After reading & watching coverage of Somali piracy on the high seas, I don't think I'm alone in forming a simple mental picture of who these guys are.
A bunch of guys with guns hop into a boat and motors out towards a large ship they happen to see off the coast of wherever they live.
Highwaymen who use boats.
Except I'd be wrong.
The other day, I'm watching news coverage about why the various patrols in the area aren't catching many pirates: the area of operations is fricking massive. Like ten times the size of Texas massive.
Somewhere in the back of my brain - I wondered...
Modern navies cannot locate pirates in all of that space, yet somehow pirates are able to find their prey in the same amount of ocean.
Erm...HowDatWoik?
That's about as far as I took it. The kids set something alight, or I saw something shiny and *poof*
But this morning, I'm catching up on my podcasts and I listen to Planet Money's Pirates Have Timesheets episode
-which is a rather eye opening look at how Somali pirates do what they do.
Hopping into a boat with guns is part of it, but all the pirates face at least three logistical challenges that require more organization:
1) The ocean is big.
-As in, their speedboats will run out of gas long before they reach a target. They need a base ship capable of cruising the deep ocean. This boat launches the speedboats when a target is near.
-Speaking of targets that are near: No way a ship just runs into a suitable target without knowing it's out there. Basic espionage/corruption in key harbors or chokepoints like the Suez can get you what you need, but they require manpower, communications and (above all) money.
2) Not all targets are suitable.
Some countries/companies don't pay. If you grab a ship from a poor country or a failing firm, you might never get paid. This means better intelligence from your spies to tell you who's healthy enough to pay, and when their ships are passing through pirate territory.
3) Not everybody speaks your language.
-Once you take the ship, you've got to deal with the owners and (odds are) they don't speak Somali or Arabic. You need an interpreter, and that means you have to pay someone to negotiate the ransom.
Planet Money does a great job of illustrating these points and even interviews a Danish ship owner who had to negotiate with pirates to get his ship and crew back.
The owner describes a bizarrely businesslike transaction where he refuses to pay above the market rate for piracy. Negotiations go back and forth for weeks before he and the pirate negotiator (a lawyer) settle on an amount.
Head spinning stuff. Take a listen.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Good FICO <> Good risk
Wow.
Another good find by CJR's Ryan Chittum: Yet Another Reason to Dislike Securitization
He's referring to a post on the rortybomb blog that describes a curious increase in foreclosures when people have a FICO score of just above 620.
The apparent reason? 620 was the cutoff point for accepting NINJA loans (No Income, No Job or Assets).
In other words, if you had a 615 FICO and had to go through actual underwriting, you were less likely to default than somebody with a 625 FICO who "qualified" for Wall Street's don't ask don't tell loans.
Owch.
Read the post.
Another good find by CJR's Ryan Chittum: Yet Another Reason to Dislike Securitization
He's referring to a post on the rortybomb blog that describes a curious increase in foreclosures when people have a FICO score of just above 620.
The apparent reason? 620 was the cutoff point for accepting NINJA loans (No Income, No Job or Assets).
In other words, if you had a 615 FICO and had to go through actual underwriting, you were less likely to default than somebody with a 625 FICO who "qualified" for Wall Street's don't ask don't tell loans.
Owch.
Read the post.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
We built this Citi
(Via CJR)
The Wall Street Journal shines a bright light on bonuses at CitiGroup. Ooooh how the daylight burns...
Now, I get this guy's a superstar, but Citi's on the public dole.
You're on welfare, even corporate welfare - the public expects you to economize a bit.
The Wall Street Journal shines a bright light on bonuses at CitiGroup. Ooooh how the daylight burns...
The Journal has a nice scoop that Citigroup is begging the government to let it pay big bonuses to “key employees,” particularly those in its energy-trading group.
How big might those bonuses be? Well, the head of the energy group, Andrew Hall, last year raked in a cool $274,000… a day.
That’s right. A hundred million dollars just last year, as Citigroup was going down the sewer, forcing taxpayers to give it tens of billions of dollars and guarantee hundreds of billions of its debt. That’s also a scoop, as far as I can tell. That’s right, taxpayers. As you were bailing this company out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, it was paying one guy $100 million.
Now, I get this guy's a superstar, but Citi's on the public dole.
You're on welfare, even corporate welfare - the public expects you to economize a bit.
Pass the hat
You've heard the saying that your biggest regrets are the things you don't do.
Years ago, a boss of mine was retiring and I had the crazy idea of writing a toast to them and reciting it at their going away party. Against all odds, I actually did it. Remembered my lines and everything.
It's still one of my favorite memories of that job. Because - for once - I thought of doing something nice for someone (someone who deserved it) and actually followed through.
The number of times you come up with a great idea and let it die is just too depressing to think about. "I would have..." or "That would have been great..."
Putting a smile on my boss' face was priceless. They're a great person and somebody ought to have done something. That it was me was irrelevant - my boss got to witness the grinning affection of their peers. Not the tired, pre-packaged "g'bye party" but a moment of genuine admiration for who they were and what they'd meant to us.
And that was awesome.
In my own experience, events like that are pretty uncommon. I don't know my neighbors, I see my friends less and less these days - and then there's work.
Most workplaces, you don't say much about the people you work with. Most times, that's a good thing - but I grew up moving around a lot. I've did my time with social turnover and I've decided I enjoy a static environment.
As I've pointed out in previous posts, CorpWorld has been anything but static. Every partner I've had on a project has already left, or is done as of tomorrow.
The one who left of their own accord was the last goodbye party we've had. That was over a year ago. Everyone else simply had a last day and didn't come back.
The big dividing line is whether or not they got to pack their stuff, or whether or not someone did it for them.
Needless to say - this is not a very human process. This latest round of bloodletting has a third of my department leaving as of tomorrow.
Basic humanity would suggest that some kind of commemoration is in order.
In CorpWorld such things are distilled down to the lowest common denominators: Food + speech by boss. There is no enthusiasm, as this is essentially a professional funeral. Most people in my department are isolated by their projects, so it is hard to build up any kind of comaraderie.
About the only thing we know about each other is that we like working together.
That, and - getting laid off because Fitch downgraded us again really, really sucks.
It takes a lot to snap you out of the funk of "What can I do?" and "What would I want in their place?" I'd been passed a stack of goodbye cards and asked to sign them and pass them on.
What do you write to a person who has been laid off? What tack do you take?
Cheery? "Good luck...." (i.e. I'm pretending that you'll find another job soon)
Sad? "So sorry to see yougo leave get canned..." (There is no good synonym for "Fired")
Professional? "It was a pleasure working with you..." (i.e. I have no idea who you are)
So you wrack your brains and settle on something that doesn't sound too stupid. There. You sign your name.
Now there's seven more of them to sign. What do you put in those?
Same thing? Weak. After a half an hour, you decide that the people will not compare notes, so some duplication is okay. Then you're writing crap like "It was great working with you."
You do your partner's card, and your other partner's card with self-consciously generic garbage. And then you get to the last one.
The guy with three kids and the wife who just got diagnosed with cancer.
And you do the same thing.
"It was great..."
Thankfully, somebody else's humanity reared up at this and (as pathetic as it sounds) a collection was put together for this man. He moved up here for this job. He's done tomorrow and has no interviews scheduled.
This I can do. It is inadequate, the few people who opt in pool some cash in an envelope and leave it on his chair. Anonymous.
There is no way we can have any lasting impact on his finances. What we could scrape together would barely pay for a meal or two.
But that's not the point.
At a minimum - he will know somebody gave a damn.
Years ago, a boss of mine was retiring and I had the crazy idea of writing a toast to them and reciting it at their going away party. Against all odds, I actually did it. Remembered my lines and everything.
It's still one of my favorite memories of that job. Because - for once - I thought of doing something nice for someone (someone who deserved it) and actually followed through.
The number of times you come up with a great idea and let it die is just too depressing to think about. "I would have..." or "That would have been great..."
Putting a smile on my boss' face was priceless. They're a great person and somebody ought to have done something. That it was me was irrelevant - my boss got to witness the grinning affection of their peers. Not the tired, pre-packaged "g'bye party" but a moment of genuine admiration for who they were and what they'd meant to us.
And that was awesome.
In my own experience, events like that are pretty uncommon. I don't know my neighbors, I see my friends less and less these days - and then there's work.
Most workplaces, you don't say much about the people you work with. Most times, that's a good thing - but I grew up moving around a lot. I've did my time with social turnover and I've decided I enjoy a static environment.
As I've pointed out in previous posts, CorpWorld has been anything but static. Every partner I've had on a project has already left, or is done as of tomorrow.
The one who left of their own accord was the last goodbye party we've had. That was over a year ago. Everyone else simply had a last day and didn't come back.
The big dividing line is whether or not they got to pack their stuff, or whether or not someone did it for them.
Needless to say - this is not a very human process. This latest round of bloodletting has a third of my department leaving as of tomorrow.
Basic humanity would suggest that some kind of commemoration is in order.
In CorpWorld such things are distilled down to the lowest common denominators: Food + speech by boss. There is no enthusiasm, as this is essentially a professional funeral. Most people in my department are isolated by their projects, so it is hard to build up any kind of comaraderie.
About the only thing we know about each other is that we like working together.
That, and - getting laid off because Fitch downgraded us again really, really sucks.
It takes a lot to snap you out of the funk of "What can I do?" and "What would I want in their place?" I'd been passed a stack of goodbye cards and asked to sign them and pass them on.
What do you write to a person who has been laid off? What tack do you take?
Cheery? "Good luck...." (i.e. I'm pretending that you'll find another job soon)
Sad? "So sorry to see you
Professional? "It was a pleasure working with you..." (i.e. I have no idea who you are)
So you wrack your brains and settle on something that doesn't sound too stupid. There. You sign your name.
Now there's seven more of them to sign. What do you put in those?
Same thing? Weak. After a half an hour, you decide that the people will not compare notes, so some duplication is okay. Then you're writing crap like "It was great working with you."
You do your partner's card, and your other partner's card with self-consciously generic garbage. And then you get to the last one.
The guy with three kids and the wife who just got diagnosed with cancer.
And you do the same thing.
"It was great..."
Thankfully, somebody else's humanity reared up at this and (as pathetic as it sounds) a collection was put together for this man. He moved up here for this job. He's done tomorrow and has no interviews scheduled.
This I can do. It is inadequate, the few people who opt in pool some cash in an envelope and leave it on his chair. Anonymous.
There is no way we can have any lasting impact on his finances. What we could scrape together would barely pay for a meal or two.
But that's not the point.
At a minimum - he will know somebody gave a damn.
Exceptional success used as a weapon
This is a small issue to go after, but as I was listening to Nina Totenburg this morning I was struck by a sound bite that made no sense.
The story was about Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey, a case now before the Supreme Court, where a district in Texas is asking for (among other things) major portions of the Voting Rights Act to be declared unconstitutional.
Nobody sums up legal issues like Ms. Totenburg, so I'll let her do the summary:
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One (orNAMBLA NAMUDNO) has no history of discrimination (having been created in the very recent past) and is seeking either relief from federal oversight, or the removal of the federal government's power to oversee local elections.
I feel for NAMUDNO. I do. They are being tarred with the bad behavior of others. The VRA allows states or counties to ask to be removed from federal oversight, but this does not extend to districts. NAMUDNO's county refuses to petition for the removal of oversight - so the district is stuck.
I get that.
What I don't get is why the district isn't suing their county. Instead, they are suing the United States.
If this was a straight up case of a local district taking on the big, bad government - I guess I'd have less of a problem with it. Grassroots action making its way through the system.
But that doesn't happen with issues like this. We live in an era of Astroturf. Partisans stalk the land in search of aggrieved parties that will best serve their cause. This is certainly not a right wing phenomenon - but it is galling to see a hand-picked exception offered as a reason to unmake a rule that benefits untold millions.
The guy litigating this, Greg Coleman, clerked for Clarence Thomas and was picked by none other than John Cornyn to be the Solicitor General of Texas. He represents clients nationwide who feel they are the victims of "reverse discrimination." None of that invalidates his point of view, but they serve to unmake this notion that this case is somehow an organic occurrence.
What's interesting to me is that the Travis County, Texas (where NAMUDNO is located) not only wants the VRA oversight, but has gone on record opposing this case.
And it doesn't spare the snark (emphasis mine):
Further, of the nine states covered by the VRA, six have offered briefs opposing NAMUDNO's position (Georgia and Alabama - bastions of progressive thinking - filed briefs supporting the district's case).
But what sticks in my craw above all else - what got me writing this to begin with - is the talking point that is making the rounds now, quoted over and over in the media.
Here's Totenburg:
Coleman's brief starts with this sentence:
And that line makes it into USA Today, WaPo and the LA Times
Yes, the improbable success of Barack Obama is being used as a wrecking ball on civil rights legislation. I cannot even begin to describe how infuriating that is.
When this suit was filed in August of 2007, President Obama was Senator Obama, and was in no way assured of a victory. I'm sure Coleman wants us all to see his issue through the rosiest of glasses, but the simple fact is Obama's election has nothing to do with this case.
It is opportunistic obfuscation of what the central issue is: can this district get exempted from Section 5 on the merits of their record? if not, does their county have the power to deny them this relief - or should section 5 of the VRA be stricken to accommodate a district that has held a total of one contested election?
Obama is not the issue. I know he's a tempting sound bite, but give us a freaking break. His success didn't end racism any more than Thurgood Marshall's did.
Bad enough the appellants in this case are hand-picked exceptions - but the meme their pushing is even worse.
Barack Obama's success is not the rule, it is an exception. Using an exception, (particularly this exception) to try and abolish a civil rights rule is beyond offensive.
The story was about Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey, a case now before the Supreme Court, where a district in Texas is asking for (among other things) major portions of the Voting Rights Act to be declared unconstitutional.
Nobody sums up legal issues like Ms. Totenburg, so I'll let her do the summary:
The provision at issue in Wednesday's case applies to specific jurisdictions where discriminatory practices were once routine. It requires them to get approval from the Justice Department before changing voting procedures. For example, if an Alabama town wants to change polling places or change an elected board to an appointed board, it has to first get permission from the Justice Department.
The provision covers nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia. It also covers parts of California, Florida, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota.
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One (or
I feel for NAMUDNO. I do. They are being tarred with the bad behavior of others. The VRA allows states or counties to ask to be removed from federal oversight, but this does not extend to districts. NAMUDNO's county refuses to petition for the removal of oversight - so the district is stuck.
I get that.
What I don't get is why the district isn't suing their county. Instead, they are suing the United States.
If this was a straight up case of a local district taking on the big, bad government - I guess I'd have less of a problem with it. Grassroots action making its way through the system.
But that doesn't happen with issues like this. We live in an era of Astroturf. Partisans stalk the land in search of aggrieved parties that will best serve their cause. This is certainly not a right wing phenomenon - but it is galling to see a hand-picked exception offered as a reason to unmake a rule that benefits untold millions.
The guy litigating this, Greg Coleman, clerked for Clarence Thomas and was picked by none other than John Cornyn to be the Solicitor General of Texas. He represents clients nationwide who feel they are the victims of "reverse discrimination." None of that invalidates his point of view, but they serve to unmake this notion that this case is somehow an organic occurrence.
What's interesting to me is that the Travis County, Texas (where NAMUDNO is located) not only wants the VRA oversight, but has gone on record opposing this case.
And it doesn't spare the snark (emphasis mine):
The District which has launched the broad constitutional challenge does not register voters locally. It never has, and, under current state law, it never will. The district’s experience with the election process itself is uncommonly modest and narrow. In the two decades of its existence, it has conducted only one actual contested election, seven years ago in an election drawing less than a thousand votes, and, therefore, is institutionally inexperienced with the benefits that Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act] coverage brings.
[snip]
Section 5 remains salient in Texas. Someday, experience may demonstrate that the balance has shifted and that the need for Section 5 has shrunk to the point that its modest burdens have come to outweigh the benefits it brings. By overwhelming margins, Congress concluded in 2006 that such a time had not yet come. Congress made the right decision.
Further, of the nine states covered by the VRA, six have offered briefs opposing NAMUDNO's position (Georgia and Alabama - bastions of progressive thinking - filed briefs supporting the district's case).
But what sticks in my craw above all else - what got me writing this to begin with - is the talking point that is making the rounds now, quoted over and over in the media.
Here's Totenburg:
[Georgia and Alabama] say that in a new century, when the nation has just elected its first African-American president, there is no need for a law based on a formula Congress drew up 25 years ago.
Coleman's brief starts with this sentence:
The America that has elected Barack Obama as its first African-American president is far different than when [Section] 5 [of the Voting Rights Act] was first enacted in 1965.
And that line makes it into USA Today, WaPo and the LA Times
Yes, the improbable success of Barack Obama is being used as a wrecking ball on civil rights legislation. I cannot even begin to describe how infuriating that is.
When this suit was filed in August of 2007, President Obama was Senator Obama, and was in no way assured of a victory. I'm sure Coleman wants us all to see his issue through the rosiest of glasses, but the simple fact is Obama's election has nothing to do with this case.
It is opportunistic obfuscation of what the central issue is: can this district get exempted from Section 5 on the merits of their record? if not, does their county have the power to deny them this relief - or should section 5 of the VRA be stricken to accommodate a district that has held a total of one contested election?
Obama is not the issue. I know he's a tempting sound bite, but give us a freaking break. His success didn't end racism any more than Thurgood Marshall's did.
Bad enough the appellants in this case are hand-picked exceptions - but the meme their pushing is even worse.
Barack Obama's success is not the rule, it is an exception. Using an exception, (particularly this exception) to try and abolish a civil rights rule is beyond offensive.
Bair-ish on the big banks
(Via CJR)
Planet Money's coverage of what goes into a bank takedown (aside from being great entertainment) makes we wonder how well the FDIC would cope if it tried to take down Citi or BofA in a similar fashion.
I don't think they have the manpower, but then - they've been hiring for awhile...
Oh, c'mon. A guy can dream.
Is it me or does it seem like FDIC Chairwoman Sheila Bair is about the only person in Washington who gets it. Just the other day, we saw her fighting Tim Geithner’s bumbling plan back in mid-2007 to let banks set their own capital levels.
Yesterday she called for the FDIC to be empowered to close down institutions that are “too big to fail.” Why her agency? Because it’s already set up to do the dirty work.
Planet Money's coverage of what goes into a bank takedown (aside from being great entertainment) makes we wonder how well the FDIC would cope if it tried to take down Citi or BofA in a similar fashion.
I don't think they have the manpower, but then - they've been hiring for awhile...
Oh, c'mon. A guy can dream.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Dear Representative Bachmann: We get that you're stupid. You can stop now.
Yes, there's all kinds of big news out there today (and the Daily Show had that killer interview on torture) - that's what serious blogger types are for.
Me, I just can't get over how incredibly awful Rep. Michele Bachmann is.
Here she is, telling the world that the last two swine flu scares occurred under Democratic presidents.
That'd be our current outbreak and the one in 1976.
Now, I can't say I had that date in my head, but NPR had a story on that outbreak this morning.
While I certainly would not have been able to recall the year of the outbreak - I could hardly forget the bit where President Gerald Ford addresses the nation as he gets vaccinated. (Congresswoman? You remember how presidents - like the current one - get sworn in on odd numbered years?)
Every time this woman opens her big yap - Sarah Palin mouths a silent "Thank you" at her television.
(H/t to TPM)
Me, I just can't get over how incredibly awful Rep. Michele Bachmann is.
Here she is, telling the world that the last two swine flu scares occurred under Democratic presidents.
That'd be our current outbreak and the one in 1976.
Now, I can't say I had that date in my head, but NPR had a story on that outbreak this morning.
While I certainly would not have been able to recall the year of the outbreak - I could hardly forget the bit where President Gerald Ford addresses the nation as he gets vaccinated. (Congresswoman? You remember how presidents - like the current one - get sworn in on odd numbered years?)
Every time this woman opens her big yap - Sarah Palin mouths a silent "Thank you" at her television.
(H/t to TPM)
The Dems get 60: Specter changes sides
Via the BBC
Holy fricking hell.
Still, you want to hit him in the head and say "NOW?? Now you notice that your party has gone crazy?"
Of course, getting assurances from the (only too happy to promise) Dems that he won't face a primary challenge probably helped Specter make up his mind.
Memo to the GOP: scorched earth tactics can really bite you in the butt, no?
US Republican Senator Arlen Specter is to switch sides and become a Democrat.
The move would give the Democrats 59 votes in the US Senate, just one short of the 60 needed to overturn Republican attempts to block legislation.
The Democrats are expected to pick up their 60th vote when the result of the still-disputed Minnesota Senate race is decided by the courts.
Mr Specter, a moderate, said that since he joined the Republicans in 1980 the party had "moved far to the right".
Holy fricking hell.
Still, you want to hit him in the head and say "NOW?? Now you notice that your party has gone crazy?"
Of course, getting assurances from the (only too happy to promise) Dems that he won't face a primary challenge probably helped Specter make up his mind.
Memo to the GOP: scorched earth tactics can really bite you in the butt, no?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
I hate my earbuds
I've bought three sets of earbuds for my iPod and I hate all of them.
The ones that came with the iPod were crap, so I went to C|net and bought a mid-range pair from Shure.
They suck. Small rubber ends that clog with earwax and (unbelievably) require the regular replacement of stickers less than half centimeter in diameter to prevent this problem. They provide about eight stickers, so a few months after I bought these - I was out of stickers. Then they went through the wash - now they're about as good a a pair of rabbit ear antennas. In precisely the correct alignment, they function. Exhale, and one or both buds cut out.
99 bucks wasted.
I went with the upscale earbuds from Apple. They came with rubber sleeves, too - only these come off without too much effort. Meaning a few months later, I'm missing one and now I don't have a matched pair.
Thankfully, my son removed the other and lost it. So now I have some bare metal $50 buds that I can use, provided I hold them in place with my hands.
I'm back to the ones that came with the iPod.
And they have no separate pieces, but they tangle like there's no tomorrow. I dread putting the iPod in my pocket, because I know the next time I take it out I'll have a bird's nest.
Enter this idea:
That'd be a pair of earbuds on a zipper. So you can zip the damn things together.
You take that an no easy-to-remove bits, and they may have something there.
I want.
(H/t design milk)
The ones that came with the iPod were crap, so I went to C|net and bought a mid-range pair from Shure.
They suck. Small rubber ends that clog with earwax and (unbelievably) require the regular replacement of stickers less than half centimeter in diameter to prevent this problem. They provide about eight stickers, so a few months after I bought these - I was out of stickers. Then they went through the wash - now they're about as good a a pair of rabbit ear antennas. In precisely the correct alignment, they function. Exhale, and one or both buds cut out.
99 bucks wasted.
I went with the upscale earbuds from Apple. They came with rubber sleeves, too - only these come off without too much effort. Meaning a few months later, I'm missing one and now I don't have a matched pair.
Thankfully, my son removed the other and lost it. So now I have some bare metal $50 buds that I can use, provided I hold them in place with my hands.
I'm back to the ones that came with the iPod.
And they have no separate pieces, but they tangle like there's no tomorrow. I dread putting the iPod in my pocket, because I know the next time I take it out I'll have a bird's nest.
Enter this idea:
That'd be a pair of earbuds on a zipper. So you can zip the damn things together.
You take that an no easy-to-remove bits, and they may have something there.
I want.
(H/t design milk)
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Bending YouTube to your will
Dynagirl showed me a great YouTube hack awhile back (linking directly to the portion of a YouTube clip you want). It's way cool - and now Google's recommendations goes the rest of the way with a list of other awesome ways to customize how your YouTube clips display, including:
Rockin'
2. Embed Higher Quality Videos
4. Hide the search box
5. Embed only a part of Video
8. Disable Related Videos
Rockin'
Friday, April 24, 2009
Time Pwned
Just because this is just too freaking hilarious.
Setup: a group of hackers who posted in an IRC channel called marblecake meet an online poll for Time Magazine's Most Influention Person:
Hilarity ensues.
(H/t Coding Horror)
Setup: a group of hackers who posted in an IRC channel called marblecake meet an online poll for Time Magazine's Most Influention Person:
Hilarity ensues.
(H/t Coding Horror)
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Kwak attack
Posting the intro of yet another must-read from James Kwak:
Read on
For a snapshot of what’s wrong with our banking policy, look at the front page of the business section of today’s New York Times. On the left side: “U.S. in Standoff with Banks over Chrysler.” On the right side: “Banks Show Clout on Legislation to Help Consumers.”
On the left side, a consortium of banks holding Chrysler debt is refusing to agree to the current restructuring plan, which involves bondholders holding $6.9 billion in secured debt getting about 15 cents on the dollar - roughly where the bonds are currently trading, according to the Times.* The banks are playing the ongoing game of chicken with the government, betting that the government will cave and give them a better deal rather than take a risk on a bankruptcy.
On the right side, the banks are using their lobbying clout to block the administration’s proposals to help consumers and households, including the mortgage cram-down provision (which would allow bankruptcy courts to modify mortgages on first homes) and added consumer protections for credit card customers. They currently have all 41 Republican votes in the Senate tied up, which means nothing can pass.
[snip]
The banks leading the charge over Chrysler: JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. The banks opposed to cram-downs: Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo. The banks blocking credit card protections: American Express, Bank of America, Capital One Financial, Citigroup, Discover Financial Services, and JPMorgan Chase. All or almost all are bailout beneficiaries. But don’t blame them: they’re just doing what they can to maximize their profits at the expense of the taxpayer, which is perfectly legal (and even ethical, depending on your conception of shareholder rights). Instead, you should be wondering why they are in a position to be maximizing profits at the taxpayer’s expense.
Read on
Sec. Clinton to Cheney: Shut up
I love this (via Reuters):
'bout time somebody pointed out that Cheney's mouth is bigger than his grasp on reality.
"It won't surprise you that I don't consider him (Cheney) a particularly reliable source," [Sec. of State Hillary] Clinton told the House of Representatives foreign affairs committee.
[snip]
"That policy disagreement is whether or not you can uphold the values in which this country was founded at the same time that you protect the citizens that live in that country. (The) president of the United States in this administration believes that you can. The vice president has come to, in our opinion, a different conclusion,"
'bout time somebody pointed out that Cheney's mouth is bigger than his grasp on reality.
Wall Street profits: Cut the crap, people
TBP nabbed this awhile ago, but its worth reading in its entirety.
Just in case you hear some fool telling you how the big banks are now turning profits.
Just in case you hear some fool telling you how the big banks are now turning profits.
Bank Profits Appear Out of Thin Air
This is starting to feel like amateur hour for aspiring magicians.
Another day, another attempt by a Wall Street bank to pull a bunny out of the hat, showing off an earnings report that it hopes will elicit oohs and aahs from the market. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and, on Monday, Bank of America all tried to wow their audiences with what appeared to be — presto! — better-than-expected numbers.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Wait, wait, wait... Borders is gonna die?
Wall Street 24/7 rattles off 12 brands they expect to perish by 2010.
Borders bookstores are one of them.
Makes me want to go out right now and buy a book...
or, maybe I should wait for their big sale later in the-- oh, this just feels wrong!
Borders, hang in there!! Think of a greater purpose... Barnes & Noble cannot be allowed to win!!!
(H/t Dynagirl)
Borders bookstores are one of them.
Makes me want to go out right now and buy a book...
or, maybe I should wait for their big sale later in the-- oh, this just feels wrong!
Borders, hang in there!! Think of a greater purpose... Barnes & Noble cannot be allowed to win!!!
(H/t Dynagirl)
In our own defense, we're idiots
I'm going to ask you to belive I'd drafted a lengthy post about the recent NYT article:
I did. Seriously.
The general thrust of which was this: Are you f-ing kidding me??
The NYT has interviewed "more than two dozen current and former senior officials of the C.I.A., White House, Justice Department and Congress."
Anonymously.
All are trying to sell the line of crap that everyone greenlighting the adaptation of SERE's torture techniques to interrogating US prisoners never bothered to look into what they were authorizing.
SERE: designed to brutalize US soldiers in preparation for torture at the hands of our enemies. NOBODY thought to look into what techniques are used and if they have historically been viewed as torture?
-But there I go off track.
I was about to write that post, but then I read Charles Kaiser in CJR and figured - screw it, leave it to the pros.
Arrgh!
Top U.S. officials involved in the adoption of brutal interrogation methods did not investigate the origins of the techniques they approved with little debate.
I did. Seriously.
The general thrust of which was this: Are you f-ing kidding me??
The NYT has interviewed "more than two dozen current and former senior officials of the C.I.A., White House, Justice Department and Congress."
Anonymously.
All are trying to sell the line of crap that everyone greenlighting the adaptation of SERE's torture techniques to interrogating US prisoners never bothered to look into what they were authorizing.
SERE: designed to brutalize US soldiers in preparation for torture at the hands of our enemies. NOBODY thought to look into what techniques are used and if they have historically been viewed as torture?
-But there I go off track.
I was about to write that post, but then I read Charles Kaiser in CJR and figured - screw it, leave it to the pros.
Arrgh!
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Chrysler Financial Execs choose their well being over their company
Ryan Chittum's beating on the WSJ for watering down their coverage of an explosive topic:
Chrysler Financial executives are leery of accepting government aid, because it might affect their salary.
They are choosing more expensivepublic private sector financing.
While I'm sure the negotiations are private - the end results will be public and long lasting.
I'd love to see some on the record defenses of this decision.
Late edit: e's right, I meant private sector financing.
Chrysler Financial executives are leery of accepting government aid, because it might affect their salary.
They are choosing more expensive
While I'm sure the negotiations are private - the end results will be public and long lasting.
I'd love to see some on the record defenses of this decision.
Late edit: e's right, I meant private sector financing.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Pulitzer snub for the WSJ
(Via Megan Garber of CJR)
That's gotta sting.
Notably, no [Pulitzer] winners at the Wall Street Journal. In the year when the financial crisis was THE big story.
That's gotta sting.
Jane Harmon smells bad, and she's not alone
As long as I’m catching up with my emptywheel posts –here’s a nice series
The congress member is then shielded from further investigation by our Attorney General, so they can be used to defend the government’s soon-to-be-revealed program of domestic wiretapping.
Beyond pathetic.
- What does a house intelligence chairmanship cost?
(wherein we learn: CQ reported that “the NSA picked up intercepts of Jane Harman agreeing to lobby DOJ to back off charges on AIPAC's Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman in exchange for AIPAC's support of her getting the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee.”)
- Alberto Gonzales’ Blackmail Notes and Jane Harman’s Support
(wherein we learn: [AG] Gonzales spiked an investigation into Harman because he needed her to support the Administration as news of the warrantless wiretap program broke in 2005.)
And
- Jane Harman: Stupid and Reckless, Not the Victim of Illegal Wiretaps
(Wherein we learn: Harman was recorded under an NSA warrant approved for the person she was talking to – “Israel[i] covert action operations in Washington”)
The congress member is then shielded from further investigation by our Attorney General, so they can be used to defend the government’s soon-to-be-revealed program of domestic wiretapping.
Beyond pathetic.
NYT to Emptywheel on Waterboarding: credit where credit is due
Marcy Wheeler bags an elephant.
Via the New York Times:
And how does the NYT know this?
I am beyond disgusted at our government's past behavior, but I cannot help but cheer for a relentless blogger like Marcy getting a hat tip for doing what she's always done: inform the public.
Rock on.
Via the New York Times:
C.I.A. interrogators used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported.
The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum. Abu Zubaydah has been described as a Qaeda operative.
And how does the NYT know this?
The new information on the number of waterboarding episodes came out over the weekend when a number of bloggers, including Marcy Wheeler of the blog emptywheel, discovered it in the May 30, 2005, memo.
I am beyond disgusted at our government's past behavior, but I cannot help but cheer for a relentless blogger like Marcy getting a hat tip for doing what she's always done: inform the public.
Rock on.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
NYT's Lichtblau and Risen are still on the NSA trail
(Via the NYT, emphasis mine)
Anyone feel like the 4th amendment is antiquated now?
N.S.A.’s Intercepts Exceed Limits Set by Congress
Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional.
[snip]
And in one previously undisclosed episode, the N.S.A. tried to wiretap a member of Congress without a warrant, an intelligence official with direct knowledge of the matter said.
The agency believed that the congressman, whose identity could not be determined, was in contact — as part of a Congressional delegation to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 — with an extremist who had possible terrorist ties and was already under surveillance, the official said. The agency then sought to eavesdrop on the congressman’s conversations, the official said.
The official said the plan was ultimately blocked because of concerns from some intelligence officials about using the N.S.A., without court oversight, to spy on a member of Congress.
Anyone feel like the 4th amendment is antiquated now?
Elizabeth Warren on the Daily Show
Watching this right now.
Elizabeth Warren - the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP (author of a certain report opining that banks are being coddled) talking to Jon Stewart spelling out how we have been screwed.
OoooOoh, Hank Paulson comes off kinda....bad in this interview.
Seriously. Watch this interview, soon as it hits the net.
Nice.
Elizabeth Warren - the Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP (author of a certain report opining that banks are being coddled) talking to Jon Stewart spelling out how we have been screwed.
OoooOoh, Hank Paulson comes off kinda....bad in this interview.
Seriously. Watch this interview, soon as it hits the net.
Nice.
HVAR sled vs subcompact car
(H/t to Bad Astronomy - Okay, I saw this the other day, but BA reminded me that this is out there on the interwebs.)
The Mythbusters were testing the completely absurd "myth" that two semis that collide head-on AND sandwich a compact car between them will pancake the car and fuse together with it.
That by itself ensures a fair amount of insanity. Spoiler: two semis traveling at a combined speed of over 100mph do not obliterate a car.
But the killer bit was when they decided to dial up the crazy and see what kind of impact would be necessary to obliterate the car.
They went to a ordinance testing site where they used HVAR rockets to ram an inch thick steel plate into a compact car.
It looked like this:
What you're seeing there is the HVAR sled come in and wipe out the car, followed by the first stage boosters coming in later and spinning out of control.
This video doesn't show these just-as-awesome bits:
1) The full acceleration of the sled - showing the second stage ignition and the approach.
and, (for my money) the best bit from the show:
2) Adam's reaction shot. Adam is flat out stunned into silence when he sees the impact - and his expression is just priceless.
My last such moment was looking at a picture of a twisted inch-thick I-beam from the World Trade Center bent almost double from the force of the collapse. I had no experience to appreciate the force needed to do that, but the picture thankfully supplied a slack-jawed steelworker gaping at the beam like it had just grown a mouth and licked him.
Adam's expression was like that.
A mind on the verge of a forced re-boot.
.........Ww-w-w-w-w....whaaAAaaaa?
The Mythbusters wind-out shows the rocket sled's metal plate was similarly bent and the car, well - Jamie's quote was pretty damn good, too.
The Mythbusters were testing the completely absurd "myth" that two semis that collide head-on AND sandwich a compact car between them will pancake the car and fuse together with it.
That by itself ensures a fair amount of insanity. Spoiler: two semis traveling at a combined speed of over 100mph do not obliterate a car.
But the killer bit was when they decided to dial up the crazy and see what kind of impact would be necessary to obliterate the car.
They went to a ordinance testing site where they used HVAR rockets to ram an inch thick steel plate into a compact car.
It looked like this:
What you're seeing there is the HVAR sled come in and wipe out the car, followed by the first stage boosters coming in later and spinning out of control.
This video doesn't show these just-as-awesome bits:
1) The full acceleration of the sled - showing the second stage ignition and the approach.
and, (for my money) the best bit from the show:
2) Adam's reaction shot. Adam is flat out stunned into silence when he sees the impact - and his expression is just priceless.
uuhh......Holy Crap!Honestly, there are few visuals in life that show you high-energy physics in action. The kind of mass-energy combinations that occur way beyond what our minds can think of by themselves.
My last such moment was looking at a picture of a twisted inch-thick I-beam from the World Trade Center bent almost double from the force of the collapse. I had no experience to appreciate the force needed to do that, but the picture thankfully supplied a slack-jawed steelworker gaping at the beam like it had just grown a mouth and licked him.
Adam's expression was like that.
A mind on the verge of a forced re-boot.
.........Ww-w-w-w-w....whaaAAaaaa?
The Mythbusters wind-out shows the rocket sled's metal plate was similarly bent and the car, well - Jamie's quote was pretty damn good, too.
So, our goal was to fuse metal and pancake the car. Did we achieve that?Love it.
[looks around]
What car??
All hail Ms. Boyle
I'm such a total sucker for this sort of thing:
Kick crazy ass.
Last weekend, the frizzy-haired, squarely built [Susan] Boyle walked onto the stage of "Britain's Got Talent" to barely suppressed snickers from the audience and skeptical eye rolls from Cowell, the unfailingly caustic judge on both "American Idol" and the British TV show.I know, the producers of the show are no doubt looking for another Paul Potts, but all the same -
The audience laughed mercilessly as Boyle did a saucy hip wiggle and said she'd like a chance to prove she could be as good as Elaine Paige, a legendary singer often called the first lady of British musical theater.
Those present were clearly prepared to howl.
Then Boyle opened her mouth. And within the first few bars of "I Dreamed a Dream," from the hit musical "Les Miserables," the audience was standing and applauding.
Kick crazy ass.
Of tempests, tea parties, and tea pots
Okay, I get that there are thousands of people at hundreds of locations around the nation standing waving signs.
CNN's Ashley Fantz told me so.
Here's the bit I don't get - what idea are they rallying behind?
Fantz points out that the organizers are using the acronym TEA for "Taxed enough already" - but the signs she quotes in the rest of the piece suggest people are anti-stimulus ("I read as much of the stimulus bill as my Congresswoman" and "Stop generational theft") and Fantz devotes a good chunk of the article to CNBC's Rick Santelli rant against helping struggling homeowners.
So- which is it?
Is it Taxes?
I'm sure people like Santelli hope so - people making more than $215,000 per year are they're the only ones whose tax rates would go up.
Historically, these people have nothing to complain about - and it's unclear why the majority of Americans (who assuredly do not pull down anywhere near that much) would be agitating that the well-to-do keep tax cuts that are less than eight years old.
Is it the stimulus?
We are in recession. Millions are out of work, credit is at a standstill, I'm sure there are many different ideas of what to do, but are we to believe these people want the government to NOT stimulate the economy? If they were unifying behind a counter-proposal, I'm sure millions of Americans just like me would be interested in what they had to say. Instead, they just say "we hate the stimulus." That's not an idea, it's a soundbite, and (setting aside the past eight years) we cannot govern the country using soundbites.
The opposition party was outvoted on the Stimulus, this is true - but their counterproposal (which they hilariously called a budget) was just so much hot air.
Is it socialism?
If there's any person in that crowd who seriously feels that we are on the road to socialism, they have the right to speak their mind, but I'm not sure they deserve CNN's attention. People that ignorant of what socialism is, and what this administration and its predecessor have done do not merit a national audience.
Is it assistance to homeowners?
I know Santelli's rant gets a lot of play - and he spouted off this whole tea party thing, but I'd be skeptical that the first item on angry taxpayers lists is the paltry sum being allocated to helping homeowners.
The billions we've forked over to one bank - CitiGroup - dwarfs that sum many times over. These people are mad about homeowners?
It's like a whole bunch of outvoted conservatives got all angry and went into the streets before they had an idea about what they wanted.
Taxed Enough Already has the appearance of a flag of convenience. A hastily-hoisted banner to make it look like these people have a common purpose - and they're all over the place.
I'm sure the minority of people whose taxes are going up would love to re-direct convervative ire to their own ends - but really, shouldn't there be some better digging into what these people really want?
CNN's stops with "Hey, there's a bunch of people in the streets. Here are there signs."
Thanks for nothing, Ashley.
CNN's Ashley Fantz told me so.
Here's the bit I don't get - what idea are they rallying behind?
Fantz points out that the organizers are using the acronym TEA for "Taxed enough already" - but the signs she quotes in the rest of the piece suggest people are anti-stimulus ("I read as much of the stimulus bill as my Congresswoman" and "Stop generational theft") and Fantz devotes a good chunk of the article to CNBC's Rick Santelli rant against helping struggling homeowners.
So- which is it?
Is it Taxes?
I'm sure people like Santelli hope so - people making more than $215,000 per year are they're the only ones whose tax rates would go up.
Historically, these people have nothing to complain about - and it's unclear why the majority of Americans (who assuredly do not pull down anywhere near that much) would be agitating that the well-to-do keep tax cuts that are less than eight years old.
Is it the stimulus?
We are in recession. Millions are out of work, credit is at a standstill, I'm sure there are many different ideas of what to do, but are we to believe these people want the government to NOT stimulate the economy? If they were unifying behind a counter-proposal, I'm sure millions of Americans just like me would be interested in what they had to say. Instead, they just say "we hate the stimulus." That's not an idea, it's a soundbite, and (setting aside the past eight years) we cannot govern the country using soundbites.
The opposition party was outvoted on the Stimulus, this is true - but their counterproposal (which they hilariously called a budget) was just so much hot air.
Is it socialism?
If there's any person in that crowd who seriously feels that we are on the road to socialism, they have the right to speak their mind, but I'm not sure they deserve CNN's attention. People that ignorant of what socialism is, and what this administration and its predecessor have done do not merit a national audience.
Is it assistance to homeowners?
I know Santelli's rant gets a lot of play - and he spouted off this whole tea party thing, but I'd be skeptical that the first item on angry taxpayers lists is the paltry sum being allocated to helping homeowners.
The billions we've forked over to one bank - CitiGroup - dwarfs that sum many times over. These people are mad about homeowners?
It's like a whole bunch of outvoted conservatives got all angry and went into the streets before they had an idea about what they wanted.
Taxed Enough Already has the appearance of a flag of convenience. A hastily-hoisted banner to make it look like these people have a common purpose - and they're all over the place.
I'm sure the minority of people whose taxes are going up would love to re-direct convervative ire to their own ends - but really, shouldn't there be some better digging into what these people really want?
CNN's stops with "Hey, there's a bunch of people in the streets. Here are there signs."
Thanks for nothing, Ashley.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Goldman Sachs: Lining their pockets with your money
The darling of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs is loudly crowing about how they could be the first to repay the government billions.
Call me a cynic, but I'm thinking this might be the key paragraph:
Good thing, too - here's CJR's Ryan Chittum's take on Goldman's compensation:
Chittum pats the FT on the back for addressing something plenty of people aren't talking about:
Because they had such a great year.
$10 billion from TARP
$12.9 billion funneled through AIG
Pop the champagne, everybody!
Just be sure to get the hell out of the room after you do - Goldman Sachs would prefer to drink alone.
Call me a cynic, but I'm thinking this might be the key paragraph:
If successful, Goldman would become the first major bank to return funds received under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP. Such a step would probably enable Goldman — long one of the most lucrative places to work on Wall Street — to free itself from government-imposed restrictions on compensation.
Good thing, too - here's CJR's Ryan Chittum's take on Goldman's compensation:
Government billions help Goldman boost pay 25%Not that you'd get that from the fawning coverage of the business press. Oh, they cover it, but it's a question of emphasis.
Chittum pats the FT on the back for addressing something plenty of people aren't talking about:
The bank raised its total compensation and benefits’ bill to $4.7bn – 18 per cent higher than in the first quarter of 2008. But Goldman now employs 4,000 fewer people so the quarterly pay for its 27,898 employees was, on average, more than $168,000, nearly a quarter higher than a year ago.Right. So Goldman payroll is up 25% for the first quarter of this year.
Because they had such a great year.
$10 billion from TARP
$12.9 billion funneled through AIG
Pop the champagne, everybody!
Just be sure to get the hell out of the room after you do - Goldman Sachs would prefer to drink alone.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Let's not F#&@! with Ms. Trunk today
Here's a great post from Penelope Trunk about why people shouldn't snark at other parents.
You never know what you could unleash
Here's the setup:
Fair enough - except David did it on the internet, using his personal information.
Oops.
Ms. Trunk was not at all pleased.
And said so.
At length.
Here's a sample:
Rock on, Ms. Trunk. (And thank you Mr. Dellifield, for being the cautionary tale most of us were otherwise bound to become.)
You never know what you could unleash
Here's the setup:
...in a moment of innocent desperation, I wrote on Twitter: “No school today and the nanny's on vacation. A whole day with the kids gets so boring: all intergalactic battles and no intellectual banter.”David, David, David... somebody's having a bad time parenting and you chose to pile on.
I almost didn’t post that Twitter because it’s so banal.
But, in just seconds, because that’s how Twitter works, there was a firestorm of men telling me that I’m a bad mom. Really. Yes.
Here’s one from David Dellifield:
“@penelopetrunk sorry your kids are a burden, send them to OH, we'll enjoy them for who they are”
Fair enough - except David did it on the internet, using his personal information.
Oops.
Ms. Trunk was not at all pleased.
And said so.
At length.
Here's a sample:
For all you guys who Twittered back to me that I’m a bad mom and that I should love being home with my kids, here’s a link for you: CEOs who are on Twitter. Because let me tell you something: None of these people needs to earn the money they are earning. They have enough money. They can stay home with their kids. But instead, they are at work.
Rock on, Ms. Trunk. (And thank you Mr. Dellifield, for being the cautionary tale most of us were otherwise bound to become.)
And another thing...
Okay here are some winners that I don't have time to expound on (and couldn't add much anyway)
Buyer beware, my @ss.
We keep hearing sellers of exotic financial products say that the buyers are to blame.
That would be a more compelling argument if the buyers weren't hopelessly uninformed about what they are buying.
-But they should know what they are buying!
How? The sellers employ armies of fine print authors to describe how a given product will live in its native environment. The average buyer will not have access to unfiltered information about either.
Sellers take pains to make apples to apples comparison of their product as difficult as possible. A year ago, most people would have thought rating agencies were independent sources of reliable opinions.
Picture a sales guy (ANY sales guy) telling their client "Y'know the rating agencies are paid by my company"
And then there's this:
I've been out of it for awhile, but I'd hope this is making full rounds in the press. Kind of a big deal, that.
Here's a great para from the Guardian, who scooped everyone.
(H/t CJR)
NYT on Wall Street Versus Small-Town America
Buyer beware, my @ss.
We keep hearing sellers of exotic financial products say that the buyers are to blame.
That would be a more compelling argument if the buyers weren't hopelessly uninformed about what they are buying.
-But they should know what they are buying!
How? The sellers employ armies of fine print authors to describe how a given product will live in its native environment. The average buyer will not have access to unfiltered information about either.
Sellers take pains to make apples to apples comparison of their product as difficult as possible. A year ago, most people would have thought rating agencies were independent sources of reliable opinions.
Picture a sales guy (ANY sales guy) telling their client "Y'know the rating agencies are paid by my company"
And then there's this:
Congressional Panel Suggests Firing Managers, Liquidating Banks
A congressional panel overseeing the U.S. financial rescue suggested that getting rid of top executives and liquidating problem banks may be a better way to solve the economic crisis.
I've been out of it for awhile, but I'd hope this is making full rounds in the press. Kind of a big deal, that.
Here's a great para from the Guardian, who scooped everyone.
The report will also look at how earlier crises were overcome - the Swedish and Japanese problems of the 1990s, the US savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and the 30s Depression. "Three things had to happen," Warren said. "Firstly, the banks must have confidence that the valuation of the troubled assets in question is accurate; then the management of the institutions receiving subsidies from the government must be replaced; and thirdly, the equity investors are always wiped out."
(H/t CJR)
We give you billions, you give us usury
(Via CJR)
Don Mawson, a 49-year-old who works in Boston for State Street Corp., said he called Capital One Financial Corp. to complain about its decision to increase the late-payment interest rate on his credit card to 29.4% from 7.9%, even though he has never missed a payment. Mr. Mawson says the bank, which got $3.6 billion from the federal government, declined his request.Nice.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
FASB lets sleeping banks lie
And I do mean lie.
What does the relaxation of mark-to-market accounting mean in RealSpeak?
Here's ClusterStock to the rescue:
Read on.
(H/t ProPublica)
What does the relaxation of mark-to-market accounting mean in RealSpeak?
Here's ClusterStock to the rescue:
You borrow $200 to buy two cows. You pay $100 for each cow. You write that down.It gets better from there.
Lightning strikes one of your cows, an unlikely event that should only happen once every 10,000 years.
Lightning strikes the other cow.
You notice the cows are on fire.
Your paper still says $100.
Fortunately, mark to market has been suspended so you don't have to pay attention to the fire.
Your cows look dead.
Your paper still says $100.
Fortunately, mark to market has been suspended so you don't have to pay attention to the fact that the cows look dead. They're probably just sleeping.
Read on.
(H/t ProPublica)
Friday, April 03, 2009
Happy Friday
CorpWorld culture is loaded with contradictions.
Almost everyone you meet is nice. Project meetings are loaded with small talk and good anecdotes. Over time - you become familiar with the public face of the people on your team.
You don't know them, but you know their social patterns, sense of humor - what they choose to present to their co-workers.
Call it their avatar, and people create them out of necessity. I know your avatar; I can pretend to know you. It makes working together easier.
Personal lives exist only to the extent that they add color to people's avatar. You do not ask about personal lives, people choose which highlights they will share.
Really, it's just meeting people with a set stopping point. A protocol.
You don't even think about it until something makes you.
A few weeks ago - I got an email from a colleague that made me.
The message was really odd. This person said "Keep in touch" and listed an external email address. Below it was a giant picture of a smiley face.
The subject line said "Happy Friday" but the subtext was clearly I don't work here anymore.
Which brings up the obvious question: Did they jump, or were they pushed?
The message gives off all the signs of someone loudly affirming "I AM OKAY WITH THIS" which naturally suggests the opposite.
The human thing to do is to ask this person how they are doing - y'know... what the hell happened? Are you okay?
But you don't know this person - you are not friends, you know next to nothing about them. Asking for particulars is ghoulish, and really - what do the particulars matter at this point?
Being morbidly curious hardly justifies the intrusion.
You can't ask.
At some point, the grapevine may bring you some after action report - but it will just be another avatar.
You didn't ask the person - so you will never know.
---
This morning a co-worker told me to go into the office to see the boss. Their mannerism suggested I should not ask why.
Flat-footed, mind on an upcoming meeting, I go in with no idea.
The boss starts out by trying to calm me down.
In other words, this is bad.
The boss clarifies.
So we are talking about people being fired.
I'm looking for confirmation she's not talking about me. She's not.
She's telling me a third of our department is being laid off. Good people, veterans. A father of three whose wife has cancer - he moved here for this job. The recruiter who's always making lunch for the department.
My partner on a side project-
-and my partner on the meeting I'm about to go to.
My boss is upset. I do what I've done before - tell her I work for her until I don't. That my feelings are irrelevant - I still have a job.
I go back to my desk shell-shocked.
My partner and I will go to our meeting in ten minutes. They have been laid off, and I still work here.
I'm still sorting out if the subject can be avoided when they are at my desk, with all their meeting materials - as if nothing has happened.
We start walking and she casually asks, "How are you today?"
I'm assuming they know everything I know - so I break protocol.
I say "I won't ask you the same question."
She says "You're still here?"
I realize she'd been asking if I was gone, too. She doesn't know who's still here and who isn't.
I rattle off the names - and we pretend not to be horrified.
We walk to the meeting dancing around the subject.
I don't know her. I feel sick. She was about to buy a car.
We arrive at our meeting room - and our respective avatars go in.
Better that way.
Protocol.
Almost everyone you meet is nice. Project meetings are loaded with small talk and good anecdotes. Over time - you become familiar with the public face of the people on your team.
You don't know them, but you know their social patterns, sense of humor - what they choose to present to their co-workers.
Call it their avatar, and people create them out of necessity. I know your avatar; I can pretend to know you. It makes working together easier.
Personal lives exist only to the extent that they add color to people's avatar. You do not ask about personal lives, people choose which highlights they will share.
Really, it's just meeting people with a set stopping point. A protocol.
You don't even think about it until something makes you.
A few weeks ago - I got an email from a colleague that made me.
The message was really odd. This person said "Keep in touch" and listed an external email address. Below it was a giant picture of a smiley face.
The subject line said "Happy Friday" but the subtext was clearly I don't work here anymore.
Which brings up the obvious question: Did they jump, or were they pushed?
The message gives off all the signs of someone loudly affirming "I AM OKAY WITH THIS" which naturally suggests the opposite.
The human thing to do is to ask this person how they are doing - y'know... what the hell happened? Are you okay?
But you don't know this person - you are not friends, you know next to nothing about them. Asking for particulars is ghoulish, and really - what do the particulars matter at this point?
Being morbidly curious hardly justifies the intrusion.
You can't ask.
At some point, the grapevine may bring you some after action report - but it will just be another avatar.
You didn't ask the person - so you will never know.
---
This morning a co-worker told me to go into the office to see the boss. Their mannerism suggested I should not ask why.
Flat-footed, mind on an upcoming meeting, I go in with no idea.
The boss starts out by trying to calm me down.
It's nothing bad.
In other words, this is bad.
The boss clarifies.
This is not bad for you.
So we are talking about people being fired.
I'm looking for confirmation she's not talking about me. She's not.
She's telling me a third of our department is being laid off. Good people, veterans. A father of three whose wife has cancer - he moved here for this job. The recruiter who's always making lunch for the department.
My partner on a side project-
-and my partner on the meeting I'm about to go to.
My boss is upset. I do what I've done before - tell her I work for her until I don't. That my feelings are irrelevant - I still have a job.
I go back to my desk shell-shocked.
My partner and I will go to our meeting in ten minutes. They have been laid off, and I still work here.
I'm still sorting out if the subject can be avoided when they are at my desk, with all their meeting materials - as if nothing has happened.
We start walking and she casually asks, "How are you today?"
I'm assuming they know everything I know - so I break protocol.
I say "I won't ask you the same question."
She says "You're still here?"
I realize she'd been asking if I was gone, too. She doesn't know who's still here and who isn't.
I rattle off the names - and we pretend not to be horrified.
We walk to the meeting dancing around the subject.
I don't know her. I feel sick. She was about to buy a car.
We arrive at our meeting room - and our respective avatars go in.
Better that way.
Protocol.
Iowa?
Iowa Supreme Court strikes down anti-gay marriage law. Meaning... gay marriage will become legal in the midwest. Via CNN:
Again, I say... Iowa??
(H/t Bad Astronomy)
The court's decision becomes effective in 21 days, and county recorders then will be required to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Lambda senior staff attorney Camilla Taylor said at the news conference.
"You do not have to be an Iowan to seek a license here," she said, and Iowa should recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
Iowa will become the third state in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after Massachusetts and Connecticut.
Again, I say... Iowa??
(H/t Bad Astronomy)
Wally to Druids: wussies
Only because this was so freaking brilliant.
One guy + gravity + lever + patience = stonehenge.
Full-on awesome.
(H/t to the Big Picture)
One guy + gravity + lever + patience = stonehenge.
Full-on awesome.
(H/t to the Big Picture)
Thursday, April 02, 2009
The eloquence of worthless money
Zimbabwe's inflation crisis has caused a local paper, the Zimbabwean, to print its protests on money:
Owch. That's gotta sting.
(H/t Good blog)
Owch. That's gotta sting.
(H/t Good blog)
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
Setting a ceiling on bank size
Over the course of the basketball weekend, I’d shot my mouth off about the current economic disaster and I said something I now regret.
Namely, that a government ceiling on the size of banks would be a bad thing.
After reading this MarketMover article, I’m not so sure:
Yeah? Why do we care if a bank can't get bigger than a few hundred billion in size?
I'd love to hear the counterpoints, I guess.
Namely, that a government ceiling on the size of banks would be a bad thing.
After reading this MarketMover article, I’m not so sure:
As for banks competing with each other by growing, I simply don’t believe that they do. That was the point of Mike’s post, at Rortybomb: when banks get big they’re less competitive, not more competitive. And I think that Kevin is just wrong when he thinks that big customers are more profitable than small customers. Check this out, on the subject of Mexico’s biggest microfinance lender,
Compartamos:Compartamos, which had 1.16 million clients and MXN5.73 billion in loans at the end of December, saw its net profit rise nearly 28 percent to MXN1.12 billion in 2008, giving the bank a return on average equity of 44%, compared with an average for Mexico’s banking sector of 12.5 percent.
Yes, that’s a 44% return on equity in 2008. There aren’t many banks which can say that.
Compartamos:Compartamos, which had 1.16 million clients and MXN5.73 billion in loans at the end of December, saw its net profit rise nearly 28 percent to MXN1.12 billion in 2008, giving the bank a return on average equity of 44%, compared with an average for Mexico’s banking sector of 12.5 percent.
Yes, that’s a 44% return on equity in 2008. There aren’t many banks which can say that.
Yeah? Why do we care if a bank can't get bigger than a few hundred billion in size?
I'd love to hear the counterpoints, I guess.
Botnet Node #457382946t93123910123 reporting status as active
Awaiting instructions - End of line.
<<Conficker 2009040112:01:00 . >>
<<Conficker 2009040112:01:00 . >>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)