Re: Why?
 

To be fair, he's been living in SF a while now . . . one could see how he might have that impression.

Re: Why?
 

I was referring to the other world leaders/countries, not the protesters.

Re: Why?
 

I lived in SF for 6 years. They ARE mainstream SF Dems.

Re: Where Are They Now? Dept.
 

Sounds like fightin' words:
http://www.kildare.ie/ehistory/Resize%20Wizard-1.jpg

link

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

Could we just fire whoever in the Administration is in charge of deciding on gifts for Obama to give to other world leaders?

An iPod? Jesus Christ.

Re: Why?
 

The other day, I heard a journalist talking about interviewing one of the (few) violent protesters in Seattle in 1999. He pointed out that most of the protesters there were peaceful, and that the few anarcho-violent types totally stole the headlines from them and gave them a bad name. But he also pointed out that the protests likely would have been ignored completely but not for the broken glass and destructive stuff.

Re: Why?
 

So was I!

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

And still no Beatles on the iTunes store.

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

That's not the question. The question is, is there anyone out there who he wants in that job who doesn't have a minor problem? And if someone does have a minor problem, is it enough to outweigh the benefit that person has over another appointee.

Your fascination with this minutiae is amazing.

TM

Re: Why?
 

I saw a movie on the subject at a film festival last year, which pretty much mirrors what you say. But they went out of the way to note that in Seattle especially, the mayor was very sympathetic to the protesters and yet chaos erupted.

Question
 

With regard to these swaps that haved pulled and are pulling everything down. We can all agree that there are two types of holders of this stuff, correct? Those who own the underlying asset (Class A) and those who simply bet against the housing market (for example) and "won" (Class B). Why don't we separate the two classes, pay off Class A and tell Class B that we'll repay the premiums they've already spent, but that they can fuck right off on the swap payoff? Yeah, I know we specifically said they could contract for this stuff without being subject to any kind of common sense regulation, but I don't really give a shit.

The argument, I suppose is that the market will be so frightened that the government could do this to any other segment of the market that chaos will ensue. I say, "Bullshit. We all know what this was and just because we fucked up by allowing a few bookies to get away with placing bets they couldn't possibly cover, it doesn't mean the government should have to pay off on those bets." I think that's much better than paying them off or calling the holders' bluffs and letting AIG and whoever else go bankrupt.

Anyone?

TM

Re: Question
 

The only wrinkle I see is who is in Class B? If it is the banks we are otherwise bailing out, then this may not help much. But aside from the need for careful consideration the ripple effects, I think your proposal (again) makes sense.

Re: Question
 

Why? If they're holding the asset, they get the payout. If they're not, we just gave them a trillion dollars to make up for the lost swap payout they shouldn't have been gambling on in the first place and they'll get their premiums back.

Never should have gotten rid of Glass-Steagall.

TM

Re: Question
 

Yeah, maybe you're right. Payouts on CDSs gambles can't be a critical part of their capital structure.

Re: Question
 

I guess the problem comes with foreign holders, but I don't know why you couldn't draft a law screwing them as much as you'd be screwing good old fashioned American assholes.

TM