Fed claims $13B profit on lending facilities

[CA renter]

Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.

I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.

[CA renter]

Just wanted to point out that THIS is the crux of the problem. The asset holders, who’ve benefitted most of all from the bubble economy, do not want to make any concessions. Rather, they want to not only hold onto their bubble wealth, they want to increase the disparity between themselves and the working people of the world.

This is EXACTLY what is causing the riots and protests around the world.

One or the other. We can either ALL give up the gains over the past 10-15 years, or nobody does. That is the only choice we have; otherwise, there will be civil unrest that will literally destroy not only what was “made” during this period, but will roll things back much, much further, and cause damage that will take decades to overcome, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Just wanted to point out that THIS is the crux of the problem. The asset holders, who’ve benefitted most of all from the bubble economy, do not want to make any concessions. Rather, they want to not only hold onto their bubble wealth, they want to increase the disparity between themselves and the working people of the world.

This is EXACTLY what is causing the riots and protests around the world.

One or the other. We can either ALL give up the gains over the past 10-15 years, or nobody does. That is the only choice we have; otherwise, there will be civil unrest that will literally destroy not only what was “made” during this period, but will roll things back much, much further, and cause damage that will take decades to overcome, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Just wanted to point out that THIS is the crux of the problem. The asset holders, who’ve benefitted most of all from the bubble economy, do not want to make any concessions. Rather, they want to not only hold onto their bubble wealth, they want to increase the disparity between themselves and the working people of the world.

This is EXACTLY what is causing the riots and protests around the world.

One or the other. We can either ALL give up the gains over the past 10-15 years, or nobody does. That is the only choice we have; otherwise, there will be civil unrest that will literally destroy not only what was “made” during this period, but will roll things back much, much further, and cause damage that will take decades to overcome, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Just wanted to point out that THIS is the crux of the problem. The asset holders, who’ve benefitted most of all from the bubble economy, do not want to make any concessions. Rather, they want to not only hold onto their bubble wealth, they want to increase the disparity between themselves and the working people of the world.

This is EXACTLY what is causing the riots and protests around the world.

One or the other. We can either ALL give up the gains over the past 10-15 years, or nobody does. That is the only choice we have; otherwise, there will be civil unrest that will literally destroy not only what was “made” during this period, but will roll things back much, much further, and cause damage that will take decades to overcome, IMHO.

[CA renter]

Just wanted to point out that THIS is the crux of the problem. The asset holders, who’ve benefitted most of all from the bubble economy, do not want to make any concessions. Rather, they want to not only hold onto their bubble wealth, they want to increase the disparity between themselves and the working people of the world.

This is EXACTLY what is causing the riots and protests around the world.

One or the other. We can either ALL give up the gains over the past 10-15 years, or nobody does. That is the only choice we have; otherwise, there will be civil unrest that will literally destroy not only what was “made” during this period, but will roll things back much, much further, and cause damage that will take decades to overcome, IMHO.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[davelj]

[quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[quote=CA renter]
I do not suscribe to the theory that “financial risks” (a.k.a. gambling) entitle someone to reap greater rewards than someone who provides a good or performs a service that is more beneficial to society.

This is definitely where we disagree.[/quote]

The problem is that defining “financial risks” is very difficult. For example, the proprietary trader is taking different risks from the stock broker who is taking different risks than the real estate agent who is taking different risks than the investor providing capital to a company, etc. Generalizing about the actual “value added” by the various members of the financial services industry is tough, although I’ll agree that in aggregate they (we) are overpaid. But parsing it all out and figuring out who should get what ain’t easy. I’m confident that you’ll live your life quite disappointed with the results.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[/quote]

No way anyone can convince me that trading securities is more risky that police work or firefighting. And, per your link, salespeople in the financial and securities industry are higher on the “contentment” scale than cops are (firefighters are higher).

Here:

Badge-wielding types took a serious hit. Of all occupations, protective-service occupations suffered the greatest relative increase in workplace fatalities in 2007, jumping 20% to 314. Nearly one-half of those were police officers; indeed, enough men in blue perished in the line of fire to earn a spot on the list of America’s 10 most dangerous jobs.

In 2007, 143 sheriffs and patrol officers died on the job–a rate of 21.4 per 100,000 workers–making police work the 10th most dangerous job in America. “Things have gotten more violent,” admits Rich Roberts, public information officer from the International Union of Police Association, a Sarasota, Fla.-based union, “but fortunately we’re better protected to a degree.”

http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead-careers-cx_mk_0825danger.html
————

As for firefighting, the reduction in injuries and fatalities over the years is due to better training and firefighting/rescue techniques. But the fatality rate only tells part of the story. Firefighters now perform many different services — paramedic, search and rescue, hazmat, etc. All of which have different types of risks (think of the liability when treating an acute patient). Also, not included in those numbers are the deaths that result from exposure to toxic materials, where the deaths result many years later.

(PDF warning)

http://www.iaff747.com/docs/Cancer%20Risk%202x%20as%20High0001.pdf
————-

I suppose, at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves if the risks taken by traders and speculators is worth more than the risks taken by public safety personnel. The answer to that is subjective, and depends on where you stand, logically and philosophically.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[/quote]

No way anyone can convince me that trading securities is more risky that police work or firefighting. And, per your link, salespeople in the financial and securities industry are higher on the “contentment” scale than cops are (firefighters are higher).

Here:

Badge-wielding types took a serious hit. Of all occupations, protective-service occupations suffered the greatest relative increase in workplace fatalities in 2007, jumping 20% to 314. Nearly one-half of those were police officers; indeed, enough men in blue perished in the line of fire to earn a spot on the list of America’s 10 most dangerous jobs.

In 2007, 143 sheriffs and patrol officers died on the job–a rate of 21.4 per 100,000 workers–making police work the 10th most dangerous job in America. “Things have gotten more violent,” admits Rich Roberts, public information officer from the International Union of Police Association, a Sarasota, Fla.-based union, “but fortunately we’re better protected to a degree.”

http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead-careers-cx_mk_0825danger.html
————

As for firefighting, the reduction in injuries and fatalities over the years is due to better training and firefighting/rescue techniques. But the fatality rate only tells part of the story. Firefighters now perform many different services — paramedic, search and rescue, hazmat, etc. All of which have different types of risks (think of the liability when treating an acute patient). Also, not included in those numbers are the deaths that result from exposure to toxic materials, where the deaths result many years later.

(PDF warning)

http://www.iaff747.com/docs/Cancer%20Risk%202x%20as%20High0001.pdf
————-

I suppose, at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves if the risks taken by traders and speculators is worth more than the risks taken by public safety personnel. The answer to that is subjective, and depends on where you stand, logically and philosophically.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[/quote]

No way anyone can convince me that trading securities is more risky that police work or firefighting. And, per your link, salespeople in the financial and securities industry are higher on the “contentment” scale than cops are (firefighters are higher).

Here:

Badge-wielding types took a serious hit. Of all occupations, protective-service occupations suffered the greatest relative increase in workplace fatalities in 2007, jumping 20% to 314. Nearly one-half of those were police officers; indeed, enough men in blue perished in the line of fire to earn a spot on the list of America’s 10 most dangerous jobs.

In 2007, 143 sheriffs and patrol officers died on the job–a rate of 21.4 per 100,000 workers–making police work the 10th most dangerous job in America. “Things have gotten more violent,” admits Rich Roberts, public information officer from the International Union of Police Association, a Sarasota, Fla.-based union, “but fortunately we’re better protected to a degree.”

http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead-careers-cx_mk_0825danger.html
————

As for firefighting, the reduction in injuries and fatalities over the years is due to better training and firefighting/rescue techniques. But the fatality rate only tells part of the story. Firefighters now perform many different services — paramedic, search and rescue, hazmat, etc. All of which have different types of risks (think of the liability when treating an acute patient). Also, not included in those numbers are the deaths that result from exposure to toxic materials, where the deaths result many years later.

(PDF warning)

http://www.iaff747.com/docs/Cancer%20Risk%202x%20as%20High0001.pdf
————-

I suppose, at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves if the risks taken by traders and speculators is worth more than the risks taken by public safety personnel. The answer to that is subjective, and depends on where you stand, logically and philosophically.

[CA renter]

[quote=davelj][quote=CA renter]Yes, we definitely disagree on this.

While *some* private sector employees (investors?) take risks, public sector employees take even greater risks, especially those in public safety.[/quote]

This has been thoroughly debunked. Even the more purportedly dangerous jobs like police and firefighters have on-the-job mortality rates that are pretty far down the scale relative to plenty of other occupations. And, job contentment among this group is also pretty high.

http://www.livescience.com/1431-survey-reveals-satisfying-jobs.html

[/quote]

No way anyone can convince me that trading securities is more risky that police work or firefighting. And, per your link, salespeople in the financial and securities industry are higher on the “contentment” scale than cops are (firefighters are higher).

Here:

Badge-wielding types took a serious hit. Of all occupations, protective-service occupations suffered the greatest relative increase in workplace fatalities in 2007, jumping 20% to 314. Nearly one-half of those were police officers; indeed, enough men in blue perished in the line of fire to earn a spot on the list of America’s 10 most dangerous jobs.

In 2007, 143 sheriffs and patrol officers died on the job–a rate of 21.4 per 100,000 workers–making police work the 10th most dangerous job in America. “Things have gotten more violent,” admits Rich Roberts, public information officer from the International Union of Police Association, a Sarasota, Fla.-based union, “but fortunately we’re better protected to a degree.”

http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/25/dangerous-jobs-fishing-lead-careers-cx_mk_0825danger.html
————

As for firefighting, the reduction in injuries and fatalities over the years is due to better training and firefighting/rescue techniques. But the fatality rate only tells part of the story. Firefighters now perform many different services — paramedic, search and rescue, hazmat, etc. All of which have different types of risks (think of the liability when treating an acute patient). Also, not included in those numbers are the deaths that result from exposure to toxic materials, where the deaths result many years later.

(PDF warning)

http://www.iaff747.com/docs/Cancer%20Risk%202x%20as%20High0001.pdf
————-

I suppose, at the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves if the risks taken by traders and speculators is worth more than the risks taken by public safety personnel. The answer to that is subjective, and depends on where you stand, logically and philosophically.

[Author]

Posts