Misperceptions of Wall St/Financial firms

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Over the last 2 years this industry has taken a massive beating. With the economy in a tailspin and bailouts/big bonuses many people have been irate over this.

While I agree that rewarding failure with six and seven figure bonuses should have the public outraged, please allow me to further discuss this industry and debunk many stereotypes.

I work in this field, but in the Asset management side. Its different than an investment bank/bank holding company like Goldman or Merrill. We manage other peoples money, or firm did not participate in discretionary trading (betting with house money) furthermore we did not receive any bailout money as most all asset managers did not either

Executive compensation in all of wall street is huge, no matter if they are hedge funds or any other type of financial services, However people in the operations side , like myself who arent atleast a VP are not even close to what top brass is making. On average someone who graduates from college who gets a job in trade support or some other ops job makes about 40-45K. The hours of 9-5 are a pipe dream. Ive been in this field for about 10 years and there have been many days where 12 hour days are the norm. My day is usually from 7:30am till 6pm. Ive been promoted twice and with promotions overtime disappears, While I m eligible for a bonus its not what the people at Goldman are making. Once again this year their Bonus pool is in the billions of dollars. I have no idea what I will be getting, and on top of that the taxes are 40%, so theres a huge chunk of change that the government is getting.

The stereotypes of Wall St being all fat cats with 3 martini lunches goes to a very select few at the top

[Dude!]

The stereotypes of Wall St being all fat cats with 3 martini lunches goes to a very select few at the top

i think there are more
than a 'select few' being overpaid

i have no problem with
'pay for performance'

if a big shot makes his clients
10 billion dollars in a year
give him a huge bonus....
IF that great performance
was due to his efforts
and not just because the whole market
went up that year

the problem is..
there is no 'flip side'
in the down years
if you lose your clients billions of dollars
then give last year's bonus the fuck back
or lose your job

upside = gain
downside = no penalty
these guys have a no lose situation

and that is not
'pay for performance'

[foodcourtdruide]

I work on Wall St. The majority of people I see at bars are wanna-be Alec Baldwin characters from Glengary Glen Ross

[jauble]

I'm allergic to cats but I still enjoy a 3 martini lunch.

[EliSnow]

the problem is..
there is no 'flip side'
in the down years
if you lose your clients billions of dollars
then give last year's bonus the fuck back
or lose your job

upside = gain
downside = no penalty
these guys have a no lose situation

and that is not
'pay for performance'

Name one industry where you are required to give money back if you don't do well.

There's not one.

And people do lose their jobs in the industry if they don't do well.

[Dude!]

Name one industry where you are required to give money back if you don't do well.

There's not one.


name one other industry
where SCORES of people
in the firm get annual bonuses
of $10 million or more

there's not one

[EliSnow]

name one other industry
where SCORES of people
in the firm get annual bonuses
of $10 million or more

there's not one

As WMT stated above, the number of people getting annual bonuses of $10 million or more is overstated. And it doesn't matter if they do make a lot more than other industries, all that would mean is that the other industries would have people pay less back in bad years in proportion to what Wall St. would do.

The fact is that nobody ever expects people to pay money back if they have a bad year, regardless of industry.

I agree that if you have a bad year, you shouldn't make as much or get a bonus, but to assert that you have to pay money back is asinine.

[Dude!]

As WMT stated above, the number of people getting annual bonuses of $10 million or more is overstated. And it doesn't matter if they do make a lot more than other industries, all that would mean is that the other industries would have people pay less back in bad years in proportion to what Wall St. would do.

The fact is that nobody ever expects people to pay money back if they have a bad year, regardless of industry.

I agree that if you have a bad year, you shouldn't make as much or get a bonus, but to assert that you have to pay money back is asinine.

you're asinine

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Its not just manufacturing jobs that have been outsourced. As we all know try calling up about your credit card balance and youre speaking to someone with an Indian accent. Many wall st firms have outsourced their ops/trade support and accounting Jobs.

Asset managers have taken a beating because their profits are tied to the stock market. Since the collapse of Wall St tens of thousands of jobs have been lost.

As far as compensation, In public companies thats up to the board and it shareholders, I am in no way defending their salaries in a bear market. However the people who also should not get bonuses are portfolio managers/financial advisors who lost money for their clients

[underdog]

As WMT stated above

Did you just confuse wrestlingfan and west milly tom?

[Dude!]

Did you just confuse wrestlingfan and west milly tom?

yes he did
he is very easily confused

[Chigworthy]

One mis perception is calling it a bull market or a bear market, when it is actually a market of something noticed.

[Syd]

Executive compensation in all of wall street is huge,

Executive compensation is too much across the board in America -- if people bothered finding out how people like Carly Fiorina were given $20m severance pay after she totally destroyed Hewlett Packard's value they might do some good.

[STC-Dub]

I wold think or at least hope that most people understand that not everyone or even most of the people who work on Wall Street are not getting huge bonuses or getting over-paid. It is the CEO's with their huge salaries, bonuses and benefits that make no sense. Why someone should get 20+ millions per year and benefits while the company they are running loses money defies all logic. Even when these guys supposedly get paid $1 per year they are still getting million in benefits which just get relabeled -- they get their mortgages paid, their travel paid etc. It is a very small minority, but the numbers are so staggering to the "average person" that they can't help but be resentful. But I do not think the Wall Street fat cats include people like you in most peoples' minds.

[EliSnow]

Did you just confuse wrestlingfan and west milly tom?


Oops

[TheMojoPin]

So do corporations need a salary cap?

[ChrisBrown]

I just find the Wall Street, Republican, Ayn Rand-loving Masters of the Universe at any level who bitch about taxes, poor black welfare queens, Obama being a socialist but then believe the government should bail out banks with no-strings-attached TARP money to be very hypocritical.

[GregoryJoseph]

They're all a buncha crooks! :annoyed:

[Dude!]

They're all a buncha crooks! :annoyed:

GregoryJoseph, I was wondering...
have you noticed how skinny
our president is getting?

do you think it is disease,
or that he is not up to the
stresses of the job?

[GregoryJoseph]

GregoryJoseph, I was wondering...
have you noticed how skinny
our president is getting?

do you think it is disease,
or that he is not up to the
stresses of the job?

Have I noticed it?

I've been chronicling it in the "Obama - Worst President Ever?" thread.

I fear he may not live to run for reelection.

[TripleSkeet]

I just think there should be a rule that if your company was recieving a bailout, all bonuses are terminated until the money is paid back. And that goes for every employee that would recieve a bonus. I know it would suck for the lower end guys, but hey, option B would be letting the company go under and youd have no job.

[EliSnow]

I just think there should be a rule that if your company was recieving a bailout, all bonuses are terminated until the money is paid back. And that goes for every employee that would recieve a bonus. I know it would suck for the lower end guys, but hey, option B would be letting the company go under and youd have no job.

Option C: Go to another company that will pay bonuses.

If you are at that company and you know you won't get any bonus for a certain number of years (until bailout is paid off), and you know you can get a bonus elsewhere, from companies that do pay bonuses, why stay? Yes, this assumes that you are exceptionally talented/wanted who can get a job elsewhere.

Wall Street runs on bonuses, and not salaries (although I've heard they are changing somewhat). It may sound stupid, but that's the way they are. If we want the bailed out companies to succeed, they need to be able to have the employees who can accomplish that. And you have to be able to attract and/or keep such employees.

So if you stop bonuses altogether, you essentially make it more likely that these companies that were bailed out so they don't fail, will fail.

[TripleSkeet]

Here's one problem with that. If you are at that company and you know you won't get any bonus for a certain number of years (until bailout is paid off), and you know you can get a bonus elsewhere, from companies that do pay bonuses, why stay?

Wall Street runs on bonuses, and not salaries (although I've heard they are changing somewhat). It may sound stupid, but that's the way they are. If we want the bailed out companies to succeed, they need to be able to have the employees who can accomplish that. And you have to be able to attract and/ore keep such employees.

So if you stop bonuses altogether, you essentially make it more likely that these companies that were bailed out so they don't fail, will fail.

All I hear is that jobs are scarce. Where are they going to go? And if they leave, replace them with people that need jobs. Use all would be bonuses to pay back the bailout and then reinstate them. I really doubt the firms that took the bailout would have trouble finding employees willing to bust their ass if they know eventually the bonuses would be back and they would make serious coin.

[EliSnow]

All I hear is that jobs are scarce. Where are they going to go? And if they leave, replace them with people that need jobs. Use all would be bonuses to pay back the bailout and then reinstate them. I really doubt the firms that took the bailout would have trouble finding employees willing to bust their ass if they know eventually the bonuses would be back and they would make serious coin.

That thought occurred to me and I changed a portion of my post to reflect that most people don't have that option .

But some of the truly talented people do have that option. And knowing some people in the industry who are money makers (although not any bailed out firms), when their bonuses have been nil or low in the last year, they have gotten a number of job offers.

[ChrisBrown]

Bonuses don't bother me as much as how banks got away with TARP money and no new regulation. At least pass a new form of the Glass-Steagall act. The system seems rotten to the core when banks can make bad bets hidden by complex derivatives, lose, come to tax payers for bailout money, get the money, and then have the gall to refuse to take regulatory steps to keep this from happening again. I am with the Obama haters in disappointment over what a pussy he has been with Wall Street. Things never change in America. What's good for Goldman Sachs is good for the country.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I just find the Wall Street, Republican, Ayn Rand-loving Masters of the Universe at any level who bitch about taxes, poor black welfare queens, Obama being a socialist but then believe the government should bail out banks with no-strings-attached TARP money to be very hypocritical.

As a fiscal conservative, I am opposed for all bailouts whether it be GM or Bank of America, Why subsidize failure?

[ChrisBrown]

As a fiscal conservative, I am opposed for all bailouts whether it be GM or Bank of America, Why subsidize failure?


I completely agree. I also hate how Democrats coddle US businesses with tariffs.

[WRESTLINGFAN]

I completely agree. I also hate how Democrats coddle US businesses with tariffs.

The biggest welfare queen in America is probably ADM, They get billions in ethanol subsidies

[Syd]

I completely agree. I also hate how Democrats coddle US businesses with tariffs.

Tariffs exist to protect US jobs. With such a scant few workers in the US (30%) actually producing wealth, why would you want to further diminish them? Just so your HDTV costs .5% less? America can't continue forever by selling things back and forth each other as money slowly moves upwards and out of the middle class' pockets.

[ChrisBrown]

If US companies higher quality products, they wouldn't need to be protected from foreign competition.

[ChrisBrown]

Capitalism is the world's greatest economic system. If you don't allow competition, it's not capitalism.

[Bob Impact]

I just find the Wall Street, Republican, Ayn Rand-loving Masters of the Universe at any level who bitch about taxes, poor black welfare queens, Obama being a socialist but then believe the government should bail out banks with no-strings-attached TARP money to be very hypocritical.

Lemme just toss this in... I'm a fan Rand and I despise handouts of any kind, at any level. Also, I'm not a fan of removing the individualism from ANYONE, especially not entire races.

That said, if the government wishes to act as an investor, they should behave as an investor, if they are an owner they can act as an owner and dictate compensation packages.

[Bob Impact]

Tariffs exist to protect US jobs. With such a scant few workers in the US (30%) actually producing wealth, why would you want to further diminish them? Just so your HDTV costs .5% less? America can't continue forever by selling things back and forth each other as money slowly moves upwards and out of the middle class' pockets.
Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act?

If US companies higher quality products, they wouldn't need to be protected from foreign competition.
Capitalism is the world's greatest economic system. If you don't allow competition, it's not capitalism.

^
Given your previous posts i'm assuming you're being facetious on the second quote, but it's the truth.

[ChrisBrown]

No, I am a big fan of capitalism and believe in free trade. I wasn't being sarcastic.

[Syd]

Ever heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff act?.

Ever hear of Somalia? They're a completely free market. Why aren't they the #1 economy in the world already?

See, I can engage in hyperbole too!

[Bob Impact]

Ever hear of Somalia? They're a completely free market. Why aren't they the #1 economy in the world already?

See, I can engage in hyperbole too!

That makes absolutely zero sense on any level, in any way.

[Syd]

That makes absolutely zero sense on any level, in any way.

let me explain it with little tiny words, nice and slowly

If free market good

Somalia free market

why Somalia not good

[opie's twisted balls]

let me explain it with little tiny words, nice and slowly

If free market good

Somalia free market

why Somalia not good
Let me reply with tiny words.....

NO ONE has been killed in the regular course of business in a civilized or capitalistic market

[Syd]

Let me reply with tiny words.....

NO ONE has been killed in the regular course of business in a civilized or capitalistic market


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

though that is a pretty easy example

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

a good runner up in case you want to go "well the Indians didn't know what they're doing"

[opie's twisted balls]

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

though that is a pretty easy example

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

a good runner up in case you want to go "well the Indians didn't know what they're doing"
You really want to trod out bullshit like that as part of your argument?

OK, I'll play along......

To suggest that capitalism has been a net negative in terms of quality of live and number of deaths compared to communism is simply garbage. Refer to the Black Book of Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) for as an equally objective view as the information you provided:

The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, asserts that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". He cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the "excess deaths" (decrease of the population due to lower than the expected birth rate). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:
-65 million in the People's Republic of China
-20 million in the Soviet Union
-2 million in Cambodia
-2 million in North Korea
-1.7 million in Africa
-1.5 million in Afghanistan
-1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
-1 million in Vietnam
-150,000 in Latin America
-10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power."

Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor.

[Syd]

Trod out bullshit like that? The people in Bhopal and in the factory died because it was far more profitable to operate under those conditions than safe conditions.

However, please do go on with the knee-jerk "IF SOMEONE OPPOSES CAPITALISM THEY MUST BE A COMMUNIST" arguments that I get to hear about from the crazies on AM radio. I ever so enjoy the predictability of some people.

[opie's twisted balls]

Trod out bullshit like that? The people in Bhopal and in the factory died because it was far more profitable to operate under those conditions than safe conditions.
So by extension of your logic only profit motived businesses or industries are unsafe?

"IF SOMEONE OPPOSES CAPITALISM THEY MUST BE A COMMUNIST"
Prove me otherwise.

[Serpico1103]

Prove me otherwise.

We live in a mixed system: capitalism with some socialism.
So, I think the argument always comes down to how much socialism. Not, pure capitalism or pure socialism.
A truly free market is a disaster and very few people actually want a pure socialist system, just more socialism in the mix.

[Bob Impact]

let me explain it with little tiny words, nice and slowly

If free market good

Somalia free market

why Somalia not good

The conversation was about tariffs, not Somalia.

BTW, Somalia is better off than the vast majority of Africa.

[Syd]

The conversation was about tariffs, not Somalia.

BTW, Somalia is better off than the vast majority of Africa.

The conservation was about tariffs and how Smoot-Hawley had too high of tariffs because of the fascist right conservatives and their nationalist tendencies. I went back and retorted with how Somalia is an example of unadulterated markets being a bad thing. Sorry to be subtle and not blurt out some sort of -ism I heard on the radio. Also, Somalia is not better off than the vast majority of Africa unless you count the amount of radioactive material they're stockpiling in their sea thanks to illegal dumping. Hope no terrorist realizes there's a goldmine out in their waters.

[Syd]

So by extension of your logic only profit motived businesses or industries are unsafe?

Yes, in the absence of protection against workers and citizens a corporation will almost ultimately end up harming one, the other or both. It's been proven to be more profitable to allow some human deaths in lieu of proper safety standards time and time again. See my above post about people dumping toxic and nuclear waste into the waters off of Somalia because it is far cheaper than dealing with it properly.


Prove me otherwise.

Let's wait until the weekend after your 35-40 hour work week to talk about it or maybe you can take a vacation and we can talk about it. If you have a kid, we can bring him in to hear the discussion too since he's not off working in a factory or a mine.

[opie's twisted balls]

We live in a mixed system: capitalism with some socialism.
So, I think the argument always comes down to how much socialism. Not, pure capitalism or pure socialism.
Of course. Any pure or fundamental 'ism isn't healthy.

A truly free market is a disaster and very few people actually want a pure socialist system, just more socialism in the mix.
I disagree.


BTW, Somalia is better off than the vast majority of Africa.
If thats the case, and not sure it is, Africa must be a festering cesspool.


unless you count the amount of radioactive material they're stockpiling in their sea thanks to illegal dumping. Hope no terrorist realizes there's a goldmine out in their waters.
Source?

[opie's twisted balls]

It's been proven to be more profitable to allow some human deaths in lieu of proper safety standards time and time again.
Source? Current examples in developed economies?

Let's wait until the weekend after your 35-40 hour work week to talk about it or maybe you can take a vacation and we can talk about it. If you have a kid, we can bring him in to hear the discussion too since he's not off working in a factory or a mine.
Since you seem to loath all things derived from capitalistic markets let me ask you, where do you shop for clothing, food and sundry items?

[Syd]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html

[Bob Impact]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4312553.stm

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.html

Somali pirates have accused European firms of dumping toxic waste off the Somali coast and are demanding an $8m ransom for the return of a Ukranian ship they captured, saying the money will go towards cleaning up the waste.

So if I believe the pirates who are demanding ransom it's really those progressive and liberal Europeans dumping. Hmm.

[opie's twisted balls]

aljazeera.net
go fuck your hat

[Syd]

aww little baby can't handle a media outlet that won an award specifically not for censoring news

Sorry your lil' feelings are hurt, but I guess that is why political correctness is so vogue nowadays.

[opie's twisted balls]

I can handle any legitimate news source but won't tolerate any terrorist mouthpiece. Would take much more than some troll like you to hurt my feelings.

[foodcourtdruide]

You really want to trod out bullshit like that as part of your argument?

OK, I'll play along......

To suggest that capitalism has been a net negative in terms of quality of live and number of deaths compared to communism is simply garbage. Refer to the Black Book of Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism) for as an equally objective view as the information you provided:

The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, asserts that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". He cites a death toll which totals 94 million, not counting the "excess deaths" (decrease of the population due to lower than the expected birth rate). The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows:
-65 million in the People's Republic of China
-20 million in the Soviet Union
-2 million in Cambodia
-2 million in North Korea
-1.7 million in Africa
-1.5 million in Afghanistan
-1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe
-1 million in Vietnam
-150,000 in Latin America
-10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power."

Courtois claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including Nazism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forced labor.

You just totally changed the argument. You stated:
NO ONE has been killed in the regular course of business in a civilized or capitalistic market

Which was pretty easily shown to not be true. I think even our resident Objectivist (sorta?) Bob Impact will disagree with this statement.

Then you changed the argument to:
To suggest that capitalism has been a net negative in terms of quality of live and number of deaths compared to communism is simply garbage.

Why? Did I miss something? Which is totally possible. Just curious why you made this jump.

[Bob Impact]

You just totally changed the argument. You stated:
NO ONE has been killed in the regular course of business in a civilized or capitalistic market

Which was pretty easily shown to not be true. I think even our resident Objectivist (sorta?) Bob Impact will disagree with this statement.

Then you changed the argument to:
To suggest that capitalism has been a net negative in terms of quality of live and number of deaths compared to communism is simply garbage.

Why? Did I miss something? Which is totally possible. Just curious why you made this jump.

I'm not a sorta Objectivist, I have ego tattooed on me ;). Also, to be clear, Objectivist theory states very clearly that physical force is to be used only in cases of self defense.

For me personally, I would ague that laissez faire capitalist theory states that it shouldn't happen, and that there hasn't ever been a capitalistic market on this earth. That said, to say that nobody has been killed in the course of capitalistic business is wrong. While I think that communism as a system is certainly and obviously more harmful to life, it's also important to remember that whatever the economic system, an individual person had to make a choice to do something evil and take a life, any attempt to push that off of them and onto a system of economic thought is obscene.

[opie's twisted balls]

My original statement was very much at a micro and transactional level along the lines of no one being killed while they went to the bank or bought a dozen eggs at Safeway. Obviously all economic and social models in their purest forms have unique flaws but I stand by the opinion that a free market based economy is far more preferable for consumers and producers then any other model.

[foodcourtdruide]

I'm not a sorta Objectivist, I have ego tattooed on me ;). Also, to be clear, Objectivist theory states very clearly that physical force is to be used only in cases of self defense.

For me personally, I would ague that laissez faire capitalist theory states that it shouldn't happen, and that there hasn't ever been a capitalistic market on this earth. That said, to say that nobody has been killed in the course of capitalistic business is wrong. While I think that communism as a system is certainly and obviously more harmful to life, it's also important to remember that whatever the economic system, an individual person had to make a choice to do something evil and take a life, any attempt to push that off of them and onto a system of economic thought is obscene.

I think this is a pretty deep statement. I don't know if I'd agree that under larger social norms individuals really have the ability to make choices, or "right" or "wrong" choices. Maybe it's just a semantics thing? I really loved reading about countries where the hegemon was TOTALLY different from ours.

[foodcourtdruide]

My original statement was very much at a micro and transactional level along the lines of no one being killed while they went to the bank or bought a dozen eggs at Safeway. Obviously all economic and social models in their purest forms have unique flaws but I stand by the opinion that a free market based economy is far more preferable for consumers and producers then any other model.

But all of them in their purest form are terrible, so who cares? I think all of these economic philosophies in their purest forms ultimately lead to dictatorships.

[Bob Impact]

I think this is a pretty deep statement. I don't know if I'd agree that under larger social norms individuals really have the ability to make choices, or "right" or "wrong" choices. Maybe it's just a semantics thing? I really loved reading about countries where the hegemon was TOTALLY different from ours.

Don't get me wrong, and re-reading it I take it that way too, different systems of thought can absolutely effect the ability of a person to know right and wrong choices, personally I think the school systems of this country have shouted "Obey" at children for so long that they're all essentially somnambulists. I just don't think that any system of thought can completely remove your ability to think without you making a volitional choice to let it.

[foodcourtdruide]

Don't get me wrong, and re-reading it I take it that way too, different systems of thought can absolutely effect the ability of a person to know right and wrong choices, personally I think the school systems of this country have shouted "Obey" at children for so long that they're all essentially somnambulists. I just don't think that any system of thought can completely remove your ability to think without you making a volitional choice to let it.

I disagree. I don't think it's our choice that we call the color green, "green" or the color blue, "blue".

[opie's twisted balls]

But all of them in their purest form are terrible, so who cares? I think all of these economic philosophies in their purest forms ultimately lead to dictatorships.
But none of them exist in their truest forms so its a moot point. No one has yet to show where a socialist/communist based society is better for the citizenry then one based in a free market.

[foodcourtdruide]

But none of them exist in their truest forms so its a moot point. No one has yet to show where a socialist/communist based society is better for the citizenry then one based in a free market.

You mean socieities that are more heavily influenced by a free market vs. societies more heavily influenced by socialism?

[Bob Impact]

I disagree. I don't think it's our choice that we call the color green, "green" or the color blue, "blue".

If you grew up as a native Spanish speaker I don't know that you would feel that way. Also, this gets into the primacy of existence vs the primacy of consciousness. I've got an awful cold and my brain shut off a while ago so I'm sure that I'll do a terrible job of explaining it but basically it's the idea that regardless of what you call red, regardless of whether or not you and I see the exact same shade of red, the color is red, or it's blue, or green, we can give it a pattern and we can learn that pattern from our parents, but that doesn't mean it's always right. At one time people thought the world was 2000 years old, once that was learned to be false the majority of people believe that it's millions of years old, except those who actively choose to believe that it isn't. At the end of the day, I have every reason to believe that I'm correct and the Earth is millions of years old, but that's based solely on the evidence I have today. If new evidence proves me wrong later down the line I will let reality be the judge in that court.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness). - Ayn Rand: The Metaphysical Versus the Man Made

[Serpico1103]

My original statement was very much at a micro and transactional level along the lines of no one being killed while they went to the bank or bought a dozen eggs at Safeway. Obviously all economic and social models in their purest forms have unique flaws but I stand by the opinion that a free market based economy is far more preferable for consumers and producers then any other model.

I think that is true.
However, the next question would be is that a good thing?
Our consumerism is one of the major causes of our current crisis. People need to buy the newest product, regardless of their ability to actually afford it. While producers are happy to produce cheaper products that need replacing instead of repair or maintenance.

All systems are fine. It is their application by people that creates the problem. So, each system needs controls, controls on the people, to prevent abuse and eventually revolution.

I don't want the government owning anything. But, unfortunately, the government needs to tightly regulate everything.

[Furtherman]

It seems that Wall Street just made a deal that will keep the Empire out of here forever.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/KLRPGJ8sDbU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KLRPGJ8sDbU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[yojimbo7248]

I can handle any legitimate news source but won't tolerate any terrorist mouthpiece. Would take much more than some troll like you to hurt my feelings.

Al Jazeera isn't a terrorist mouthpiece