"It's like were rewarding incompetence." B Franks
Tell me about it.
Then take a look at the generic ballot. link
-----------------
I have an idea. If you don't like the pay that AIG finachel products traders get paid, start your own company. Sell better products for less money. Take all their market share and pay yourself much less. It should be easy. I'm serious. They were price gouging.
It may be that the whole operation was a con game.
Finachel products were understandable for a wile. At first people would find each other in personal ads and then bet on stock prices or interest rates. Then brokers who might have thought they were getting cheated out of commissions set up casinos for betting on such things. They organized the games and took a commission. Brokers liked the money and got more people into the game. Then they crossed an important line. If they couldn't get some one to take one side of a bet they would take it themselves. Extreme conflict of interest like letting the ref's bet on basket ball games. To keep the marks from figuring out very high the commissions were the brokers made the bets more and more complex. At lest they kept changing the names on the same old inverse floaters. link Every thing was very proprietary. Making it harder to understand helped them keep commissions higher. (They also took the show on the road to developing country for the same reason.) Gifts to the agents who bought the products with their companys money helped too. Those gifts ranged from Bulls tickets to sacks of cash. What happens in Vegas happens every where. Lots of companys who should have been tending their knitting (focusing on core competency) just took the share holders money to the derivative casino. There were more people who were willing to buy products than there were good products to buy. This lead to funny things. Much more money could change hands betting on the price of oil than in the selling of real oil. Companys made more money betting on the Yen than they made selling their product. People started w righting mortgages to bundle and sell to hungry buyers that they would never wright if they were going to hold them. People were buying insurance policys on stocks they did not own. Todays toxic or troubled asset was yesterdays big commission.
You can prosecute on laws that existed before the crime. Making actions criminal after the fact destroy process of law. One angle is to challenge the appropriateness of the instrument for the clients they were sold too. This could demonstrate a failure to fulfill fudiary responsibility. Problem is that that would be government protecting rich costumers/buyers from rich sellers. Sorting out the mistreatment of some rich people buy some other rich people doesn't angry up the public blood like cursing some rich people to hell for being rich. It's more fun to just demand ritual suicide and toss the bodys on the bon fires of our vanitys.
Oh the storys these traders will have to tell once they have nothing left to lose. That might be motive for throwing AIG traders one last money party.
----------------
If corporations are so evil, why dose the government own so many?
Beginning with Fanny and Freddy.
--------------------
"If we are keeping focused on all the fundamentally sound aspects of our economy, all the out standing companys, workers, all the innovation and dynamism then were going to get through this and I'm very confident about that." so says Obama, now. Who was out of touch? What this really tells us is that Obama knows that he bought the economy and it's his now. You buy it you brake it. So, now he stops mocking McCain for saying the same damb thing. Obama was wrong for not saying this on the campaign trail and now he is wrong for not facing what actions he needs to take to grow that dynamism rather than drain it.
A $552.02 one time gift from the government to each small business is a smoke screen that allows Obama to pretend he had a balanced plan. (While he is pretending that he had a plan he might as well pretend it was balanced.) As after thoughts go it's far more after and far less thought. This isn't robing Petter to pay Paul. It's taxing you to give you back a small cut of your own taxes. If they hide the taxes by embedding them in the cost of products or taking them out of payroll before you touch the money they can pretend that government gives you more than it takes away. (Government can give value for tax money some times. The Center for Disease Control aggregates lots of peoples money and provides a life saving service that no one could buy on their own. Rebate checks are the worst example of government giving back less value than it takes. Creating m
StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy