AIG bonuses, and now Goldman Sachs: we're taking alllll the money

[MacAllister]

AIG apparently has 235 million bucks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718910241620823.html#articleTabs%3Darticle) they still want to give away as bonuses...

But even better, this arrest (http://www.reuters.com/article/fundsFundsNews/idUSN0518022220090705) has led to a very weird Wall Street story starting to unravel, and allegations of insider-trading resulting in profits exceeding 100 million dollars a day for Goldman-Sachs.

Because, well, some capitalists apparently need to steal hundreds of millions of dollars to keep up with the Jones. Or the Madoffs. Or the Enrons. Or...

Related linkage:
http://correntewire.com/great_american_bubble_machine_0

http://zerohedge.blogspot.com/2009/07/citadel-joins-program-trading.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/6/750420/-Breaking:-FBI-Arrest-Opens-Goldman-Sachs-Pandoras-Box

http://vets74.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/7/750786/-Incredibly-Shrinking-Liquidity-as-Goldman-Flushed-Quant-Trading

http://autopope.livejournal.com/494608.html

[alleycat]

A billion here, a billion there . . . pretty soon it adds up to real money.

[MacAllister]

If Goldman Sachs goes down, it could do some pretty bad things to a lot of people.

[LaceWing]

It's hard to find the lines to read between in some of those links. (the live journal link is for lj users only) The Bloomberg article linked below covers, as far as I can see, what the others do, except for the "PPT" matter. *

Daily Kos: State of the Nation (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/7/750786/-Incredibly-Shrinking-Liquidity-as-Goldman-Flushed-Quant-Trading)

There are ways, technically tricky to explain, that some traders with special access and certain kinds of other software can peek at other trades before they are even made, and then get in their own trades before them.

Goldman Sachs Loses Grip on Its Doomsday Machine: Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg.com (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=aFeyqdzYcizc)

Goldman stated that the software stolen could be used to manipulate the markets. Weil wonders if others will wonder whether Goldman might do so.

*Edit to add: that "quant" DKos article brings in patents, other companies, NYSE computer trading vulnerabilities; wish it gave a timeline for who was doing what when.

*Edit to replace quotes with paraphrasing.

[LaceWing]

Also from the DKos quant article is a brief on the Working Group on Financial Markets, aka Plunge Protection Team (PPT). GS position in the PPT means they have some access to the trading system that others don't.

So, in sum, what I'm getting out of these articles is an allegation that GS has a government mandate (initially establish by Reagan) that grants them special access to NYSE computers (although others, like Bloomberg, might have similar access) and GS may also have been running a sideline to peek at other trades before they are actually made, allowing them to make oodles.

And . . . I think I have to go back and remove the quotes in post #4 for TOS reasons. Too bad, when all we want to do is discuss.

[LaceWing]

After searching Google News for Goldman Sachs and reading a few other articles, I can see that GS statement via Weil at Bloomberg could spin another way. Misuse of the system can be done by knowing a competitor's quantitative methods, and then trading against those methods. The FBI is identifying the stolen material as something along these lines.

That is not the same thing as what DKos and Zero Hedge are suggesting; they are linking the intrigue to the guy's patent for the IDT company and telcom packets. And they seem to think that company is hard to figure as having use for such a patent -- well, coming down cautiously, owning a patent means you can sell it. But there are a couple other observations they make about that company, like how are they staying in business?

[Bird of Prey]

I hope the Feds have the ballroom dancer and his wife protected. . . .

If Goldman goes down, it would mean the worst for the world economy - in that I agree, Mac - but in truth the financial system is in such need of an overhaul that I am inclined to think that it would be best to bite the bullet now. I just don't see such a corrupt system lasting without global upheaval on an even greater scale.

This may be the latest in aftershocks but it is by no means the last. And it underscores what I've angrily come to recognize: wealth is not obtained by the smartest of the hardest working in an unregulated capitalistic society. It really doesn't work that way as whole. Wealth is achieved through corruption and nepotism.

[cethklein]

I don't think it's even the bonuses themselves that bothers me as much. To me, the sheer audacity of these people is the biggest issue. The fact that they are so soulless that they can keep giving out these bonuses knowing full well how people will react is worrisome. The reason being that when you've got people that are so out of touch, there is really no way to reign them in. They are what I call "corporate sociopaths". They have absolutely no concern for right or wrong or who they trample.

I'm afraid there's nothing the government can do. I've been saying this all along, just wait, some nut-job is going to go shoot up an AIG board room meeting before these people will take notice (and even then they may not.)

[Bird of Prey]

Well, I think if the investigation into Goldman confirms that its trading practices were long recognized and accepted by regulatory agencies, we can be assured that the current investment system cannot be salvaged.

Agreed, there is something really terrifying about the audacity of these people. It's as if they are complete sociopaths. . . .

[MacAllister]

http://pragcap.com/the-goldman-sachs-conspiracy

They ARE complete sociopaths, as far as I can tell--the Enron tapes illustrated that, all too clearly. What's that pithy saying about disorganized democracy being no match for organized greed?

[Williebee]

Does anyone else wish they'd written this book already?

[LaceWing]

Matt Taibbi: "organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy"
from his Rolling Stone article, also available in your first link, Mac.

I read this at RS a while ago, and was no less sickened on a second read today.

That latest link to Pragmatic Capitalism states that after the GS code was allegedly stolen, GS stopped doing program trades. And then the NYSE stopped reporting program trades.

There needs to be a complete disconnect between the casino market and the real economy. Period. Not all of the market, not real stock or real commodities, but all the side bets. For a start.

What thoroughly burns my butt at the moment is how the rules changed over the years -- since the protections following the 1929 crash -- but the rest of us weren't told.

And, good grief. Goldman Sachs paid income tax at the rate of 1 per cent. Not to mention the occasional paltry fines they paid, which are just a negligible cost of doing business for them.


Bank of America upped its rating of GS today to "buy."

[robeiae]

Goldman-Sachs was essentially in the same boat as Bear-Sterns, at one point in time.

Bear-Sterns was allowed to go under, but Goldman-Sachs was saved when the NEW YORK FEDERAL RESERVE decided to allow these companies more overnight lending (simple version).

Who was in charge of the New York Federal Reserve, at that point in time?

Yep. Timothy Geithner.

Read this (http://www.amazon.com/House-Cards-Hubris-Wretched-Excess/dp/0385528264).

[Bird of Prey]

Well, the financial institutions that house people's economic futures can no longer be trusted to independence. Where goes GM, so must go the GS. . . .

[MacAllister]

Yeah - the more I read, the more it all looks sort of like massive world-wide check-kiting schemes between a handful of banks and money-companies.

[William Haskins]

the new rolling stone story:

http://sites.google.com/site/disclosuredelta/

required reading.

these fuckers run the govt and have for a while:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?_r=3&ref=business

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-goldman-sachs-rule-world.html

Everyone agrees that Goldman Sachs pretty much runs the government's economic and financial agencies.

As the New York Times explained (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?_r=2&ref=business) last October in a must-read 4 page article, the presence of Goldman Sachs alumni in virtually all of the top government financial posts is so great that their team is dubbed "Government Sachs": Indeed, Goldman’s presence in the [Treasury] department and around the federal response to the financial crisis is so ubiquitous that other bankers and competitors have given the star-studded firm a new nickname: Government Sachs. The Times points out that Goldman alums include:
Former treasury secretary Hank Paulson
Paulson's bailout chief Neel Kashkari
Interim Treasury investment officer Reuben Jeffrey
Key Treasury players Dan Jester, Steve Shafran, Edward C. Forst, and Robert K. Steel
Key New York Federal Reserve players Stephen Friedman (head of the New York Fed board of governors, who sat on Goldman's board and owned a substantial stake in Goldman while he was making official decisions (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124139546243981801.html#mod=rss_whats_news_us_bu siness) - and see this (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/05/conflict-of-interest-is-not-conflict-of.html)), William C. Dudley (head of the New York Fed's unit that buys and sells government securities), and E. Gerald Corrigan (charged with convening a group to analyze risk on Wall Street)And there are many more Goldman alums who have been - or are soon to be - appointed. For example, Obama has named Gary Gensler (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090406/scheer) to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. And Geithner named Mark Patterson as his top aide last January (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-27-lobbyist_N.htm)
As Glenn Greenwald writes (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/30/ownership/index.html) today:
Here (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Former-Barney-Frank-staffer-now-top-Goldman-Sachs-lobbyist-43914907.html) is just one random item this week announcing a couple of standard personnel moves: Goldman Sachs' new top lobbyist was recently the top staffer to Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., on the House Financial Services Committee chaired by Frank. Michael Paese, a registered lobbyist for the Securities Industries and Financial Markets Association since he left Frank's committee in September, will join Goldman as director of government affairs, a role held last year by former Tom Daschle intimate, Mark Patterson, now the chief of staff at the Treasury Department. This is not Paese's first swing through the Wall Street-Congress revolving door: he previously worked at JP Morgan and Mercantile Bankshares, and in between served as senior minority counsel at the Financial Services Committee.
So: Paese went from Chairman Frank's office to be the top lobbyist at Goldman, and shortly before that, Goldman dispatched Paese's predecessor, close Tom Daschle associate Mark Patterson, to be Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, himself a protege of former Goldman CEO Robert Rubin and a virtually wholly owned subsidiary of the banking industry (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/business/27geithner.html). That's all part of what Desmond Lachman -- American Enterprise Institute fellow, former chief emerging market strategist at Salomon Smith Barney and top IMF official (no socialist he) -- recently described as (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/25/AR2009032502226.html) "Goldman Sachs's seeming lock on high-level U.S. Treasury jobs."

[LaceWing]

I recall reading online some coverage of the Bear-Sterns saga -- particularly Dimon's involvement. Maybe it was the same author. My bookmarks are a kludge, or I'd post a link.

[MattW]

the new rolling stone story:

http://sites.google.com/site/disclosuredelta/

required reading.

these fuckers run the govt and have for a while:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?_r=3&ref=business

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/04/does-goldman-sachs-rule-world.html
You just have to look at the state of NJ and our Goldman Sachs Golden Governor to see how tangled they are in politics, and how inept they are at running anything more financially complex than a lemonade stand.

[Bird of Prey]

Yeah - the more I read, the more it all looks sort of like massive world-wide check-kiting schemes between a handful of banks and money-companies.


And I have no doubt that is what it is. I was thinking today what a mess all of it was, until I realized why the internet and its introduction to such a fierce pursuit of knowledge has become such a profound tool.

And due to communication on a global scale - and the expose of that which plagues societies - I find myself quite optimistic about a new dawn. Excessive wealth vis a vis corruption is on the top of the plague list. Knowledge of it is the first step toward its eradication.

[robeiae]

And I have no doubt that is what it is. I was thinking today what a mess all of it was, until I realized why the internet and its introduction to such a fierce pursuit of knowledge has become such a profound tool.

And due to communication on a global scale - and the expose of that which plagues societies - I find myself quite optimistic about a new dawn. Excessive wealth vis a vis corruption is on the top of the plague list. Knowledge of it is the first step toward its eradication.
Let's not forget that the internet is--in fact--a primary tool for those in the financial industry. Electronic transfers have become the norm, and that's a huge factor, here. Take out the 'net, and much of this stuff slows down, to a point where some of the nefarious stuff would actually have to pass under someone's nose in a hard copy, maybe even requiring some signatures...

[LaceWing]

side note: I'm pretty sure there's one Rolling Stone story out. I read it at least a month ago on the RS site -- but you know how magazines put the October issue on the newstands in September? It's like that. I noted at the time that the issue date was ahead of the date on which I was reading it.

On pragcap.com, I looked at some posts and noted that Matt Taibbi is working on another follow-up article. BOLO.

Edit to add: agreed that the RS article, reproduced it seems all over the net, is required reading. It's accessible to anyone capable of comprehending a novel, and sphincter-locking scary.

[LaceWing]

Maybe "for profit capitalism" will be the last bubble to burst?

All you philosophy of economics types -- go channel some Adam Smith and E. F. Schumacher. Make us a new sustainable and non-profit supply-and-demand system.

[Gregg]

Well, the financial institutions that house people's economic futures can no longer be trusted to independence. Where goes GM, so must go the GS. . . .


Yeah, and let Barney Frank and Chris Dodd run our financial institutions?

As for your post # 7, PoB wrote :

"Wealth is achieved through corruption and nepotism."
I suggest that the word "Some" should be placed before that sentence.
I know plenty of rich people who are hard working and honest.

[ReallyRong]

I'm not a financial whizz, but I do know that some time ago there was a mini collapse in Spain with banks going into the financial market and making huge losses, and their Parliament swiftly drafted a law that it made it illegal for any financial institution to speculate against deals that they couldn't cover. (ie They had to have enough money in the kitty to meet the speculation if it went t*ts up). I think that's what we need, and no, I don't have any links to back this up. In the meantime, having been prevented from entering the sub-prime market, the Spanish bank Santander has been buying up half of the UK High St.

[Bird of Prey]

Let's not forget that the internet is--in fact--a primary tool for those in the financial industry. Electronic transfers have become the norm, and that's a huge factor, here. Take out the 'net, and much of this stuff slows down, to a point where some of the nefarious stuff would actually have to pass under someone's nose in a hard copy, maybe even requiring some signatures...


Rob, I think that ultimately, people without morals would find a way to betray their own for no other reason than amoral selfishness. It's their sociopathic nature. And that means that they'd find a some way to betray their peers, their subordinates and especially their country for no other reason than pure selfishness. Thus, for the sake of decent Americans, they need to spend life imprisoned. But what we ultimately need is a country that stops rewarding these people for no other reason than they "dodged" ethics aka the system that was meant to protect their countrymen/women. In other words, we need to stop admiring the rich. They should be viewed with a certain scrutiny and suspicion, and held to an ethical and unwavering standard.

[Bird of Prey]

Yeah, and let Barney Frank and Chris Dodd run our financial institutions?

As for your post # 7, PoB wrote :

"Wealth is achieved through corruption and nepotism."
I suggest that the word "Some" should be placed before that sentence.
I know plenty of rich people who are hard working and honest.

I know very few decent rich; and I'm betting I know more than you. Most of the rich I know would make any decent person vomit.

[Gregg]

Maybe, but we can't be sure can we.
Now if you are talking about "old money" vs "new money", I might agree. "Old money" people appreciate their wealth and where it came from much more than the "new money" folks.

According to the IRS there are about 80,000 charitable foundations in the USA (many family foundations). They gave away over $30 billion dollars (2005 stats). More than half have assets under $1 million.
Certainly there have been abuses by some foundations, but most "spend" their funds much more efficiently than the US Government.

[Don]

I know very few decent rich; and I'm betting I know more than you. Most of the rich I know would make any decent person vomit.
Unlike the fine upstanding politicians that should be in charge of all the excess wealth instead. :rolleyes:

[Bird of Prey]

Unlike the fine upstanding politicians that should be in charge of all the excess wealth instead. :rolleyes:

Corporate tyranny is not the same as a government that must respond to the public. And you have no better suggestion, Don. What do you realistically propose, that we continue down the "Metropolis" path??

[Don]

When was the last time the government responded to the public? When they stopped the bailouts? When they brought all the troops home? When they stopped all the outrageous practices of the Bush Administration and arrested Bush and Cheney for war crimes?

How about if the goverment actually prosecutes theft and fraud, like they're supposed to do, instead of enabling the very crooks who have become rich from their collusion with their "regulating" buddies, not from honest production and trade in the marketplace.

Corporations are running amok and robbing the citizens, on this we agree. Believing that government has any interest in solving the problem is where we part paths. I've seen nothing to convince me that they are either interested in, or capable of, curbing the crimes going on every day.

We don't need more laws that the enforcers can selectively enforce or ignore to the benefit of their buddies. We need way fewer laws, and a government that actually enforces the laws that are on the books.

[Don]

Corporate tyranny is not the same as government, on that we also agree. Corporations don't have a legal sanction to initiate force, unlike government. They can't throw you off your land, or take your money to spend on projects to their benefit; it takes government to do that.

[Robert Toy]

When was the last time the government responded to the public? When they stopped the bailouts? When they brought all the troops home? When they stopped all the outrageous practices of the Bush Administration and arrested Bush and Cheney for war crimes?

How about if the goverment actually prosecutes theft and fraud, like they're supposed to do, instead of enabling the very crooks who have become rich from their collusion with their "regulating" buddies, not from honest production and trade in the marketplace.

Corporations are running amok and robbing the citizens, on this we agree. Believing that government has any interest in solving the problem is where we part paths. I've seen nothing to convince me that they are either interested in, or capable of, curbing the crimes going on every day.

We don't need more laws that the enforcers can selectively enforce or ignore to the benefit of their buddies. We need way fewer laws, and a government that actually enforces the laws that are on the books.
The government will listen to the public when the public can offer as much lobbying money as the corporations

[Don]

Bingo, Robert.

[sulong]

The government will listen to the public when the public can offer as much lobbying money as the corporations

Thats one way.
On the other hand, offering up something from to other end of the pendulum, would encourage much quicker attentiveness. Death/Life in prison.

[Gregg]

How about some personal responsibility?

We can throw the rotten politicians out of office, but we rarely do.
We can stop buying products from corporations we think are corrupt, but we rarely do.

So instead, we act like victims and ask government bail us out and save us from our own ignorance and/or laziness.

Remember Pogo: "We have met the enemy and he is us"

[beezle]

Maybe, but we can't be sure can we.
Now if you are talking about "old money" vs "new money", I might agree. "Old money" people appreciate their wealth and where it came from much more than the "new money" folks.

Well, that's because Old Money people are simply better than us peons. New Money is even worse, peasants without breeding who have the nerve to think they can rise above their station.

[Robert Toy]

How about some personal responsibility?

Is there a Csar that handles personal responsibility?

[Plot Device]

Is there a Csar that handles personal responsibility?


The Morality Czar??

The Character Czar??

The Integrity Czar??

[LaceWing]

Is there a Csar that handles personal responsibility?

I hereby crown thee overlord of thy very own self, and present to thee this magical sceptre by which thee may thus crown another.

(insert magical photo-shopped sceptre)

[Robert Toy]

I hereby crown thee overlord of thy very own self, and present to thee this magical sceptre by which thee may thus crown another.

(insert magical photo-shopped sceptre)
Wow!…. I’m getting dizzy

This is soooo wrong


I need someone to hold my hand

[robeiae]

Great. Now we need a hand-holding Czar.

[Robert Toy]

cha ching…jobs, jobs, jobs

another success

[Bird of Prey]

Corporate tyranny is not the same as government, on that we also agree. Corporations don't have a legal sanction to initiate force, unlike government. They can't throw you off your land, or take your money to spend on projects to their benefit; it takes government to do that.


Well, you only have two choices: government oversight or corporate tyranny. So what is it, Don? Do nothing?

[Don]

Well, you only have two choices: government oversight or corporate tyranny. So what is it, Don? Do nothing?
Asked and answered in post #30, particularly para #2.

[KTC]

I know very few decent rich; and I'm betting I know more than you. Most of the rich I know would make any decent person vomit.

This is so offensive. Nothing like a great big sweeping brushstroke. Absolutely offensive.

[Gregg]

Somewhere around 90% of all businesses with a payroll hire less than 20 people.
I assume, correctly I hope, that the talk of corporate tyranny refers to some corporations in the remaining 10%.

So should we penalize the 90% majority who have little opportunity to be tyrants - based on their small size, to punish the ones in the 10% who abuse the system?

I doubt that all corporations with 20 or more employees are crooked tyrants. So we have a few rotten apples in the barrel that ruin it for the rest.

I speculate that the country would be in much better shape if only a few percentage of the politicians in Washington were corrupt. Unfortunately the majority seem to care only about their reelection and their perks.

[Cassiopeia]

Well, that's because Old Money people are simply better than us peons. New Money is even worse, peasants without breeding who have the nerve to think they can rise above their station.I really hope this is in jest.

[Medievalist]

I know very few decent rich; and I'm betting I know more than you. Most of the rich I know would make any decent person vomit.

Clearly, we know different groups. Right off the top of my head, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, while both arrogant in the extreme in person, they both have reason for their arrogance, and they both have done a lot for other people in ways that keep on giving--clinics, schools, arts for communities, etc.

And Stephen King has done so much for the State of Maine's libraries and schools that it's actually saved them in some communities.

[LaceWing]

Somewhere around 90% of all businesses with a payroll hire less than 20 people.
I assume, correctly I hope, that the talk of corporate tyranny refers to some corporations in the remaining 10%.

So should we penalize the 90% majority who have little opportunity to be tyrants - based on their small size, to punish the ones in the 10% who abuse the system?

I doubt that all corporations with 20 or more employees are crooked tyrants. So we have a few rotten apples in the barrel that ruin it for the rest.

I speculate that the country would be in much better shape if only a few percentage of the politicians in Washington were corrupt. Unfortunately the majority seem to care only about their reelection and their perks.


Looks like you have access to a boatload of stats, and you'd be likely to answer this question -- What percentage of employees work for the 10% of businesses with more than 20 employees?

[Bird of Prey]

Asked and answered in post #30, particularly para #2.

Well, the government is not doing that on a grand scale. Thus, I'd rather stringent regulation and diminished corporate maneuvering than depending on the quote/unquote Constitution or our founding fathers who were clearly not adept at addressing our time. . . .

[Don]

The government isn't doing anything on a grand scale except ripping off you and me and handing the proceeds to their corporate buddies. I don't see how additional stringent regulation will produce diminished corporate manuevering, when it's the very regulators who are letting them get away with what they've gotten away with to date.

It's not that there aren't sufficient regulations to punish the wrongdoers, BoP. It's that the regulators and enforcers aren't enforcing the rules already on the books. I fail completely to see how adding additional regulations they can ignore is going to help one little bit.

[Bird of Prey]

Clearly, we know different groups. Right off the top of my head, Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, while both arrogant in the extreme in person, they both have reason for their arrogance, and they both have done a lot for other people in ways that keep on giving--clinics, schools, arts for communities, etc.

Why do they have reason for their arrogance, Lisa? And moreover, when a person has sixty BILLION dollars, what the hell is he going to do with it? I'm not sure it's easy to grasp how much money sixty billion is, but it's a staggering amount of money, as in - hard to wrap my mind around.

And Stephen King has done so much for the State of Maine's libraries and schools that it's actually saved them in some communities.

Stephen King has been good to Maine, but he hardly makes up for the rest of Maine's other rich denizen, and even Stephen King might surprise you. I don't know why people want to credit excessively wealthy people with generosity when the rich have so much damn money that it's a drop in the bucket if they throw a million here or there at a school system.

[Bird of Prey]

The government isn't doing anything on a grand scale except ripping off you and me and handing the proceeds to their corporate buddies. I don't see how additional stringent regulation will produce diminished corporate manuevering, when it's the very regulators who are letting them get away with what they've gotten away with to date.

It's not that there aren't sufficient regulations to punish the wrongdoers, BoP. It's that the regulators and enforcers aren't enforcing the rules already on the books. I fail completely to see how adding additional regulations they can ignore is going to help one little bit.

Well, Don, if the government won't regulate; if the corporations hold enough sway to run the show so to speak, do you have any practical solution??

[Don]

The only way to make any difference is to clean house, from top to bottom. If the American public can't see that and get it done in 2010, the Mayans may well prove right in the long run. Anything short of that is simply a bandaid on a severed artery.

[KTC]

I don't know why people want to credit excessively wealthy people with generosity when the rich have so much damn money that it's a drop in the bucket if they throw a million here or there at a school system.


Because they don't bloody have to do it. Being socially conscious when you're rich should not be rewarded with shitty scorn.

[Fran]

Here, the taxpayer now owns 60% of The Royal Bank of Scotland. So when RBS foreclose on a mortgage, they're essentially taking a house away from people who own the bank. How cool is that?

I don't know any rich people, but in my opinion some would do more good for society as a whole if they didn't evade/avoid paying the appropriate amount of tax, both personally and corporately.

[Cassiopeia]

I find it so interesting when people who have less than others point out the fault of those with so much. Claiming they aren't decent people, pointing to their arrogance whilst completely ignoring the irony of their own arrogant, self serving and egotistical attitudes.

Quite honestly, I don't care why someone does something good for others. They've done it and those in need get the help they require. It is extremely ungracious to question the contributor's reasons for doing so.

[Bird of Prey]

Because they don't bloody have to do it. Being socially conscious when you're rich should not be rewarded with shitty scorn.
They fucking well do have to and that's what most people don't understand about that stature. That stature is "on loan," so to speak, because there's always the threat of public disapproval turning into rancor, and THAT is a pretty terrifying prospect to the Metropolis crowd, so it's all about throwing the dogs a bone or two or, as Antoinette would have it: cake. But not a lot mind you, just enough to keep em confused, leaning toward grateful. . . .

[Cassiopeia]

They fucking well do have to and that's what most people don't understand about that stature. That stature is "on loan," so to speak, because there's always the threat of public disapproval turning into rancor, and THAT it pretty terrifying prospect to the Metropolis crowd, so it's all about throwing the dogs a bone or two or, as Antoinette would have it: cake. But not a lot mind you, just enough to keep em confused, leaning toward grateful. . . .This is such utter nonsense, I'm almost dumbfounded.

The absolute cynicism displayed in the above quote is astounding. People don't have to do anything they don't want to and who gives a shit why they do it anyway. They've done it.

[Bird of Prey]

The only way to make any difference is to clean house, from top to bottom. If the American public can't see that and get it done in 2010, the Mayans may well prove right in the long run. Anything short of that is simply a bandaid on a severed artery.

Yeah, O.K. You 're right. Where's Castro when you need him??

[KTC]

They fucking well do have to and that's what most people don't understand about that stature. That stature is "on loan," so to speak, because there's always the threat of public disapproval turning into rancor, and THAT is a pretty terrifying prospect to the Metropolis crowd, so it's all about throwing the dogs a bone or two or, as Antoinette would have it: cake. But not a lot mind you, just enough to keep em confused, leaning toward grateful. . . .

holy fucking jesus.

you're wrong.

[Bird of Prey]

holy fucking jesus.

you're wrong.

If there's anything I know without a doubt, it's that I'm not wrong. I'm only sorry to disappoint you. But by all means, defend them, KTC. On the slim chance you're one of them: no apologies at all. But on the rare chance that someday you should actually hear what they have to say about the chumps that defend them - in the grand room, no doubt - I really am sorry. I hope it's barely audible above the din of clinking crystal and lip smacking on the endangered beluga and all that liberal rhetoric dribbled out with the froth of Dom Perignon until some person of color or some poor slob with less than six mil has the audacity to apply for residence at their co-op building on Fifth. . . .

[Robert Toy]

BoP, can I get some of what you're smoking?

[Bird of Prey]

BoP, can I get some of what you're smoking?


I can think of better people to ask. If you grovel long enough, maybe they'll do you a big favor. . . .

[Robert Toy]

I can think of better people to ask. If you grovel long enough, maybe they'll do you a big favor. . . .
I've just never seen so effective

[Cassiopeia]

If there's anything I know without a doubt, it's that I'm not wrong. I'm only sorry to disappoint you. But by all means, defend them, KTC. On the slim chance you're one of them: no apologies at all. But on the rare chance that someday you should actually hear what they have to say about the chumps that defend them - in the grand room, no doubt - I really am sorry. I hope it's barely audible above the din of clinking crystal and lip smacking on the endangered beluga and all that liberal rhetoric dribbled out with the froth of Dom Perignon until some person of color or some poor slob with less than six mil has the audacity to apply for residence at their co-op building on Fifth. . . .

Where the fuck do you get this from? Who the hell are you to say such things? And yeah, I'm fucking pissed. I'm offended. As one who has been in the top 5% of income in this country and been in these setting of which you so inaccurately describe, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

I can tell you this, one thing that I KNOW without a shadow of a doubt--this speaks volumes to me about your character.

[Don]

Class envy is apparently the only remaining permissible form of bigotry.

[Cassiopeia]

Robert, the dear man..has sent me a rep...telling me in very kind words to calm down. That this isn't worth it. Robert, *hugs* I appreciate it, I really do. BUT, it is too worth it.

When it is you that people attack you will take it personally. I DO! I've spent so much time in community service over the last 25 years of my life and donated more than I'm willing to say. And I find it so unbelievably incomprehensible that someone can slander well meaning people.

I didn't do it for aclaim or to keep people confused and coming back for more. I did it because I was moved to feel compassion and wanted to help those with less than I had. I didn't do it to feel better about myself. I did it because, I DID IT.

Fuck me, this is so unbelievably offensive I've now run out of ways to express myself.

[Cassiopeia]

Class envy is apparently the only remaining permissible form of bigotry.Thank you. It would appear so.

[Bird of Prey]

Where the fuck do you get this from? Who the hell are you to say such things? And yeah, I'm fucking pissed. I'm offended. As one who has been in the top 5% of income in this country and been in these setting of which you so inaccurately describe, you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

I can tell you this, one thing that I KNOW without a shadow of a doubt--this speaks volumes to me about your character.

Heh. Glad you posted all about your "setting." Really. Take your top five percent and by all means, please be offended.

[Cassiopeia]

Little minds.

[Magdalen]

Broad brush strokes do make for sloppy painting. I commend your good works and years of volunteer service to those in need, Cass.

[LaceWing]

All of you know damn well you need to take a break.

[Bird of Prey]

Little minds.

Ah yes, those little unfortunate, plebeian minds. . . .

[Cassiopeia]

Broad brush strokes do make for sloppy painting. I commend your good works and years of volunteer service to those in need, Cass.Magdalen, thanks but I hope you understand the only reason I even spoke about it is because of the unspeakable slanderous way that BoP is painting people.

What I did had its own rewards. It gave me a sense that no matter how small in this world we can feel at times, we can make a difference. It's not completely out of our control. That and I have met some of the most incredible people in my life in the effort because I can promise you, I didn't stand alone. People of all economic standings pitch in when it's time to help.

The one thing that BoP is completely missing here is that it isn't the dollar signs that makes a person, or the lack thereof but the fact that no matter what our frailties or our failings are, we can strive to be unselfish and compassionate no matter our circumstances.

So if some really really disgustingly rich person does something out of kindness and donates to causes, well...it just doesn't matter why they did it, it's good that they did. Even when done for the wrong reason, lifting others up from their despair and relieving their suffering is ALWAYS, always a good thing.

[Magdalen]

I've been in the bottom 5% most of my life, so I haven't met enough rich people to really count. Of those I have met and socialized with, I'd say I've noticed an overwhelming need to maintain their status. Personal experience only, and limited at that.

[Cranky]

All of you know damn well you need to take a break.

What Lace sez. With emphasis. Before this thread gets locked, and I don't want that.

/arby

[Cassiopeia]

There are always those people no matter their economic standing who will do things to make themselves look better and to attempt to garner favors. My objection here is to the offensive characterizations and generalizations.

[Bird of Prey]

All of you know damn well you need to take a break.

Look, this issue is a really important issue. And there is a grotesque disparity in the world today between the rich and the poor. It is - by any moral measure - inhuman. Now, I never made this personal. Somebody else is, but I don't care. It's not personal to me and I have every reason to drive this point home because despite all the quote/unquote charitable works of the rich which really translates to what the hell they feel like giving at any given point in time, there is real suffering in the world today that shouldn't depend on "charity" to reconcile that income disparity, but rather commitment: plain old fashioned moral obligation. Because the fact of the matter is, the wealthy are not actually raising food. They are fed on the labors of the less fortunate. That's the bottom line. And the less fortunate: the factory workers making the clothes or those picking the berries deserve a little better than "charity." We have an obligation.

[LaceWing]

Objection noted for the record.

[Magdalen]

Magdalen, thanks <snip>

You're welcome.

<snip>

Even when done for the wrong reason, lifting others up from their despair and relieving their suffering is ALWAYS, always a good thing.

Well, I don't know about that. If someone is a petty, vindictive individual in most of their life, but has a shinning spot of generosity that allows them to offset what guilt they might feel about the way they behave 85% of the time, wouldn't it be better if they "fixed" themselves? Of course, if they are aware of their own personal failings and are trying to fix them and also volunteer time, etc. that would be great. I think I'm done with this broad generalization, now.


I really don't envy others' money or fame. And I really enjoy the summer evenings spent picking raspberries in the back yard. I do sometimes get a bit jealous over a really well-written poem or song lyric though.

[KTC]

If there's anything I know without a doubt, it's that I'm not wrong. I'm only sorry to disappoint you. But by all means, defend them, KTC. On the slim chance you're one of them: no apologies at all. But on the rare chance that someday you should actually hear what they have to say about the chumps that defend them - in the grand room, no doubt - I really am sorry. I hope it's barely audible above the din of clinking crystal and lip smacking on the endangered beluga and all that liberal rhetoric dribbled out with the froth of Dom Perignon until some person of color or some poor slob with less than six mil has the audacity to apply for residence at their co-op building on Fifth. . . .

this is disgusting shit you post. YOU ARE WRONG. you also seem to be quit a bigot about it too.

[Williebee]

ARBITER INSERT<

As has been noted. This would be a real good time for the folks in this thread to take a break. Maybe a walk around the 'Cooler, do a little writing, kill a few darlings?

Breathe. thanks.

ARBITER INSERT

[Cassiopeia]

Well, I don't know about that. If someone is a petty, vindictive individual in most of their life, but has a shinning spot of generosity that allows them to offset what guilt they might feel about the way they behave 85% of the time, wouldn't it be better if they "fixed" themselves? Of course, if they are aware of their own personal failings and are trying to fix them and also volunteer time, etc. that would be great. I think I'm done with this broad generalization, now.

I really don't envy others' money or fame. And I really enjoy the summer evenings spent picking raspberries in the back yard. I do sometimes get a bit jealous over a really well-written poem or song lyric though.

The part you posted in blue has nothing to do with the intent of my post or it's meaning. But me, personally, I don't stop to judge people on the reason for their contributions. I just say thanks and move along my way.

As for the disparity of economic classes I happen to agree that it's something that I'd like to see change. However, I did not make my way in this world by taking advantage of others. Not everyone does that. Some yes, but not all of us.

And yes, it gets very personal when someone slings mud and throws it at everyone when it really only belongs to a minority of people.

[Rolling Thunder]

The Arbiters said breathe.

Breathe ye all shall.

Go do something to calm down. Have some tea. Or chocolate. Kick a chihuahua.