D'Oh-bama!: If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Commodore Meh depends how far removed they are. If they knowingly aide/profit from criminal activity sure. If they just open up an account for someone who they don't know is a criminal, no. That's like blaming a hardware store for selling a terrorist fertilizer.

How a big US bank laundered billions from Mexico's murderous drug gangs

As the violence spread, billions of dollars of cartel cash began to seep into the global financial system. But a special investigation by the Observer reveals how the increasingly frantic warnings of one London whistleblower were ignored

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ico-drug-gangs

At the height of the 2008 banking crisis, Antonio Maria Costa, then head of the United Nations office on drugs and crime, said he had evidence to suggest the proceeds from drugs and crime were "the only liquid investment capital" available to banks on the brink of collapse. "Inter-bank loans were funded by money that originated from the drugs trade," he said. "There were signs that some banks were rescued that way."

Originally Posted by Commodore If they promise a specific recipe and deliver something else, that would be a contract violation. Not sure why a company would do that since it would destroy their reputation with customers. I remember when J&J recalled tens of millions of bottles of Tylenol despite no reported incidents.

What contract do they sign with end consumers? I doubt end consumers know anything about the drugs they buy. People ask for Tylenol for example, but they don't ask for acetaminophen.

The FDA has really strict requirements to make sure that these "contracts" exist; i.e consumers can expect not to be poisoned or die when they take medication. I find it somewhat frustrating that people have taken this for granted to the point where the FDA has become a pinata for people looking to cull "regulatory oversight". I mean, sure, the FDA goes a little crazy sometimes, but they do a lot of good work to make sure consumers can even have an expectation of a "contract obligation".

Small things like a cheaper excipient that creates a different metabolite that could create discomfort and in extreme cases death could be changed without the formula being affected significantly. The only thing that keeps that from happening too often is the fact that the FDA are somewhat bats**t crazy (in a good way). Let's face it too, consumers don't have enough information to even begin to know if these things would be happening. Like I said, how many people order acetaminophen?

[Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm People in the industry wouldn't say so.

What specifically in your post referenced anything I said? If the investment banker makes money for his client he certainly contributed. People leave high stress lucrative fields all the time. My high school calculus teacher left petroleum engineering after his wife died and took a 90% pay cut in the process.

Risk management grid computing contributes tons to the scientific community and those working in the industry publish all the time.

Again, I respect your altruistic position, but you are taking it a bit far and not making it in a way I can follow. I suspect you have some general feelings about the subject but not really completely sorted them all out. Which is fine.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by CaseyH What specifically in your post referenced anything I said? If the investment banker makes money for his client he certainly contributed. People leave high stress lucrative fields all the time. My high school calculus teacher left petroleum engineering after his wife died and took a 90% pay cut in the process. Risk management grid computing contributes tons to the scientific community and those working in the industry publish all the time. Again, I respect your altruistic position, but you are taking it a bit far and not making it in a way I can follow. I suspect you have some general feelings about the subject but not really completely sorted them all out. Which is fine.

I think the general divergence in my perspective and yours is that you think raising money for others is contributing to society, whereas I don't nesscesarily think so. I think money CAN be used for great things---for vaccines that could save millions for example, but too often it isn't.

I also have some general qualms about the concept because investment bankers don't nesscesarily make decisions in the interest of the client either---a big point of the famous Greg Smith letter, for example.

Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs

TODAY is my last day at Goldman Sachs. After almost 12 years at the firm — first as a summer intern while at Stanford, then in New York for 10 years, and now in London — I believe I have worked here long enough to understand the trajectory of its culture, its people and its identity. And I can honestly say that the environment now is as toxic and destructive as I have ever seen it. To put the problem in the simplest terms, the interests of the client continue to be sidelined in the way the firm operates and thinks about making money. Goldman Sachs is one of the world’s largest and most important investment banks and it is too integral to global finance to continue to act this way. The firm has veered so far from the place I joined right out of college that I can no longer in good conscience say that I identify with what it stands for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/op...pagewanted=all

I also don't think taking advice from Wall Street on risk management is a sound academic practice. Value-at-risk models, for example, are close to a complete sham. Wall Street's contributions to academic research are...minimal especially when one considers the flip-side of the dangerous toys they have invented that can at any time, crash the global economy.

I'll say too that I do have very strong feelings about this topic, ones that do color my perspective. I'm not nesscesarily putting the bankers in an "evil" camp though. Some people are motivated by money, but it's their life, and so I try not to make any personal judgements when it comes to that choice, given that I have no idea how their shoes fit. I'm just saying that systematically speaking, it would be nicer to see more people be recognized and rewarded better for contributing to the world in science, medicine etc. rather than in developing arcane financial or accounting tricks. I feel like we have reached an understanding on that.

You're probably right that I am too idealistic. But it has always been my personal belief that things won't begin to change, unless some people think they can.

[Northside Storm]

This is a perfect example of somewhere where I think financial firms are actually making money destroying society rather than contributing to it---it's a very perverse set of incentives. These corporations take so much from America, and contribute so very little. It is why I sincerely believe President Obama was right in the premise of his speech.

Need a HILARIOUS last-minute Halloween costume this weekend? How about a foreclosed home? Or even funnier, the ex-homeowners and currently-homeless families who have seen their dreams shattered by cruel, insouciant banks and law firms specializing in kicking those people out as fast as possible! A former employee of the largest "foreclosure mill" in New York sent the Times photos of their Halloween party last year, and apparently some of the workers actually did this. Prepare to choke back some bile/tears! Joe Nocera corresponded with the "appalled" former employee the Buffalo law firm of Steven J. Baum, who described a "cavalier attitude" amongst the workforce there. The firm is currently under investigation by Eric Schneiderman, and settled a DOJ investigation for $2 million over whether they had "filed misleading pleadings, affidavits, and mortgage assignments in the state and federal courts in New York." A State Supreme Court judge has described the law firm as "operating in a parallel mortgage universe, unrelated to the real universe." Employees responded soberly by dressing up as that very judge for Halloween. A flack told Nocera, "“It has been suggested that some employees dress in ... attire that mocks or attempts to belittle the plight of those who have lost their homes. Nothing could be further from the truth.” They go on to claim that the article is “another attempt by The New York Times to attack our firm and our work.”

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/29/fore...ed.php#photo-1

[Raven]

You know, if you've got off shore bank accounts, they didn't happen on their own. A lot of smart unethical people helped you protect your inherited wealth.

[mfastx]

The idea that business owners don't/didn't beneift from being in this country and the government is laughable.

[Commodore]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm The FDA has really strict requirements to make sure that these "contracts" exist; i.e consumers can expect not to be poisoned or die when they take medication. I find it somewhat frustrating that people have taken this for granted to the point where the FDA has become a pinata for people looking to cull "regulatory oversight". I mean, sure, the FDA goes a little crazy sometimes, but they do a lot of good work to make sure consumers can even have an expectation of a "contract obligation".

The FDA does far more than that. They decide what drugs we are or are not allowed to take. People complain about the War on Drugs, yet the FDA performs this exact same function (drug prohibition) and everyone thinks it's a wonderful thing.

The claim that quality assurance would not exist without the government is dubious. It's necessary for any company that wants to keep its customers.

Small things like a cheaper excipient that creates a different metabolite that could create discomfort and in extreme cases death could be changed without the formula being affected significantly. The only thing that keeps that from happening too often is the fact that the FDA are somewhat bats**t crazy (in a good way). Let's face it too, consumers don't have enough information to even begin to know if these things would be happening. Like I said, how many people order acetaminophen?

Sounds like there is demand for information. If only there were a mechanism for satisfying demand.

I could pay an independent quality assurance firm to put their sticker of approval on my drug and gain market share. And I could only buy drugs with that sticker on it. And if the drug were faulty/bad, the drug company and quality assurance firm would lose their customers. I don't see why the FDA would have more of an incentive to do a better job.

The bats**t craziness of the FDA is not necessarily a good thing. They prevent or delay drugs from coming to market, effectively deciding what risks I am allowed to take with my body. We never hear about the people who die because a drug wasn't available. No FDA minister will get fired for that.

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by Commodore I could pay an independent quality assurance firm to put their sticker of approval on my drug and gain market share. And I could only buy drugs with that sticker on it. And if the drug were faulty/bad, the drug company and quality assurance firm would lose their customers. I don't see why the FDA would have more of an incentive to do a better job.

This screams conflict of interest.

I see it as akin to the "issuer pays" system of bond ratings. If you want the country to move more to that model considering the complete failure of it in 2008, I don't think we can see eye-to-eye on this point.

Also, it's incredibly hard for individual consumers to detect and to broadcast that something is wrong with a drug unless people are dying en masse. They don't know about drug-drug interactions and etc. There's a reason why the FDA holds these lengthy trials and drugs don't get approved; it's because they look over every possible ramification. Whether or not you think exhaustive thoroughness is worth the time can be a fair point, but I rather think it's better to be safe than sorry with mass-market drugs.

The FDA has a better incentive to find problems caused by drugs because it's the job to protect consumers. Big Pharma's job is to make money, period. If they can do it by cutting corners and screwing people, they would, and paying people to validate their efforts would be foolhardy at best.

Who would catch them in the act? An agency that is funded by the people to protect the people, or a private contractor that is paid by a company in question to validate its' products?

[Air Langhi]

Originally Posted by bigtexxx Typical liberal thinking, that all successful people owe their government. Quickly followed by a demand that successful people pay even more in taxes so Oblamer can redistribute wealth. man I can't wait until that clown is out of office. He's so unbelievably bad

I hear there isn't a government in Somalia. Why don't you start a business there?

[Raven]

Originally Posted by mfastx The idea that business owners don't/didn't beneift from being in this country and the government is laughable.

Winner winner chicken dinner.

[bingsha10]

Too bad all Obama's ways of making the ungrateful corporations give back to the community (presumably increased taxes and regulations) only hurt the small business owner who can't profitably expand while keeping up with the costs of compliance. Meanwhile big business' strengthen their grip on the status quo.

But that's sort of the point anyway isn't it.

When Obama stops bailing big corporations out, then I'll believe he's a champion of the little guy.

[Classic]

Originally Posted by mfastx The idea that business owners don't/didn't beneift from being in this country and the government is laughable.

If it's so easy, why don't more people do it then? Why is wealth so consolidated then if everybody can just be a wealthy business owner since society and government easily allow for it?


This thread is so amusing. This is a typical class warfare rhetoric speech designed to separate people on the issue of money without calling out those who are truly responsible for the wealth gap today: bankers. The fact is, only a small amount of us have the balls to take risk and start a business/choose a more difficult trade to master and we should be able to reap the rewards of our risk without being constantly reminded by everyone on one side of a spectrum that government facilitated the whole damn thing in an effort to tax more. Those colluding & rigging the financial markets are the ones to call out, not those with an entrepreneurial spirt who have the ability to compete directly against corporate interests.

Typical politician.

[QdoubleA]

Originally Posted by Classic If it's so easy, why don't more people do it then? Why is wealth so consolidated then if everybody can just be a wealthy business owner since society and government easily allow for it? .

Go ahead and post where Northside said it was easy and everyone else can do it. I'll wait.

[Sweet Lou 4 2]

Originally Posted by bingsha10 Too bad all Obama's ways of making the ungrateful corporations give back to the community (presumably increased taxes and regulations) only hurt the small business owner who can't profitably expand while keeping up with the costs of compliance. Meanwhile big business' strengthen their grip on the status quo. But that's sort of the point anyway isn't it. When Obama stops bailing big corporations out, then I'll believe he's a champion of the little guy.

haha, this stuff cracks me up so much. I have never heard a small business complain about environmental, financial, or pharmaceutical regulations - the ones Republicans rail against the most.

[Refman]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm This is a perfect example of somewhere where I think financial firms are actually making money destroying society rather than contributing to it---it's a very perverse set of incentives. These corporations take so much from America, and contribute so very little. It is why I sincerely believe President Obama was right in the premise of his speech. http://gothamist.com/2011/10/29/fore...ed.php#photo-1

The Baum case was awful. However, keep this in mind...

The assignment documents could have been done correctly very easily. An assignment can be executed and recorded at any time. It does not create the transfer, it simply puts the world on notice of the transfer. A mortgage company hires a law firm to ensure that things are done correctly under the relevant law. Baum got in trouble because Baum, not the institutional clients, decided to cut corners and file fraudulent pleadings.

[basso]

Originally Posted by Northside Storm These corporations take so much from America, and contribute so very little.

what kind of device did you type your post on? did you build it, or did a corporation?

and, while we're on the subject, what precisely do you contribute to America?

[Northside Storm]

Originally Posted by basso what kind of device did you type your post on? did you build it, or did a corporation? and, while we're on the subject, what precisely do you contribute to America?

I am posting this on a Dell. A quick look tells me that Dell has a return on equity of 35.90%. So, you can say that I was part of that 35.90%. Too bad I don't get tax breaks, but Dell does for making these profits. The government kowtows to Dell, but doesn't to me, even if I am one of the end consumers that powers the economy.

Dell is an American multinational. I purchased this product and most likely provided jobs in America, and supported an American company. It can be fair to say that without the corporation this computer wouldn't exist---but equally fair to point out that without able consumers, infrastructure, and the talent needed to push ideas forwards, there would be no corporations.

[Northside Storm]

For you, Basso.

AN APOCRYPHAL tale is told about Henry Ford II showing Walter Reuther, the veteran leader of the United Automobile Workers, around a newly automated car plant. “Walter, how are you going to get those robots to pay your union dues,” gibed the boss of Ford Motor Company. Without skipping a beat, Reuther replied, “Henry, how are you going to get them to buy your cars?” Whether the exchange was true or not is irrelevant. The point was that any increase in productivity required a corresponding increase in the number of consumers capable of buying the product. The original Henry Ford, committed to raising productivity and lowering prices remorselessly, appreciated this profoundly—and insisted on paying his workers twice the going rate, so they could afford to buy his cars.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babba...l-intelligence



http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...low/?mobile=nc

[basso]

Did Obama kill Osama, or did "someone else?"

[pgabriel]

Originally Posted by basso Did Obama kill Osama, or did "someone else?"

not gwb