OT: Koch-Cain

[wiki trix]

Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?

[r norman]

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:27:15 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
<wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?

It is worse than that. The Koch Foundation helped finance that TV
show where the shattered wine glass reassembled.

[Perseus]

On Nov 10, 11:38 am, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 21:27:15 -0800 (PST), wiki trix
>

> <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> It is worse than that.  The Koch Foundation helped finance that TV
> show where the shattered wine glass reassembled.

this is a true miracle.
perseus

[Steven L.]

"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:293b73a0-f72b-4384...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

> Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?

I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.

SO.WHAT.

All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
movie directors, finance left-wing causes.

But I never considered that sinister either.

If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
finance right-wing causes I agree with too. If I won the lottery, I
would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
right through the White House front door.




-- Steven L.

[Glenn]

"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:B4GdndcGxKmcWybT...@earthlink.com...

That kind of violent rhetoric is unacceptable. What's next, contributing to a
"war chest"?

[jillery]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:37:49 +0000, "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
>"wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:293b73a0-f72b-4384...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
>I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.

What demonization? You sound defensive to me.

>They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
>
>SO.WHAT.
>
>All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
>movie directors, finance left-wing causes.
>
>But I never considered that sinister either.
>
>If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
>finance right-wing causes I agree with too. If I won the lottery, I
>would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
>right through the White House front door.

You put me on the horns of a dilemma. I don't know whether or not to
encourage you to buy lottery tickets.

[Ernest Major]

In message <B4GdndcGxKmcWybT...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes

Out of curiosity, which of the current crop of Republican candidates do
you endorse?

--
alias Ernest Major

[James Beck]

On Nov 10, 7:37 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:293b73a0-f72b-4384...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
>
> SO.WHAT.

So... it violates the human version of the simian dominance game often
claimed to be 'human altruism,' and since they can't play directly,
they slap their chests instead--same as you.

> All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
> movie directors, finance left-wing causes.
>
> But I never considered that sinister either.
>
> If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
> finance right-wing causes I agree with too.  If I won the lottery, I
> would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
> right through the White House front door.

For that much, you could surround yourself with other nuts and
caramel, plus a nice snickery, chocolate finish.

[Will in New Haven]

On Nov 10, 7:37 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:293b73a0-f72b-4384...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
>
> SO.WHAT.

And they are probably JOOS also. You don't see the ebil?

>
> All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
> movie directors, finance left-wing causes.

butbutbut that's IDEALISM, innit?

>
> But I never considered that sinister either.
>
> If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
> finance right-wing causes I agree with too.  If I won the lottery, I
> would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
> right through the White House front door.

I am off the right edge of the earth and I can't imagine backing
anyone who could get the nomination of the Republican Party as it is
now constituted. Of course, I can't imagine buying a lottery ticket
either.

I contribute to the inept but sometimes somewhat endearing Libertarian
Party and I guess I will vote for whatever they dig up for a
candidate. I used to vote Republican as a least of evils and W got me
so angry that I voted for John fucking KERRY against him. But least of
evils is still evil.

--
Will in New Haven
Vote no, always and forever no

[Earle Jones]

In article <B4GdndcGxKmcWybT...@earthlink.com>,

*
....and elect Herman Cain with his $9.99 pizza.

earle
*

[Robert Grumbine]

In article <B4GdndcGxKmcWybT...@earthlink.com>, Steven L. wrote:
>
>
> "wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:293b73a0-f72b-4384...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
>
> SO.WHAT.

Indeed. Of course committing fraud and just plain
lying might not endear them to some, ymmv.

For me, however, I'll take the demonization of the Kochs
on the basis that they're paying people to slander my son.
And lie, and such. No assault on him ... yet.

And, of course, to you that is again 'SO.WHAT.'

[trim]


--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Nov 10, 7:37 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

The Koch brothers are outside the moral pale, as they hide whom they
are donating to, and use political tactics of a particuarly dishonest
nature.

Mitchell Coffey

[r norman]

The David H. Koch Foundation has funded cancer research and a number
of arts and science organizations, including the American Ballet
Theater, New York City Ballet, Lincoln Center, the Metropolitan Museum
of Art, and the American Museum of Natural History.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Family_Foundations

Should they give the money back?

[Mitchell Coffey]

You do know that the fact that people who give to charity does not
mean they're honest in politics?

Mitchell Coffey

[r norman]

It is hard to tell what "honest" in politics means. They do support
ultraconservative causes that I happen to detest. They try to conceal
their contributions but that is the way politics works. Many
strategies in politics are pretty despicable. Is that dishonest? Or
is it playing the game the way it has always been played?

It is the "beyond the moral pale" term that makes taking the money a
problem for some people. I believe GBShaw wrote at least one play
about that.

I would take the money in an instant provided there were no strings
attached that would compromise my work. Merely taking the money I
don't consider compromising.

[Robert Camp]

Not to mention public television. But they've also tried to twist
economics education in a way creationists would be thrilled to be able
to emulate,
http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/billionaires-role-in-hiring-decisions-at-florida-state-university-raises/1168680
And there has been question about whether the Smithsonian watered down
climate change in a Koch-funded exhibit,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/04/smithsonian-dragged-into-koch-industries-global-warming-controversy/

Seems they're interested in greater levels of influence than simply
offering financial support to conservative causes.

RLC

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Nov 10, 4:21 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:43:01 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey
>
>
>
>
>

Clearly it's dishonest. It's dishonest even if the game has always
been played dishonest. But compare their behavior with that of, for
instance, George Soros, whom to my knowledge neither hides his
political activities and donation, nor in his political activities
routinely lies.

> It is the "beyond the moral pale" term that makes taking the money a
> problem for some people.  I believe GBShaw wrote at least one play
> about that.
>
> I would take the money in an instant provided there were no strings
> attached that would compromise my work.  Merely taking the money I
> don't consider compromising.

Charities have a long history of taking money from dubious people;
Dubious people have a long history of giving to charities for reasons
other than having a good heart. Some dubious people even give from a
good heart - no thinking person believes humans operate in the moral
field from undifferenciated monohearts. Neither do the hearts of
charities necessarily pump ichor.

Arguably this issue is without moral significance: the more money
Ronald McDonald House accepts from Tony Soprano, the less Soprano has
left to spend on pure evil. If American Museum of Natural History
taking blood money from, say, Burmese war lords gives the latter undue
legitimacy in the eyes of the public, is that really the fault of the
American Museum of Natural History or of the stupid public? And,
finally, who cares how ballets get their money?

Mitchell Coffey

[DanaTweedy]

On 11/10/11 2:21 PM, r norman wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:43:01 -0800 (PST), Mitchell Coffey

snip

>>
>> You do know that the fact that people who give to charity does not
>> mean they're honest in politics?
>>
>
> It is hard to tell what "honest" in politics means.

According to Simon Cameron: "An honest politician is one who, when he
is bought, will stay bought."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Cameron




DJT

[Paul J Gans]

No. They have a perfect right to the money. And I have a perfect
right to wish that they'd stick to philanthropy.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Back in the Middle Ages folks who lived lives violating most
of the moral rules of the Catholic Church often gave serious
money to the church when they were old.

A number of useful institutions arose from that habit. It is
not known if the donation secured God's favor or not.

[Paul J Gans]

All of this seems a bit unfair to me, and I'm a certified
liberal. Should the Koch brothers give money to those
politicians whose policies they hate?

What bothers me about their behavior is first the secrecy.
They don't give money directly to candidates, at least not
often. They give money to more shadowy organizations with
unclear intents.

And the second thing is their clear attempt to use their
gifts to museums, foundations, etc., to color the direction
of those institutions and the research they sponsor. That
seems to me to be a more blatant attempt to "buy" favor.

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 12:37:49 +0000, "Steven L."
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.

> SO WHAT.

Their behavior has killed people; their behavior is killing
people; their behavior will kill more people. They also started
and funded the "tea party," which placed several insane batshit
crazy lunatics into public office.

The Kochs fund anti-science hysteria, and that hysteria fuels the
hatred and violence against climatologists; that hysteria prevents
the political coalition required to let the EPA enforce stricter
regulations that will save lives.

At the moment more than 16,000 Americans die prematurely due to
the pollution from oil-fired and coal-fired power plants. The Koch
bastards fund propaganda to prevent those regulations from being
passed, and that means more Americans die each year than they
would have if regulations were in place.

See, for example:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.eg.01.110176.003053

Year 2000:

http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~harbaugh/Readings/Environmental/Applications%20of%20Environmental%20Valuation%20for%20Determining%20Exte.pdf

Year 2001:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/293/5533/1257.short

Year 2004:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/ns/us_news-environment/t/deadly-power-plants-study-fuels-debate/

"Health problems linked to aging coal-fired power plants shorten
nearly 24,000 [America] lives a year, including 2,800 from lung
cancer, and nearly all those early deaths could be prevented if
the U.S. government adopted stricter rules, according to a study
released Wednesday."

The EPA's year 2011's plan to save 17,000 more American lives per
year:

http://www.epa.gov/airquality/powerplanttoxics/pdfs/proposalfactsheet.pdf

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/172/4/501


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[Jeffrey Turner]

On 11/10/2011 7:37 AM, Steven L. wrote:

> "wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
>
> SO.WHAT.
>
> All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
> movie directors, finance left-wing causes.
>
> But I never considered that sinister either.
>
> If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
> finance right-wing causes I agree with too. If I won the lottery, I
> would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
> right through the White House front door.

For supposed libertarians, they spend an awful lot of money on
influencing government in ways that will directly benefit themselves
economically.

There’s right-wing hypocrisy, and then there’s this: Charles Koch,
billionaire patron of free-market libertarianism, privately championed
the benefits of Social Security to Friedrich Hayek, the leading
laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century. Koch even sent Hayek
a government pamphlet to help him take advantage of America’s federal
retirement insurance and healthcare programs.

http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-use-social-security

--Jeff

[James Beck]

Evidence of hypocrisy is often useful. Thank you. Some of my union
friends will be very interested.

Levine and Ames did a good job, at least until the next to last
paragraph where they say:

"Calling this mere hypocrisy downplays the seriousness of their fraud.
Koch and Hayek are no more hypocritical than the used-car salesman who
knowingly sells a lemon to a gullible buyer, or the financial agency
that rates “AAA” instruments it knows are crap."

There is still no credible evidence that the CRA's rated instruments
AAA that they knew were 'crap.' In fact, the default rates for the AAA
tranches have been very low. It was the speculative, below investment
grade paper in the mezzanine and equity tranches that defaulted.

[Kermit]

On Nov 10, 4:37 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:293b73a0-f72b-4384...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
>
> SO.WHAT.

Killed thousands by spewing carcinogenic pollution.
http://kochbrothersexposed.com/cancer/

They deal with terrorists.
http://tinyurl.com/6doxrf

They are major contributors to the end of democracy
in America:
http://tinyurl.com/6w3z4yx

Most importantly, their campaign of climate disinformation
will contribute to the death of millions, if not billions,
before the end of the century:
http://tinyurl.com/4xqacmn

GW has already caused tens of billions of damage in
the US just in the past year.

Their profit is personal, but we and our children
are paying the socialized cost.

>
> All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
> movie directors, finance left-wing causes.
>
> But I never considered that sinister either.

And why should you? Few liberal causes kill people.

>
> If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
> finance right-wing causes I agree with too.  If I won the lottery, I
> would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
> right through the White House front door.
>
> -- Steven L.

Kermit

[Jeffrey Turner]

I'm sure there are a number of retirement fund managers who would be
interested to know that.

<quote>
One transaction that could come up is a Goldman Sachs deal called
Abacus, a complex mortgage-related investment that later plunged in
value. Both Moody's and Standard & Poor's gave the Abacus deal a AAA
rating, the safest rating they offer.

The government has filed civil fraud charges against Goldman, alleging
it failed to tell investors that one of its clients, hedge fund Paulson
& Co., was betting against the securities. </quote>

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/02/moodys-ceo-calls-subprime-ratings-disappointing/

--Jeff

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Nov 14, 6:45 am, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:27:57 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
>
>
>
>
>
> <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >On 11/10/2011 7:37 AM, Steven L. wrote:

> >> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> >> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> >> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
>
> >> SO.WHAT.
>
> >> All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
> >> movie directors, finance left-wing causes.
>
> >> But I never considered that sinister either.
>
> >> If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
> >> finance right-wing causes I agree with too. If I won the lottery, I
> >> would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
> >> right through the White House front door.
>
> >For supposed libertarians, they spend an awful lot of money on
> >influencing government in ways that will directly benefit themselves
> >economically.
>
> >There’s right-wing hypocrisy, and then there’s this: Charles Koch,
> >billionaire patron of free-market libertarianism, privately championed
> >the benefits of Social Security to Friedrich Hayek, the leading
> >laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century. Koch even sent Hayek
> >a government pamphlet to help him take advantage of America’s federal
> >retirement insurance and healthcare programs.
>

> >http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-...

>
> Evidence of hypocrisy is often useful. Thank you. Some of my union
> friends will be very interested.
>
> Levine and Ames did a good job, at least until the next to last
> paragraph where they say:
>
> "Calling this mere hypocrisy downplays the seriousness of their fraud.
> Koch and Hayek are no more hypocritical than the used-car salesman who
> knowingly sells a lemon to a gullible buyer, or the financial agency
> that rates “AAA” instruments it knows are crap."
>
> There is still no credible evidence that the CRA's rated instruments
> AAA that they knew were 'crap.' In fact, the default rates for the AAA
> tranches have been very low. It was the speculative, below investment
> grade paper in the mezzanine and equity tranches that defaulted.

The issue isn't whether the default rate was "very low" relative to
tranches in general, but rather relative as to what should have been
expected from AAA instruments.

And the standard shouldn't be that there's credible evidence they knew
they were crap - no CRA is liable to have been so cretinous as to
allow credible evidence to continue to exist; neither is it likely
they would ever put themselves in the position of knowing something
was crap. We’re not limited here to criminal court standards of
conviction. The standard here should be if they can be credibly
assumed to have done due diligence sufficient for the AAA rating to
pass the smell test.

Mitchell Coffey

[Inez]

On Nov 10, 4:37 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:293b73a0-f72b-4384...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.

I have to find it amusing when conservatives are aghast at the
demonization of political opponents. Cuz gosh, they never do that!

[dav...@agent.com]

Kermit <unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>If we do not admit that we can overload the planet with
>people, then Mother Earth will cull the herd for us. She
>is not cruel, but she is merciless. We must decide,
>collectively, how to limit population growth. If we do
>not limit the number of our children, we will get to
>watch our grandchildren die.

Stop making flu vaccines, and stop killing flu-infected animals!
In most cases, this will shave a few years off the lives of
those who are in advanced age.

[James Beck]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:39:31 -0500, Jeffrey Turner

Why exactly do you think the retirement fund managers would be
interested? The underlying assets in Abacus waere rated Baa2, not AAA
and all of the investors knew that. A bit over 20% of the synthetic
instruments created from that collateral were rated AAA. The fact that
99% of the underlying assets were downgraded further is irrelevant;
IIRC, Moody's Aaa rating is set at the point where the underlying
collateral pool experiences 30% or more defaults. That is, if the
percentage of defaults in the underlying collateral pool is less than
30%, the Aaa-rated assets won't default. The last time I checked,
defaults in the underlying assets were at about that level, so it
appeared that the available capital would be barely enough to avoid a
significant AAA default.

That situation may have changed, but it is useful to note that as of
last year, despite the heavily-reported decline in underwriting
standards and the worst housing downturn since the Great Depression,
less than 4% of all of the AAA rated tranches created over 2000-2009
were either impaired or expected to become impaired.

Most of the actual losses in the meltdown were in plain vanilla
securities, like mortgages and corporate bonds, not in the exotic
structured products themselves. Again, in the structured products
sector, most of the losses were in the below-investment grade
mezzanine and equity tranches.

From a policy perspective, what you should be taking away from this is
the impression that these vehicles are in fact very robust. In case
you didn't notice, the Obama administration structure the bailouts
using the same, rational method. On some level it makes little
difference whether you like them or not. You must have some method of
providing liquidity to the housing and credit markets, or you will
have neither; new issuance of those vehicles is back to about the same
level as in 2004, and liquidity is improving in both the commercial
and residential real estate sectors. Whether you should permit
undercapitalized betting on those vehicles in the derivative markets
is a separate issue.

>The government has filed civil fraud charges against Goldman, alleging
>it failed to tell investors that one of its clients, hedge fund Paulson
>& Co., was betting against the securities. </quote>
>
>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/02/moodys-ceo-calls-subprime-ratings-disappointing/

Abacus is the lazy man's example, but I'm glad you picked it. I can
kill two birds with one stone. Back when the SEC announced its
charges, I was instantly on the warpath against Goldman's alleged
fraud. The SEC's position implied that the product was a standard
collateralized waterfall; it would be unconscionable to permit a short
seller to choose the assets in a first loss vehicle, particularly
while implying that he would be one of the equity holders. Fraud was a
slam dunk.

In the interim, much more information has been disclosed. A trader
wanted to bet against the US real estate market. Another trader wanted
to bet the other way. They did their trade in the *derivatives*
market. I'm not aware of any evidence that either the short or long
trader committed any fraud as they were negotiating what assets would
go into the underlying asset pool.

In this case, the short position was held by Paulson, but who the
short is is irrelevant. ACA, backed by ABN AMRO (Dutch), mainly
because Goldman didn't trust ACA's capital position, wanted to be
long. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG was long in exchange for a higher
yield. Goldman was long because they weren't able to sell off their
entire exposure. The longs, including Goldman, lost. The shorts won.
Where's the fraud?

Anyway, mea culpa. I convicted Goldman without examining the details
of the deal. I seriously doubt that you could convene an expert jury
that would convict Goldman of the fraud alleged by the SEC.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Nov 17, 4:28 pm, James Beck <jdbeck11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:39:31 -0500, Jeffrey Turner
>
>
>
>
>
> <jtur...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >On 11/14/2011 6:45 AM, James Beck wrote:
> >> On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:27:57 -0500, Jeffrey Turner

> >> <jtur...@localnet.com>  wrote:

>
> >>> On 11/10/2011 7:37 AM, Steven L. wrote:

> >>>> "wiki trix"<wikit...@gmail.com>  wrote:

>
> >>>>> Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
>
> >>>> I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> >>>> They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
>
> >>>> SO.WHAT.
>
> >>>> All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
> >>>> movie directors, finance left-wing causes.
>
> >>>> But I never considered that sinister either.
>
> >>>> If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
> >>>> finance right-wing causes I agree with too. If I won the lottery, I
> >>>> would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
> >>>> right through the White House front door.
>
> >>> For supposed libertarians, they spend an awful lot of money on
> >>> influencing government in ways that will directly benefit themselves
> >>> economically.
>
> >>> There’s right-wing hypocrisy, and then there’s this: Charles Koch,
> >>> billionaire patron of free-market libertarianism, privately championed
> >>> the benefits of Social Security to Friedrich Hayek, the leading
> >>> laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century. Koch even sent Hayek
> >>> a government pamphlet to help him take advantage of America’s federal
> >>> retirement insurance and healthcare programs.
>

> >>>http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-...

> >http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jun/02/moodys-ceo-calls-subpr...

>
> Abacus is the lazy man's example, but I'm glad you picked it. I can
> kill two birds with one stone. Back when the SEC announced its
> charges, I was instantly on the warpath against Goldman's alleged
> fraud. The SEC's position implied that the product was a standard
> collateralized waterfall; it would be unconscionable to permit a short
> seller to choose the assets in a first loss vehicle, particularly
> while implying that he would be one of the equity holders. Fraud was a
> slam dunk.
>
> In the interim, much more information has been disclosed. A trader
> wanted to bet against the US real estate market. Another trader wanted
> to bet the other way. They did their trade in the *derivatives*
> market. I'm not aware of any evidence that either the short or long
> trader committed any fraud as they were negotiating what assets would
> go into the underlying asset pool.
>
> In this case, the short position was held by Paulson, but who the
> short is is irrelevant. ACA, backed by ABN AMRO (Dutch), mainly
> because Goldman didn't trust ACA's capital position, wanted to be
> long. IKB Deutsche Industriebank AG was long in exchange for a higher
> yield. Goldman was long because they weren't able to sell off their
> entire exposure. The longs, including Goldman, lost. The shorts won.
> Where's the fraud?
>
> Anyway, mea culpa. I convicted Goldman without examining the details
> of the deal. I seriously doubt that you could convene an expert jury

> that would convict Goldman of the fraud alleged by the SEC.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Then why did the SEC recently destroy thousands of files?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/halahtouryalai/2011/08/17/sec-destroys-evidence-against-banks-and-hedge-funds-whistleblower-alleges/

[James Beck]

Not that it's relevent to the point of my post, which dealt only with
the supportability of the SEC's original allegations against Goldman,
but who knows? There are any number of innocent reasons for the
purging of old documents. There are sleazy ones, too.

OTOH, personally, if I had been Rick Perry, the third agency I'd have
gotten rid of (if I paid enough attention to him to remember what the
first two were) would be the SEC. It's mostly staffed by lawyers who
have limited understanding of the way modern capital markets work, and
who are strongly subject to regulatory capture. Earlier, I was
disappointed by the Obama administration's decision to announce,
during a long holiday weekend, its policy banning trading by SEC
agents. I assume they did that because they knew that very few people
would be watching.

Insider trading, regulatory capture, and corruption are serious
problems in an agency nominally set up to regulate fraud in the
securities markets, an environment in which fraud is presumptively
endemic. I say 'nominally' because the SEC, like many other regulatory
agencies was seemingly established to placate an angry public rather
than to actually regulate, per se. Some there would no doubt disagree,
but I think 'Great Jurists of the SEC' would be a short book. In
fairness, once you recognize that the majority of the human species
attaches a low perceived cost to lying, I suppose that the task is
impossible.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:27:57 -0500, Jeffrey Turner

<jtu...@localnet.com> wrote:

> On 11/10/2011 7:37 AM, Steven L. wrote:
> > "wiki trix" <wiki...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?
> >
> > I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> > They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
> >
> > SO.WHAT.
> >
> > All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
> > movie directors, finance left-wing causes.

You mean "The Jew." You forgot to mention The Jew. Tell us again,
Steven L., about how the American Indians never had agriculture
until Europeans enslaved them.

> > But I never considered that sinister either.
> >
> > If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
> > finance right-wing causes I agree with too. If I won the lottery, I
> > would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
> > right through the White House front door.

President Obama's record for achieving positive successes for
America and Americans is very impressive, even with the America
Treason Party working hard to prevent him from doing so. See for
example http://www.pasquinifamily.com/?p=857

> For supposed libertarians, they spend an awful lot of money on
> influencing government in ways that will directly benefit themselves
> economically.

Yes. I never met, heard from, or read about a "libertarian" who
was not a totalitarian authoritarian despot wannabe.

> There’s right-wing hypocrisy, and then there’s this: Charles Koch,
> billionaire patron of free-market libertarianism,

I.e., "... would-be slave owner...."

> privately championed
> the benefits of Social Security to Friedrich Hayek, the leading
> laissez-faire economist of the twentieth century. Koch even sent Hayek
> a government pamphlet to help him take advantage of America’s federal
> retirement insurance and healthcare programs.
>
> http://www.thenation.com/article/163672/charles-koch-friedrich-hayek-use-social-security
>
> --Jeff

[AGWFacts]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:56:09 -0800 (PST), Kermit
<unrestra...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 10, 4:37 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "wiki trix" <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > news:293b73a0-f72b-4384...@u37g2000prh.googlegroups.com:

> > > Is the Koch-Cain experiment over yet?

> > I've never understood this demonization of the Koch brothers.
> > They're wealthy libertarians and they finance libertarian causes.
> >
> > SO.WHAT.
>
> Killed thousands by spewing carcinogenic pollution.
> http://kochbrothersexposed.com/cancer/

That is what they mean by "a free market failure:" forcing
non-customers to pay for the consequences of a product other
people bought. Markets are regulated so that only customers, not
non-customers, pay the price of the product and the consequences
of using the product--- this is why tobacco is regulated.

People who claim to believe in a "free market" want non-customers
to pay for their product's consequences.

> They deal with terrorists.
> http://tinyurl.com/6doxrf
>
> They are major contributors to the end of democracy
> in America:
> http://tinyurl.com/6w3z4yx
>
> Most importantly, their campaign of climate disinformation
> will contribute to the death of millions, if not billions,
> before the end of the century:
> http://tinyurl.com/4xqacmn
>
> GW has already caused tens of billions of damage in
> the US just in the past year.

According to The Pacific Institute, just California alone is
facing one hundred billion dollars in damage to its infrastructure
due to human-caused climate change. That's in year 2009 dollars.
Florida and New Jersey each are facing twice that expense.

> Their profit is personal, but we and our children
> are paying the socialized cost.

This is called "a free market failure." It is why "libertarians"
hate regulations.

> > All the wealthy liberals in Hollywood, including movie producers and
> > movie directors, finance left-wing causes.
> >
> > But I never considered that sinister either.

> And why should you? Few liberal causes kill people.

Few liberal causes exist.

> > If I won the MA state lottery, I would donate several million dollars to
> > finance right-wing causes I agree with too.  If I won the lottery, I
> > would write a check for $10 million to the GOP to help boot Obama's ass
> > right through the White House front door.
> >
> > -- Steven L.
>
> Kermit

[Glenn]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote
> On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:56:09 -0800 (PST), Kermit wrote

> >
> > GW has already caused tens of billions of damage in
> > the US just in the past year.
>
> According to The Pacific Institute, just California alone is
> facing one hundred billion dollars in damage to its infrastructure
> due to human-caused climate change. That's in year 2009 dollars.
> Florida and New Jersey each are facing twice that expense.
>

Yes, that is quite embarrasing to skeptics, since California and Florida have
been in a cooling trend for over 25 years, and the US for 15 years.
California Annual 1984 - 2010 Trend = -0.01 degF / Decade
Florida Annual 1984 - 2010 Trend = -0.07 degF / Decade
US Annual 1996 - 2010 Trend = -0.03 degF / Decade
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

Perhaps Kermit is right, and global warmists have caused billions of damage in

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:12:11 -0700, "Glenn"
<glenns...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:42:16 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 09:56:09 -0800 (PST), Kermit

> > > GW has already caused tens of billions of damage in
> > > the US just in the past year.
> >
> > According to The Pacific Institute, just California alone is
> > facing one hundred billion dollars in damage to its infrastructure
> > due to human-caused climate change. That's in year 2009 dollars.
> > Florida and New Jersey each are facing twice that expense.

> Yes, that is quite embarrasing to skeptics

"Skeptics?" What the fuck? The subject is global warming.

> since California and Florida have been in a cooling trend for
> over 25 years

No.

> and the US for 15 years.

No.

Plus, the subject is global warming, idiot.

> California Annual 1984 - 2010 Trend = -0.01 degF / Decade
> Florida Annual 1984 - 2010 Trend = -0.07 degF / Decade
> US Annual 1996 - 2010 Trend = -0.03 degF / Decade

This is fucking hilarious! Starting at the highest El Nino event
in known history. Good gods that's hilarious! You do realize the
last ten years have been the warmest in recorded history, right?

Contiguous USA, All Divisions: +1.0 per century
California, All Divisions: +1.9 per century
Florida, All Divisions: -1.1 per century
USA Southwest, All Divisions: +1.4 per century

Alabama is also getting colder due to global warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php

> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html

October of year 2011? ROTFL! The subject is global warming,
Shit-for-brains. Next time, try to be honest.

> Perhaps Kermit is right, and global warmists have caused billions
> of damage in the US just in the past year.

By "golobal warmists" I assume you mean "greenhouse gases." The
USA's damage due to global climate change up to now still has not
been calculated because one cannot say with high certainty what
extreme weather events would have happened without "global
warmists."

[Glenn]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:3undc71qbbjobotkc...@4ax.com...

Looks like your brain just exploded. LOL!

[James Beck]

Evidently, it did. The default rate on the AAA paper has been very
low. It is not reasonably expected to be zero, particularly not under
the circumstances prevailing at the time. To think otherwise is to
believe in miracles. Regardless, on some level what you think is
irrelevant. The administration you support uses the same tools to
allocate its bailout money. You can squawk about that to your heart's
content, but you cannot have it both ways.

[Glenn]

"AGWFacts" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:3undc71qbbjobotkc...@4ax.com...

This brain fart slipped my notice. No, in the last 10 years, from 2000 to 2010,
only 4 years have been warmer than any other year previous to 2000.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
select annual period, first year to display as 1910
hit select and see the ranks in the data values combo box.

This doesn't detract from the fact that this data shows a decline in
temperatures from that El Nino you think is so hilarious.

[Mitchell Coffey]

You're begging the question. As I said, the issue isn't whether the

default rate was "very low" relative to tranches in general, but rather
relative as to what should have been expected from AAA instruments.

But never mind.

Mitchell Coffey

[Ernest Major]

In message <3undc71qbbjobotkc...@4ax.com>, AGWFacts
<AGWF...@ipcc.org> writes

>> Perhaps Kermit is right, and global warmists have caused billions
>> of damage in the US just in the past year.
>
>By "golobal warmists" I assume you mean "greenhouse gases." The USA's
>damage due to global climate change up to now still has not been
>calculated because one cannot say with high certainty what extreme
>weather events would have happened without "global warmists."
>

A global warmist would be someone who promotes global warming, i.e. the
self-called "skeptics".
--
alias Ernest Major

[AGWFacts]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:21:38 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <3undc71qbbjobotkc...@4ax.com>, AGWFacts
> <AGWF...@ipcc.org> writes

> >By "global warmists" I assume you mean "greenhouse gases." The USA's

> >damage due to global climate change up to now still has not been
> >calculated because one cannot say with high certainty what extreme
> >weather events would have happened without "global warmists."

> A global warmist would be someone who promotes global warming, i.e. the
> self-called "skeptics".

Indeed, only homicidal sociopaths promote global warming. There is
one in alt.global-warming who posts now and then. Around 15 years
ago I met a promoter of global warming face-to-face: for the first
30 seconds or so I thought he was joking.

[Free Lunch]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:36:55 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote
in talk.origins:

>On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:21:38 +0000, Ernest Major
><{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <3undc71qbbjobotkc...@4ax.com>, AGWFacts
>> <AGWF...@ipcc.org> writes
>
>> >By "global warmists" I assume you mean "greenhouse gases." The USA's
>> >damage due to global climate change up to now still has not been
>> >calculated because one cannot say with high certainty what extreme
>> >weather events would have happened without "global warmists."
>
>> A global warmist would be someone who promotes global warming, i.e. the
>> self-called "skeptics".
>
>Indeed, only homicidal sociopaths promote global warming. There is
>one in alt.global-warming who posts now and then. Around 15 years
>ago I met a promoter of global warming face-to-face: for the first
>30 seconds or so I thought he was joking.

The people who promote global warming are the people who make money
polluting the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, people who run the coal
and gas & oil industries, people like the sociopathic Koch brothers. The
people who are trying to get humanity to stop causing global warming are
the ones you need to listen to. We will have to deal with the
consequences of this pollution one way or the other. If we start now, it
may be much less costly in terms of treasure and life. If we ignore the
problem, we may cause millions to die.

Denying that there is a problem shows nothing but dishonesty.

[AGWFacts]

A few weeks ago the Contiguous USA Geothermal Survey was finished
and their first assessment has been published. It is their opinion
that most of the USA's coal use could be replaced right now with
geothermal energy, using existing technology. The EPA has
estimated this will save more than 16,000 American lives per year.

AGW promotors -HATE- these kinds of surveys.

By the way, the AGW-promotor I met was a cargo ship captain. He
insisted the loss of Arctic sea ice was all positive, and it
should be encouraged.

[Kermit]

On Nov 18, 4:04 pm, "Glenn" <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "AGWFacts" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

>
> news:3undc71qbbjobotkc...@4ax.com...> On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:12:11 -0700, "Glenn"

> > <glennshel...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Yes. and that exceptionally hot year was 1998.
The ten hottest years on record have been in the past 14 years.

> select annual period, first year to display as 1910
> hit select and see the ranks in the data values combo box.
>
> This doesn't detract from the fact that this data shows a decline in
> temperatures from that El Nino you think is so hilarious.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Contiguous USA, All Divisions: +1.0 per century
> > California, All Divisions: +1.9 per century
> > Florida, All Divisions: -1.1 per century
> > USA Southwest, All Divisions: +1.4 per century
>
> > Alabama is also getting colder due to global warming.
>
> >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/time-series/index.php
>
> > >http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
>
> > October of year 2011? ROTFL! The subject is global warming,
> > Shit-for-brains. Next time, try to be honest.
>
> > > Perhaps Kermit is right, and global warmists have caused billions
> > > of damage in the US just in the past year.
>
> > By "golobal warmists" I assume you mean "greenhouse gases." The
> > USA's damage due to global climate change up to now still has not
> > been calculated because one cannot say with high certainty what
> > extreme weather events would have happened without "global
> > warmists."
>
> > --
> > "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> > to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

Sorry Glen. It's getting hotter.
http://tinyurl.com/62spcr5

And both drier and wetter. This past spring was the most extreme on
record for precipitation in the US:
http://tinyurl.com/3cff9mz

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48
Countries:
http://tinyurl.com/27sabz6

Kermit