C-Span sucks community > Business and Finance

Bart Katz

Jun 21 2005, 05:32 AM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 20 2005, 10:39 PM)

Depends on how many the project calls for. Is the 'size' of my business what relly matters? Men and size...Spare me.

You seem to be drawn to what you percieve as wealth and power. That's a fairly shallow kind of attitude. Hardly admirable. It didn't surprise me much when you dropped your Dem affiation for that empty and inaccurate Repub rhetoric.

It takes a certain amount of character to leave the safe and comfy flock even if your perception is true enough to observe the cliff straight ahead.

I hope you enjoy running off it. It'll be a warm and fuzzy kind of dive.

[right][snapback]95786[/snapback][/right]

Another Beezer classic.

Arturo_Vandelay

Jun 21 2005, 05:41 AM

Everybody right of trotsky gets the lecture. I think I already warned him.

Bart Katz

Jun 21 2005, 05:55 AM

That's about the size of it.

Arturo_Vandelay

Jun 21 2005, 05:59 AM

In business maybe size matters when the boss decides to expand and hire to share the wealth and provide opportunity to others.

Bee would probably call that greed.

Bart Katz

Jun 21 2005, 06:00 AM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 21 2005, 12:56 AM)

In business maybe size matters when the boss decides to expand and hire to share the wealth and provide opportunity to others.

Bee would probably call that greed.
[right][snapback]95840[/snapback][/right]

I don't think Beezer ever did answer the long ago asked question about what benefits she provides for her "employes".

Arturo_Vandelay

Jun 21 2005, 06:09 AM

Is a free lecture on the evils of capitalism and profit considered a benefit?

Arebuntz got the lecture for choosing not to work more and thus pay less taxes. Can't win.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 10:52 AM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 21 2005, 01:56 AM)

In business maybe size matters when the boss decides to expand and hire to share the wealth and provide opportunity to others.

Bee would probably call that greed.
[right][snapback]95840[/snapback][/right]

Probably not. Probably size really does matter. Probably the problem is when business gets too big and there is too much wealth "the boss" decides not to share anymore. Probably rather than create "opportunity" they "downsize" instead to keep more wealth. From the track record of LARGEer businesses, probably the bigger businesses get, they "forget" to "share" wealth and opportunity...

...ad hominems aside.

Probably, the size of a business doesn't mean that the proprietor is ignorant regarding the principles of business.

Lord_Proprietor

Jun 21 2005, 12:32 PM

Euro pays heavy price for political bickering

New York Times*,

by Mark Landler

- 6/21/2005 1:34:44 AM

Frankfurt - As European leaders bicker over money problems and the future of their union,

the main victim is proving to be the euro,

their sturdy but still sensitive young progeny. The six-year-old currency fell sharply against the dollar on Monday in the aftermath of the collapsed European Union summit meeting. /break/ The decline Monday was hastened by new rumors that the European Central Bank was considering a cut in interest rates

arebuntz

Jun 21 2005, 01:00 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 20 2005, 07:08 PM)

It's hardly "snobbery" to choose modern library over book of the month. More like common sense. A characteristic you are noticeably lacking in.

I'll go easy on ya. It must be kind of a bummer to see so many of your pals getting arrested, whn all they did was "look out for their own happiness."

[right][snapback]95638[/snapback][/right]

John Galt would say that anyone who steals from another deserves puishment, including jack booted gubment bureaucrat thugs. As you have failed to understand the idea is that folks who wish to freely exchange value for value are welcome, folks who use coercion of any sort, like the jack booted gubment bureaucratic thugs are not.

arebuntz

Jun 21 2005, 01:01 PM

QUOTE(Bix12 @ Jun 20 2005, 07:28 PM)

Book of the Month Club....

<howling>

[right][snapback]95644[/snapback][/right]

Yes, let them eat cake too, quite a little elitist club you two are forming. Perhaps you can entice Davis to change or isn't he "pure' enough for you?

arebuntz

Jun 21 2005, 01:04 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 20 2005, 07:55 PM)

I think you put too much stock in others opinions.

I'm a business owner. Just not a greedy one that expects the "peeps" to support me because I'm "special."

I expect you'll catch on eventually.
[right][snapback]95655[/snapback][/right]

You expect the "peeps" to send their hard earned dollars to gubment bureaucrats who will put on some arts fartsy programs where you and all you elitist friends can sit around and discuss the plight of the little people and their cake eating ways.

arebuntz

Jun 21 2005, 01:06 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 20 2005, 11:39 PM)

Depends on how many the project calls for. Is the 'size' of my business what relly matters? Men and size...Spare me.

You seem to be drawn to what you percieve as wealth and power. That's a fairly shallow kind of attitude. Hardly admirable. It didn't surprise me much when you dropped your Dem affiation for that empty and inaccurate Repub rhetoric.

It takes a certain amount of character to leave the safe and comfy flock even if your perception is true enough to observe the cliff straight ahead.

I hope you enjoy running off it. It'll be a warm and fuzzy kind of dive.

[right][snapback]95786[/snapback][/right]

She obviously is still looking for the graphics artist to draw her a picture.

I of course put my capital at risk to fuel our economy in which millions are employed and prosper. The Bee writes an annual check to gubment to fuel her economy.

davis¹³

Jun 21 2005, 01:52 PM

QUOTE(Nunyadb @ Jun 20 2005, 05:16 PM)

they can't lock'em up fast enough to suit me.
There was once such a thing as loyalty towards the employees from the company as well as loyalty "from" the employees.
That needs to be brought back.
Sending crooked executives to prison is a good first step.
[right][snapback]95613[/snapback][/right]

Looooong sentences.

davis¹³

Jun 21 2005, 01:53 PM

QUOTE(SpeedRacerXxtreme @ Jun 20 2005, 05:20 PM)

Maybe the word will get out now. I'm not sure 15 years is enough for some, considering what you get for a third strike some places. These people have stolen more than any 100 small time thugs rotting in prisons for a minor third strike.
[right][snapback]95615[/snapback][/right]

Indeed. Ruined thousands of lives.

davis¹³

Jun 21 2005, 01:54 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 20 2005, 10:28 PM)

Tell that to the enron employees getting back six cents on the dollars that were stolen from them. Or tell Russ, he worked for WorldCom. One is too many.

Are you (again) excusing this behavior because it isn't as bad as it could be? That's a rather pathetic and nonsensical argument.
[right][snapback]95777[/snapback][/right]

No doubt.

gtessex

Jun 21 2005, 02:57 PM

QUOTE

they can't lock'em up fast enough to suit me.
There was once such a thing as loyalty towards the employees from the company as well as loyalty "from" the employees.
That needs to be brought back.
Sending crooked executives to prison is a good first step.

This is a good first step.....except IMHO the sentences weren't tough enough
on the son.

QUOTE

NEW YORK -- The sentences given to Adelphia Communications Corp. founder John Rigas and his son are among the harshest handed down in any U.S. court since the 2001 fall of Enron sparked a rash of corporate scandals that rocked the markets and have cost investors billions of dollars.

Rigas, 80, got 15 years in prison for his role in the looting and debt-hiding scandal that plunged Adelphia into bankruptcy three years ago. His son Timothy, 49, who like his father was convicted last year of bank fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Sand could have sentenced both men to life.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062100357.html

What bugs me is......NOW.....are the taxpayers responsible for the costs associated with keeping these two 'scumbags' in the slammer?

In cases like this, putting these type of clowns away should be set up similiar as for retirees who enter into a 'live care retirement community'......THEY HAVE TO PAY!

QUOTE

Life care is a long-term care insurance product. Residents pay a one-time entrance fee and an ongoing monthly service fee. For this, residents receive lifetime occupancy of their apartment or cottage, and long-term care in our on-campus Health Center. Whether a transfer to the Health Center is a temporary or permanent, a resident's monthly fee obligations remain unchanged. Residents find it helpful to think of the Entrance Fee as an annuity for their long-term care. The bottom line is that Wake Robin residents avoid the costly per diem rates of $216 for skilled nursing care and $126 for residential care.

http://www.wakerobin.com/gen_info/life_care.htm

davis¹³

Jun 21 2005, 03:06 PM

QUOTE(gtessex @ Jun 21 2005, 09:54 AM)

This is a good first step.....except IMHO the sentences weren't tough enough
on the son.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5062100357.html

What bugs me is......NOW.....are the taxpayers responsible for the costs associated with keeping these two 'scumbags' in the slammer?

In cases like this, putting these type of clowns away should be set up similiar as for retirees who enter into a 'live care retirement community'......THEY HAVE TO PAY!
http://www.wakerobin.com/gen_info/life_care.htm
[right][snapback]95909[/snapback][/right]

Seems Illinois is charging some inmates for their incarceration. I can't remember the circumstances. I'll try to find it.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 04:15 PM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 21 2005, 12:38 AM)

Everybody right of trotsky gets the lecture. I think I already warned him.
[right][snapback]95837[/snapback][/right]

No kiddin'!

I'm getting a particularly good laugh at the leap from stating that the exception is not the norm, to acting as an apologist for the exception, for nothing more than recognition of the fact that it's the exception.

Now, you go diagram that sentence!

Arturo_Vandelay

Jun 21 2005, 04:28 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 09:12 AM)

No kiddin'!

I'm getting a particularly good laugh at the leap from stating that the exception is not the norm, to acting as an apologist for the exception, for nothing more than recognition of the fact that it's the exception.

Now, you go diagram that sentence!

[right][snapback]95934[/snapback][/right]

Well lately apologist could be just about anything. I got that lecture about abortion not because I didn't agree with Bee, but because I didn't agree with Bee vociferously enough.

I think laugh is a noun. Maybe.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 04:41 PM

Nostradamus...That's a hot one!!

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 04:45 PM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 21 2005, 12:25 PM)

Well lately apologist could be just about anything. I got that lecture about abortion not because I didn't agree with Bee, but because I didn't agree with Bee vociferously enough.

I think laugh is a noun. Maybe.
[right][snapback]95939[/snapback][/right]

That's just not true.

Since you're all busy patting eachother on the back I suppose that means eod.

What amuses me is that all you back patters don't refute any of my points, you just make up ad hominems in lieu of argument. Bee this and Bee that.

I guess that's all you can do.

Arturo_Vandelay

Jun 21 2005, 04:48 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 09:42 AM)

That's just not true.

Since you're all busy patting eachother on the back I suppose that means eod.

What amuses me is that all you back patters don't refute any of my points, you just make up ad hominems in lieu of argument. Bee this and Bee that.

I guess that's all you can do.
[right][snapback]95945[/snapback][/right]

When you call people you don't know greedy and evil even when they are more or less agreeing with you what do you expect?

I haven't seen ANYONE say the crooks should get off. You just assume anyone who doesn't hate all business (except your own) is somehow an "apologist" for some sort of criminality.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 04:48 PM

I have yet to use you as a direct example.

And you've still failed to point out how anyone's recognition of abhorrent behavior being the exception, is excusing it.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 04:56 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 12:45 PM)

I have yet to use you as a direct example.

And you've still failed to point out how anyone's recognition of abhorrent behavior being the exception, is excusing it.
[right][snapback]95947[/snapback][/right]

If that is true, then it is also true I have called no one "greedy."

Likening corporate corruption charges to flyspecks on the windshield is minimilizing the impact it's had.

enron and Worldcom were huge companies affecting hundreds of thousands of people.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 05:00 PM

QUOTE(Arturo_Vandelay @ Jun 21 2005, 12:45 PM)

When you call people you don't know greedy and evil even when they are more or less agreeing with you what do you expect?

I haven't seen ANYONE say the crooks should get off. You just assume anyone who doesn't hate all business (except your own) is somehow an "apologist" for some sort of criminality.
[right][snapback]95946[/snapback][/right]

Really. Where have I done that?

Seems to me you're overreacting to the point of absurdity. By your logic you're sticking up for someone that thinks all working people are chumps and that you're an idiot to pay taxes.

Oh, I guess you are. Lovely pile on. Is it nice to be on the other side of one?

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 05:12 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 11:53 AM)

If that is true, then it is also true I have called no one "greedy."

Example, please.

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 11:53 AM)

Likening corporate corruption charges to flyspecks on the windshield is minimilizing the impact it's had.

enron and Worldcom were huge companies affecting hundreds of thousands of people.
[right][snapback]95951[/snapback][/right]

Using the same argument, it can be said that you're making hurricane out of a popcorn fart.

Did the victims of the of Enron, Tyco, WorlCom, etc, scandals get hosed? You bet! Do they deserve to be repaid in full ? No doubt! Do the malefactors deserve to be punished? Without question!

Are they examples of how the vast bulk of companies go about their business? In the same way that airliner crashes are the exception, not by a longshot!

Arturo_Vandelay

Jun 21 2005, 05:15 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 09:57 AM)

Really. Where have I done that?

Seems to me you're overreacting to the point of absurdity. By your logic you're sticking up for someone that thinks all working people are chumps and that you're an idiot to pay taxes.

Oh, I guess you are. Lovely pile on. Is it nice to be on the other side of one?
[right][snapback]95952[/snapback][/right]

Ok, so I can't respond if anyone else does. Have a nice day.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 05:25 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 01:09 PM)

Example, please.
Using the same argument, it can be said that you're making hurricane out of a popcorn fart.

Did the victims of the of Enron, Tyco, WorlCom, etc, scandals get hosed? You bet! Do they deserve to be repaid in full ? No doubt! Do the malefactors deserve to be punished? Without question!

Are they examples of how the vast bulk of companies go about their business? In the same way that airliner crashes are the exception, not by a longshot!
[right][snapback]95956[/snapback][/right]

But since the "size" of a business truly counts, your argument of "the vast bulk" is pretty useless.

Lets just look at the top 200 employers of people and compare THOSE companies. That "bulk" doesn't appear to be quite so vast.

Apple and orange comparisons are misleading at best.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 05:29 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 12:22 PM)

But since the "size" of a business truly counts, your argument of "the vast bulk" is pretty useless.

Lets just look at the top 200 employers of people and compare THOSE companies. That "bulk" doesn't appear to be quite so vast.

Apple and orange comparisons are misleading at best.
[right][snapback]95962[/snapback][/right]

Fair enough. How 'bout we expand that pool to the entirety of business listed on the major American stock exchanges. I sure hope those businesses are big enough for you. Now square the number of on your list of the present bunch of corporate criminals. Contrast and compare.

If the number of that ratio exceeds 1% I'll eat my shiny transparent head.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 05:38 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 01:26 PM)

Fair enough. How 'bout we expand that pool to the entirety of business listed on the major American stock exchanges. I sure hope those businesses are big enough for you. Now square the number of on your list of the present bunch of corporate criminals. Contrast and compare.

If the number of that ratio exceeds 1% I'll eat my shiny transparent head.
[right][snapback]95965[/snapback][/right]

I don't think so. companies with less than 100 people are on that list. You are merely using the same argument in a sideways manner.

How about companies that have close to the same number of employees as Tyco, Worldcom and enron. As I said, major employers.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 05:46 PM

I'm having difficulty understanding how the number of employees bears any signifcance, insofar as the criminal actions of the CEO are concerned.

SRX

Jun 21 2005, 05:53 PM

Hopefully someone will alert me when I can reply to AWBee without piling on.

Russ Logan

Jun 21 2005, 05:53 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 11:35 AM)

I don't think so. companies with less than 100 people are on that list. You are merely using the same argument in a sideways manner.

How about companies that have close to the same number of employees as Tyco, Worldcom and enron. As I said, major employers.
[right][snapback]95968[/snapback][/right]

Tom, Bee

To help both of you bound that sample size - at the time of Worldcom going bankrupt they had about (depending upon who's estimate you believed) 67,000 employees. Inside the compnay estimates ran more towards 54,000, as in the six months prior to the bankruptcy, they had transferred about 8000 employees over to EDS in a support agreement contract arrangement, and had already done a layoff in March prior. But when the news stories about Worldcom talked about these things they always seemed to maintain the same number of employees as when WC and MCI originally merged - around 70,000. So I'd use the 67,000 number (worldwide I might add) as a lower limit unless TYCO or ENRON were even lower.

Just FYI.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 06:07 PM

QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Jun 21 2005, 01:50 PM)

Tom, Bee

To help both of you bound that sample size - at the time of Worldcom going bankrupt they had about (depending upon who's estimate you believed) 67,000 employees. Inside the compnay estimates ran more towards 54,000, as in the six months prior to the bankruptcy, they had transferred about 8000 employees over to EDS in a support agreement contract arrangement, and had already done a layoff in March prior. But when the news stories about Worldcom talked about these things they always seemed to maintain the same number of employees as when WC and MCI originally merged - around 70,000. So I'd use the 67,000 number (worldwide I might add) as a lower limit unless TYCO or ENRON were even lower.

Just FYI.
[right][snapback]95976[/snapback][/right]

Thanks Russ.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 06:10 PM

Fair enough, Russ. But I'm still at a loss as to how the amount of employees pertains to CEO criminality overall.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 06:11 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 01:43 PM)

I'm having difficulty understanding how the number of employees bears any signifcance, insofar as the criminal actions of the CEO are concerned.
[right][snapback]95972[/snapback][/right]

Nice dodge. It has to do with the impact on society. The CEO of cannondale making poor decisions isn't reported in major media, nor does it affect more than a few dozen people.

The actions of the CEO of WalMart has a much greater affect on the population.

I don't see what is difficult to understand. You are talking about the impact these criminals are having, correct?

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 06:21 PM

Dodge nothing. While the impact these CEOs have had on individual lives may certainly be --like an airliner disaster-- profound, their tomfoolery has had about zero effect on either the stock markets or the overall economy as a whole.

As with the jet crash, you can sympatize with the victims without having a cow about air travel in general, or pilots in particular.

Grigorii

Jun 21 2005, 06:50 PM

Enron's CEOs negative economic effect due to their criminal behavior did not stop with their employees hundreds of thousands of public,(state employees) and private pension funds (which tend to invest in energy corporations as a safe investment) where
in effect looted. Enrons crimes were a direct and thoughtless criminal attack on the general public as well as their employees and the bastards ought to never spend a day for the rest of their rotten lives outside of main line federal pen.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 06:55 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 02:18 PM)

Dodge nothing. While the impact these CEOs have had on individual lives may certainly be --like an airliner disaster-- profound, their tomfoolery has had about zero effect on either the stock markets or the overall economy as a whole.

As with the jet crash, you can sympatize with the victims without having a cow about air travel in general, or pilots in particular.
[right][snapback]95982[/snapback][/right]

If the jet crashes were due to a group of pilots that decided they needn't obey FAA rules, then it would be entirely appropriate.

It is entirely appropriate to look to this CEO and CFO's group's overall disregard for ethical behavior.

It didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because people minimize or otherwise excuse their actions.

Grigorii

Jun 21 2005, 07:07 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 12:18 PM)

Dodge nothing. While the impact these CEOs have had on individual lives may certainly be --like an airliner disaster-- profound, their tomfoolery has had about zero effect on either the stock markets or the overall economy as a whole.

[right][snapback]95982[/snapback][/right]

That statement would put you at odds with many Wall Street Market leaders who have called for a crack down on corporate crime as beings harmful to the market. Of course, their solution is more self regulation with no teeth that has replaced serious regulatory power which has been decimated by corporate America’s take over of government. BTW to call stealing even one persons life savings let alone thousands "tomfoolery" is good indication of how serious you see corporate crime, and a deliberate attempt to minimize it. It is a felony far more serious than mugging and sentences ought to of equal weight PER COUNT.

PS:

Good news for a change; that missing Boy Scout has just been found…alive. Hooray!

Bart Katz

Jun 21 2005, 07:10 PM

QUOTE(Ward @ Sep 27 2004, 10:26 AM)

Ten year bond broke below 4% yield, and oil is threatening to break $50 per barrel today.

bin Sultan was apparently unable to deliver on his promised pre-election oil price discount for Dubya, and the bond market is predicting slow or stagnant economic growth.
[right][snapback]811[/snapback][/right]

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 07:52 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 01:52 PM)

If the jet crashes were due to a group of pilots that decided they needn't obey FAA rules, then it would be entirely appropriate.

It is entirely appropriate to look to this CEO and CFO's group's overall disregard for ethical behavior.

It didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened because people minimize or otherwise excuse their actions.
[right][snapback]95986[/snapback][/right]

To carry the alalogy forward, aircraft crashes are most often tracable to one cause: human error. If the error was inadvertent, new procedures or ADs are issued. If willful, the violator(s) (presuming they're still alive) are called to full account, without holding the entire industry, pilots, mechanics or other airline personnel suspect ipso facto.

You're still making a hurricane out of a popcorn fart.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 07:57 PM

QUOTE(Grigorii @ Jun 21 2005, 02:04 PM)

BTW to call stealing even one persons life savings let alone thousands "tomfoolery" is good indication of how serious you see corporate crime, and a deliberate attempt to minimize it.

Attempting to speak for the motivations or intents of others is sheer speculation.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 08:01 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 03:49 PM)

To carry the alalogy forward, aircraft crashes are most often tracable to one cause: human error. If the error was inadvertent, new procedures or ADs are issued. If willful, the violator(s) (presuming they're still alive) are called to full account, without holding the entire industry, pilots, mechanics or other airline personnel suspect ipso facto.

You're still making a hurricane out of a popcorn fart.
[right][snapback]96001[/snapback][/right]

You are minimalizing a worrisome trend, and by doing so, appearing as an apologist for corporate crime.

When you add up the banks and accounting firms involved as well as the sizable amount of people directly employed, it has probably touched a majority of American's lives. My brother-in-law worked at WorldCom. My kids educational funds contained those stocks and were hurt accordingly. Citicorp will likely increase fees and interest rates on their customers to cover the 2 billion... etc. etc.

If you don't know someone affected by the recent round of malfeasance, you are just not paying much attention. This is a serious problem that shouldn't be swept under the rug, or minimalized with trite euphemisms.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 08:04 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 03:54 PM)

Attempting to speak for the motivations or intents of others is sheer speculation.
[right][snapback]96003[/snapback][/right]

Nonsense. The only obvious motivations of those involved was greed.

A word you may personally find distateful, and whose practice I find abominable. Most people recognize obscenity when they see it.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 08:04 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 02:58 PM)

You are minimalizing a worrisome trend, and by doing so, appearing as an apologist for corporate crime.

When you add up the banks and accounting firms involved as well as the sizable amount of people directly employed, it has probably touched a majority of American's lives. My brother-in-law worked at WorldCom. My kids educational funds contained those stocks and were hurt accordingly. Citicorp will likely increase fees and interest rates on their customers to cover the 2 billion... etc. etc.

If you don't know someone affected by the recent round of malfeasance, you are just not paying much attention. This is a serious problem that shouldn't be swept under the rug, or minimalized with trite euphemisms.
[right][snapback]96005[/snapback][/right]

Nor blown out of proportion by screeching that the sky is falling.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 08:06 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 04:01 PM)

Nor blown out of proportion by screeching that the sky is falling.
[right][snapback]96009[/snapback][/right]

Now you are just being ridiculous.

Whatever.

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 08:12 PM

QUOTE(Bee @ Jun 21 2005, 03:01 PM)

Nonsense. The only obvious motivations of those involved was greed.

A word you may personally find distateful, and whose practice I find abominable. Most people recognize obscenity when they see it.
[right][snapback]96007[/snapback][/right]

What appears obvious to you or me doesn't change that a speculation is being made.

Criminals are punished for what they did, not why.

Bee

Jun 21 2005, 08:24 PM

QUOTE(Tom Servo @ Jun 21 2005, 04:09 PM)

What appears obvious to you or me doesn't change that a speculation is being made.

Criminals are punished for what they did, not why.
[right][snapback]96012[/snapback][/right]

When the crime is widespread, it is foolish not to look into the why of it and attempt to remove the conditions that led up to it. Until you do, the same thing will happen again and again.

Changing the argument doesn't work to obliterate the facts of the matter. The gap in incomes is because these wealthy elite see themelves as above the law, and their greed has been excused and minimized by too many that ought to know better. That gap has gotten to the point where it is threatening democracy.

Don't take my word, look at the recent remarks of Greenspan.

Enough already with the minimalization! Just how bad should it get until people like you take it seriously?

Tom Servo

Jun 21 2005, 09:05 PM

A few score (to exaggerate the true numbers) amongst an entire nation of honest upstanding businesspeople --such as yourself-- is hardly the stuff of an anarco-capitalist crime wave.

That you believe that big business wants to, or already has, taken over gubmint could quite possibly be indicitive that they're big and powerful enough to warrant such efforts. Yet your answers to those perceived problems seem to involve even more gubmint power and control! That'll learn 'em, huh?

As for Greenspan, anyone can interperet virtually anything he says their own way and be right. He's so nebulous and vague that his own wife couldn't tell when he was proposing to her.