool Objectivist, but it's a good summer read (if you can make it through all 1168 pages!) and says a lot about the mess in which we find ourselves in 2009, some 52 years after it was first published.
Not sure why my last post came up as anonymous. I read Rand while in college many years ago and would have to re-read to be able to discuss.
I had assumed any administration would try to get another bubble going to take the place of the last, though I was thinking alternative energy and maybe infrastructure.
If Objectivism as proposed by Ayn Rand were enacted many folks who are able to succeed but need a little help would be "left behind".
Not a very compassionate conservatism, that.
I agree with you that Lequino's characterization of Rand was slightly off, mainly because he used the word "altruism". My reading is that Rand finds no value in altruism, but only self-interest. She takes a leap of faith that everything would be somehow better if everyone acted in their own self-interest.
Rand is the worst of the midcentury nutcases. But I agree that her books are a good read. And feel free, CT, to buy into her philosophies hook, line, and sinker. At least you won't be bothering us with your religious dogma anymore.
Also: the Ayn Rand Institute, which harangued me this past weekend, would have probably offended Rand herself as much as modern Christianity would have offended Jesus Christ.
And feel free, CT, to buy into her philosophies hook, line, and sinker. At least you won't be bothering us with your religious dogma anymore.
That's not likely to happen. I'd put Ayn Rand in the same category as Christopher Hitchens - an articulate, thought provoking atheist with whom I nonetheless occasionally agree.
Also: the Ayn Rand Institute, which harangued me this past weekend ...
How did they harangue you? This sounds like it has all the makings of an interest blog post (or at least an interesting comment to add to this thread). Elaborate, please.
If Objectivism as proposed by Ayn Rand were enacted many folks who are able to succeed but need a little help would be "left behind".
What a silly statement. If you need help to succed, in a country like this, that is so full of opportunity, then you are not able to suceed. Hell with a little help I could be a brain surgeon and attempt to fix your thinking.
I'm apologize for my silliness celtictexan. I was under the mistaken impression that people existed in this country and others with various disabilities, but who would be able to contribute to society if accommodations were made for them. People who would be cast aside were everyone to follow Rand and act in their own self-interest. Because of your gentle but wise admonishments, I now understand that Stephen Hawking, to give one example, does not require that chair and extra care from nurses/wives, but in fact has made a lot of money from bestselling books and merely chooses to sit all the time.
Curious, it was at the College Board AP annual conference. The Ayn Rand institute sponsors essay contests for high school students. They always badger us to make students submit essays, but I've never had any students who felt it was in their self interest to read a 1200 page book so they could do so. 
Spacedark,
I was talking to my brother recently and happened to mention that I was reading Atlas Shrugged. He told me that his wife (who retired a few years ago after nearly 40 years in the teaching profession) used to assign Atlas Shrugged to her Senior Honors English classes.
I'm going to wait until I finish the book before I even attempt to discuss it with my sister-in-law. I'd love to see what kind of essay questions she had on her tests; knowing her, I'm sure they were very thought provoking and challenging.
My sister-in-law is at least as far left as you politically (Keith Olberman is required viewing in their house), so it'll be interesting to see what she thinks of Ayn Rand and Objectivism.
CT,
No one is as far left as me.
Karl Marx looks the same as Nixon from here.
lol!
I'm apologize for my silliness celtictexan. I was under the mistaken impression that people existed in this country and others with various disabilities, but who would be able to contribute to society if accommodations were made for them.
I think you know very well that I am in no way talking about people stricken with serious disease, or otherwise disabled through birth defect or accident.
Just to let you know my daughter works with disabled children in one of the Amarillo schools, and is pursuing a career in special ed. While I have advised against her choice of teaching, I am very proud of her choice as to who she helps.
Commenting by HaloScan
