Talk-Polywell.org

choff wrote:Actually MSimon raises a valid point, the drug war violence in Mexico will eventually spill across the border if the corruption remains unchecked.

Take note of the protest movement gathering in Mexico itself. Eventually this will take the form of a protest against political corruption. When this also spills across the border, US politicians will be faced with a choice, go to prison or create a dictatorship. Which way do you think the choice will fall?

I'm both glad and bothered that I live in Texas, as while I can get a firearm pretty much anytime I want, I keep seeing and hearing things such as this that make me think I need to get one sooner rather than later. I know of very few people that would voluntarily give up such power.

ladajo wrote:

MSimon wrote:

rjaypeters wrote:Please accept my congratulations...yet another thread jacked for the Great Drug Debate.

If you are tired of the debate you could always work to end Prohibition.

"The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It's possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government." - William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995

But if you like corrupt government, corrupt police, and a corrupted people by all means support Prohibition. I know of no more effective way to promote all three.

My assumption these days is that any politician who supports Prohibition is in the pay of the cartels. Directly or through campaign "contributions".

Stop recycling the same arguement that is dated.

It is my understanding that the truth is never dated. F still equals ma. And easy money corrupts people. When government is involved it is worse. There is no countervailing force to the man with a gun. Except other men with guns. And I know of few who would wish for that. I'm hoping for a peaceful solution. But who knows? The people through the agency of government have started a war on a significant fraction of the nation. What if that fraction decides to fight back in an organized or even flash mob kind of way? Always a possibility.

And it all looks so stable until it isn't. See crisis - housing.

Bubbles burst.

You keep citing the same old sources. Try some new ones. Or do they differ in the effects you are mining for?

You are perfectly correct that you can info warfare you opinion and spin your message using your mining techniques, especially by obfuscating the sources you use into contemporary authorities when in fact many are not.
By doing so you are using the same techiques you accuse others of using.

It is transparent.

I enjoy your argument, and your points. But your tendancy to use dated recycled materials is getting boring and proganda-ish. Freshen up a bit.

The most effective way to argue your point is the traditional way to use both sides of the issue. Make your thesis. Make your points/cites. Make a counter argument/cites. The arguments and counters can be reversed, it matters not. Then, make your conclusions. It is ok that your conclusions may or may not agree with your thesis. That is the whole point to critical thinking. Propaganda always stinks, and that is what you are doing. It gets believers, that are ready to jump on the next bandwagon as soon as it shows up. Honest argument changes minds, and that is not what you are doing. It gets fundamental buy in, that is more likely to stay the course.

"Too Big To Jail: Wall Street Executives Unlikely To Face Criminal Charges, Source Says"

First two paragraphs (emphasis mine):

"A last-ditch effort by federal and state law enforcement authorities to hold Wall Street accountable for nearly bringing down the U.S. economy is unlikely to lead to any criminal charges against big bank executives, according to a source close to the investigation.

Barring a "hail mary pass," said the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is still ongoing, the members of a task force President Barack Obama formed in January to investigate fraud in the residential mortgage bond industry will instead most likely bring civil lawsuits against some of the banks involved, though it isn't clear when these cases might come."

There are enough sordid details contained in the original article to turn my stomach. Here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/0 ... 57926.html

I believe everyone's cynicism is entirely justified. A question: The President's task force was formed in January? Of this year? Surely, you must be joking!

rjaypeters wrote:"Too Big To Jail: Wall Street Executives Unlikely To Face Criminal Charges, Source Says"

First two paragraphs (emphasis mine):

"A last-ditch effort by federal and state law enforcement authorities to hold Wall Street accountable for nearly bringing down the U.S. economy is unlikely to lead to any criminal charges against big bank executives, according to a source close to the investigation.

I believe everyone's cynicism is entirely justified. A question: The President's task force was formed in January? Of this year? Surely, you must be joking!

http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing- ... ssessment/

Indeed the federal government through misguided policies set the rules of the game; but fraudulent loans, packaged into fraudulent securities and sold to supposedly sophisticated clients were created by financiers criminally taking advantage of the aforementioned game.

So, we probably won't get criminal penalties for Wall Streeters. Perhaps we should be satisfied with hurting them where their hearts really are, in their wallets. Mere impoverishment should do...

It's unreasonable to expect businessmen, and anyone else, to not play to best advantage given the rules in effect. But we can hope the rules support playing nicely. Having a bit of experience in game design, I know you have to design with power players in mind. And I'm sure the same applies to the law. If the rules make dishonesty pay, expect dishonest business.

In addition, much of the dishonesty in the mortgages that imploded was borrowers not accurately reporting their finances when they got the loan. The rules penalized banks that were too aggressive in declining borrowers with bad credit.

The only person who has gone to jail from Wallstreet was Bernie madoff. His crime was ripping off Wallstreet.

"Why Won't Obama Go After Criminal Bankers?"

Snip

On 24 September 2013, Syracuse University's "TRAC Reports," which is the only organization that tabulates the federal government's prosecutions of elite financial crimes, headlined "Slump in FBI White Collar Crime Prosecutions," and reported that "prosecutions of white collar criminals recommended by the FBI are substantially down during the first ten months of Fiscal Year 2013." This was especially so in the Wall Street area: "In the last year, the judicial District Court recording the largest projected drop in the rate of white collar crime prosecutions -- 27.8 percent -- was the Southern District of New York (Manhattan)."

Thus, President Obama has kept the promise that he had made in secret to the assembled Wall Street CEOs inside the White House on 27 March 2009 (but that was leaked out), "My administration ... is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

Snip

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zues ... 61086.html

You never hear much about Iceland in the main stream media these days, but they're heading for a 2% unemployment rate. They let the TBTF banks fail, the results are in.

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/01/banks- ... mployment/

This one's for you Choff.




A few years ago in a small town, robbers entered a bank and one of them shouted: "Don't move! The money belongs to the bank. Your lives belong to you. Immediately all the people in the bank laid on the floor quietly and without panic.

This is an example of how the correct wording of a sentence can make everyone change their world view.

One woman lay on the floor in a provocative manner. The robber approached her saying, " Ma'am, this is a robbery not a rape. Please behave accordingly."

This is an example of how to behave professionally, and focus on the goal.

While running from the bank the young robber (who had a college degree) said to the older robber (who barely finished elementary school): "Hey, maybe we should count how much we stole." The older man replied: "Don't be stupid. It's a lot of money so let's wait for the news to be told how much money was taken from the bank."

This is an example of how life experience is more important than a degree.

After the robbery, the manager of the bank said to his accountant: "Let's call the cops." The accountant said: "Wait, before we do that let's add the $800,000 to the robbery of that we took to ourselves a few months ago and just say that it was stolen."

This is an example of taking advantage of an opportunity.

The following day it was reported in the news that the bank was robbed of $ 3 million. The robbers counted the money, but they found only $1 million so they started to grumble. "We risked our lives for $1 million, while the bank's management robbed two million dollars without blinking? Maybe its better to learn how to work the system, instead of being a simple robber."

This is an example of how knowledge can be more useful than power.

Moral :Give a person a gun, and he can rob a bank . Give a person a bank, and he can rob everyone.

via R.W. Forsythe




http://curmudgeonlyskeptical.blogspot.c ... heist.html

choff wrote:You never hear much about Iceland in the main stream media these days, but they're heading for a 2% unemployment rate. They let the TBTF banks fail, the results are in.

http://www.maxkeiser.com/2014/01/banks- ... mployment/

And why did they let those banks fail?

Because this:



The people of Iceland basically told their government to let the TBTF's burn, or join the banks on the bonfire.

The Icelanders had a referendum on bank bailouts and turned them down, so the British PM put them on a terrorist watchlist for it.

And the next bailout is already written into law, thanks to successful lobbying by Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. Both parties in on it, as usual (they always are when shifting money to cronies is involved).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomgroenfel ... rivatives/

HR 2374 is great too(not sure how far that one got though).
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/eco ... reet-bills

33-year-old banker leaps to his death from JPMorgan’s Hong Kong headquarters, latest in string of apparent suicides

The latest incident comes at a delicate time for the financial industry, when a spate of deaths have alarmed observers.

Last month, a 39-year-old JP Morgan vice president died after falling from the roof of the bank’s European headquarters in London.

Then on Feb. 3, Ryan Crane, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. employee who in a 14-year career at the New York-based bank rose to executive director of a unit that trades blocks of stocks for clients, died from unknown causes in his Stamford, Connecticut, home at 37 years old. The cause of death will be determined when a toxicology report is completed in about six weeks, a spokeswoman for the state’s chief medical examiner told Bloomberg.


The series of untimely deaths among finance workers and business leaders over the past three weeks extends beyond JPMorgan.

On Sunday, Jan. 26, London police found William Broeksmit, a 58-year-old former senior executive at Deutsche Bank AG, dead in his home after an apparent suicide.

Here’s a look at a few more recent incidents: ...

http://business.financialpost.com/2014/ ... hong-kong/


As Leonard from Redneck Rampage used to say... "Hold on to your butt!"