Re: Explain This To Me
 

It's too bad that Spanky isn't around to convince us all that Obama is a secret socialist.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

I thought it was China that was supposed to take over the world if we go bust.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

They've invested their money with us, though.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

i think there are massive layoffs in China, yes?

Re: Explain This To Me
 

As long as its not France.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

I would expect so.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

I've seen the number at 20mm among "migrant" workers, out of ~130mm. Haven't seen anything about non-migrant workers.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

Yep. Pretty much.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

A reverse auction isn't exactly one in which the property goes to the lowest bidder. It is a process where the property goes to to bidders at the lowest price which will clear the market. That is one way to limit the public buggering. Another is to provide for an interest or equity kicker on insturments that pay a windfall. Both of these mechanisms are ones which the private market would employ if it didn't have a sudden case of sphincter paralysis.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

I read this morning that the assets will go to the highest bidder.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

I was on glue. I'm sorry. I meant to say the price will be the highest price at which the market will clear the property. I should have done an example. Then I would have caught the fuck-up.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I've decided that Matt Taibbi reads this board, or at least reads Sebby's rants here. Taibbi fucking hates AIG.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Outed?

Re: Explain This To Me
 

What's secret about it?

On the other hand, Hugo Chavez claimed he didn't know jack, so the evidence is in equipoise.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

Which is why he has nationalized the banks and seized control of the means of production?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Pardon me for butting into whatever I'm butting into (too lazy to read this board) but could someone please pm me a simple thing to do with 2K per month so it doesn't sit in my checking account? I already contribute to my 401K and I've already lost most of the 80K I invested in Putnam mutual funds back in 2000 or so. I want close to zero risk. And ability to access the money in about 6 months if I need to (but probably wouldn't). For now, it's just piling up in my checking. Some lame ass cd? Tanks.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Whatever you do, don't go long on FCOJ, even if it looks like the Dukes are cornering the market.

TM

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

PS-this would be 2K a month I have free after expenses and other investments I make. I don't think I want to buy a separate cd every month, right?

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I would open a Schwab account and ask them this question. I imagine that you could set up direct deposit and have the money put in a fund of government bonds, which is pretty close to zero risk (and return right now).

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I'm not sure I'd ask a bulletin board full of lawyers this question. Find a nice professionial investment advisor - one of the guys at JP Morgan Chase or AIGFP.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Government bond (especially in a fund) may be the worst possible option now. They are paying no interest, and are only going to lose value as interest rate go up (from basically zero).

An FDIC insured savings account (e.g., ING Direct) or money market makes more sense, although the returns there will be minimal for awhile as well.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Why not? It's effectively laddering them. But it's not like CDs are paying much more than no-interest checking.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

My financial advisers tell me that the most consistent ROI on a $2,000 monthly investment is a person's college tuition because of the delta on future earnings. I will PM you the PayPal account number, as well as receipts and proof that the major is not Art History. In return you get 10% of the first million in gross receipts and renaming rights to one of the twins (must show that name has appeared on WASP birth certificate between 1900 and 1963).

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

FWIW, Vanguard has closed its treasury money fund to new investors, because the returns are so low.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

You can buy a lot of these masks for $140m.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...alling_big.jpg

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

you wanna see some returns on a college investment fund over the past year? Jr. is going to have to pass on the Molson's and learn to live with Buckhorn.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

WNA-P (Wachovia preferreds)

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

I presume she wanted something that would take less effort.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

https://www.hsbcdirect.com/1/2/1/

1.85% online savings account. Better than ING and EmigrantDirect right now.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Less effort than leaving it in checking?

FWIW, while I'm impressed she has $2k in free cash, if she were a patriot she'd be putting into real estate or at least consumer durables.

Re: We will never agree on this and therefore it is pointless to talk about!
 

Testosterone - The cause of a lot of good, and twice as much evil and stupidity, in the world.

Look down the barrel of every stupid fuck-up in history, from battles to meltdowns to disastrous crusades and movements and you will find a pack of insecure men engaged in a Sisyphusian battle against some terminal, unexplainable lack of self esteem. A fucking Gatsbian horrowshow. If Jay were a neurotic twerp with a Pharoah's sense of entitlement.

Re: Explain This To Me
 

Got to start a market somewhere. It's a shit sandwich, but that's all the deli's got right now.

worst President ever hits bottom, starts digging
 

you have to remember he was a southern farmer........

• Jimmy Carter's crazy slavery theory: He thinks the Civil War was un-Christian
  
  Here's the latest outrage from Jimmy Carter, the ex-President so many Americans love to hate: He claims the Civil War - which he calls, Southern-style, "The War Between the States" - was un-Christian and could have been avoided.
  
  The comments come in a new book, "In Lincoln's Hand: His Original Manuscripts With Commentary By Distinguished Americans." Carter comments on a passage by Lincoln in which Lincoln writes: "I am almost ready to say this is probably true - that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet."
  
  Carter writes that he finds the Lincoln writing "very troubling." Continues Carter: "He ignores the fact that the tragic combat might have been avoided altogether, and that the leaders of both sides, overwhelmingly Christian, were violating a basic premise of their belief as followers of the Prince of Peace." He concludes: "A legitimate question for historians is how soon the blight of slavery would have been terminated peacefully in America, as in Great Britain and other civilized societies."
  
  Carter's comments are so stunning that at a recent discussion about the new book at the New-York Historical Society, both the book's co-editor, Joshua Wolf Shenk, and another "distinguished American" who contributed to the book, Cynthia Ozick, distanced themselves from them. Shenk said he disagreed, and Ozick mocked the idea of negotiating with slave masters.
  
  Carter holds up the British - who didn't fight a war over slavery - as an example, but a careful look shows that case to be thoroughly unconvincing. Parliament had acted in 1807 to ban the slave trade and in 1833 to abolish slavery altogether. By the time the Civil War began in 1861, America's legislature had yet to follow suit - and the Southerners didn't appear in any great rush to do so.
  
  How much patience should Lincoln have had with the immoral institution? How many more lashes should have fallen on the backs of American blacks during Carter's hypothetical waiting period for slavery to terminate "peacefully"? The period wouldn't have been particularly peaceful for the slaves. One might as well argue that the bloodshed of the American Revolution could have been avoided, given that British rule was eventually terminated peacefully in Canada.
  
  This debate is about more than history. When Carter met with leaders of the terrorist group Hamas last spring, it provoked widespread outrage from American politicians and commentators and condemnation from American and Israeli government officials. At the time, I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, figuring that if he won the return of kidnapped Israeli soldiers such as Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev or Ehud Goldwasser - or even the return of their remains - all would be forgiven. Having Carter do the talking was a convenient way for the Israeli and American governments to stick to their stated policies of not negotiating with terrorists.
  
  But given the Civil War comment, we can no longer see each misstep or misstatement in isolation as just another crazy comment from an old man who wasn't that good a President anyway. Carter seems to go to irrational extremes to avoid forthright confrontation or conflict with evil of any kind - even when ending human slavery is at stake.
  
  The Obama administration is going to be faced with policy decisions on negotiating with Hamas, Iran, North Korea and others whose hands are stained with crimes akin to slavery. It may help President Obama structure the internal discussions if he considers whether he wants to perceive America's conflicts in the fashion of Lincoln, his fellow Illinois politician, or in the manner of Carter, waiting around for a peaceful termination while today's victims and slaves suffer beatings and are deprived of their freedoms.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/...ory_he_th.html

Re: worst President ever hits bottom, starts digging
 

Jimmy Carter basically thinks all war is evil and unChristian. That doesn't make him evil -- just holding a different set of principles than most.

Neither Mohandas Ghandi nor any Quaker (to cite a couple examples) would have fought the Civil War either. By way of example, there is a letter from Ghandi in the 1930s (while he lived in SA) encouraging the Jews to pursue non-violent resistance to the Nazis and actually present themselves at the camps to provide a shining example of moral resistance and courage in the face of great evil.

Not the way I'd have done it. Doesn't make Carter crazy or his position an outrage.

S_A_M

Re: worst President ever hits bottom, starts digging
 

2.

It does show that he was not equipped to be president and that he should not be given any press whatsoever now.

ghandi might not have made a good president either.

the civil war is right up there as a war that should have been fought. perhaps the industrial age would have let the South let go of slavery, but that would have taken some time.

the point to take from my story is that when Carter challenges a President's decision to engage in a war, or disagrees with Israel taking some action in the Mid-East we need to weigh space fuck's deep insights against the fact that he wouldn't have engaged in the Civil War.

Re: worst President ever hits bottom, starts digging
 

So setting aside what an ex-President no one actually listens to says, are you saying Bush made a good decision on Iraq?

I'm still waiting for an R to tell me something good Bush did. I can tell you one thing good Carter did - he got a nobel for it - however mediocre much of his legacy is.

Re: worst President ever hits bottom, starts digging
 

yes, Iraq was the right decision. you are starting to see the hard choices of actually being in charge now with Obama talking about exit stratigies from Afghanistan one day and invading Pakistan the next.

let me hit one issue head on- Kanye said George Bush doesn't care about black people, put aside Katrina for a moment, pre-Obama has any president appointed black people to ANY position of near the importance that W did?

Re: worst President ever hits bottom, starts digging
 

Ghandi's legacy on WWII is somewhat more complex than pure pacifism, and tied up in part with his attempts to broker Indian independence at the same time. He was perfectly willing to support a war to defend freedom and democracy and encourage mass recruitment of Indians for the British army - provided India got freedom and democracy out of the war. And he recognized the evil of Nazism as well as the more immediate, to India, threat of Japanese imperialism.

It makes for fascinating history; FDR and the US showed quite a bit of sympathy for Ghandi and the Quit India movement at the time. The whole story of the period in India is not only fascinating but quite relevant today, since the British encouraged the growth of Islamic parties to counteract the Congress Party at the time, laying some of the seeds for the mess we're in in Pakistan and Afghanistan today. There have been several good books recently on the subject - I think the best I read was "The Shadow of the Great Game".

Re: worst President ever hits bottom, starts digging
 

Well, we'll never agree on the first one, but at least that's on the table and you're willing to defend him for it. I'm sure we both think history will take our side.

On appointing Blacks to high office: W appointed Colin Powell, a great appointment and a man he should have listened to, and Condi Rice, a perfectly intelligent functionary to the cabinet, both to the same position. After that? A couple other cabinet members with relatively modest profiles. It's not a bad record, but does it qualify as the best?

His father had only one African American in his cabinet that I remember (albeit HHS not of Sec'y of State), but he also had Colin Powell as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a very important role, and appointed Clarence Thomas to the S.Ct., only the second president to appoint an African American to the S.Ct. Jr's military leadership was astonishingly white - something noted repeatedly by people in the military, given how integrated the army as a whole is. I don't know how his record was on lower level court appointments.

I'm not ripping him on his record of appointments, just saying I have trouble believing it is the bestest ever, and that there are other Presidents who can point to a couple high profile appointments - including his father. Any nice blogs with some real analysis to back that one up?

Re: worst President ever hits bottom, starts digging
 

I just remember someone early on in W's admin (not someone here) saying "bush only appointed black people to unimportant positions" the implication being that clinton did more. Condi and Colin were in very important positions. C. f. commerce secretary is not important.