[davelj]

[quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4

[davelj]

[quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4

[davelj]

[quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4

[davelj]

[quote=investor]People fighting griffin’s ideas just don’t want to question their own firmly held beliefs and get angry when you do. So what. Close mindedness is never appealing risk…[/quote]

Pot calls kettle black.

You Conveniently disappeared for a few months after you last brought up Griffin and I pointed out in clear prose – using his own words – that this man does not even understand the basics of banking. Please feel free to pick up the thread.

http://piggington.com/do_you_know_what_the_federal_reserve_is?page=4

[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.

[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.

[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.

[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.

[davelj]

[quote=jpinpb] It’s not an easy job or I’d imagine many of you would be out there doing it, making all the supposed money you think they make, pension and all the benefits that go along w/it. Reality is you have no interest, even w/all the money and everything you think they are getting.[/quote]

Strawman argument alert. Based on the quality of the hamburgers I sometimes eat I could argue that a lot of folks making $10/hour in the fast food industry are overpaid. This doesn’t mean I think it’s “easy” or that I should have any interest in doing that job. My willingness to do someone else’s job has NOTHING to do with whether someone’s overpaid or whether or not the job is “easy.” Zero. “Overpaid” is a supply-and-demand issue combined with budgetary constraints. Whether or not I’m willing to do the job is an opportunity cost issue. I’m betting that most Piggs would be taking a pay cut – some rather large – to work a public safety job, thus they have no interest (excluding the issue of whether or not they have any interest in the content of the job itself). But this has NOTHING to do with whether or not these folks are over- or under-paid.

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

http://piggington.com/nonsalary_ca_budget_cuts#comment-119669

This discussion relates to the discussion of the overall CA state budget as well.

Here’s what I said regarding the CA budget last year:

********************************
I saw a post on another site that quoted these CA budget numbers (the 08-09 figure is correct, I checked that one):

FY 98-99 $ 75 billion
FY 04-05 $107 billion
FY 08-09 $145 billion (proposed/enacted)

All I have to say is, Puhlease. CA’s population has increased from 33.5 million in 1998 to 37.1 million today. That’s 10.6% CUMULATIVE growth. Add in illegals and MAYBE you can double that – I’ll give this notion the benefit of the doubt. Then let’s add in cumulative inflation of 35% (3% per year). So, now we should have a budget that’s about 50% greater than 1998’s budget (in nominal dollars), or about $113 billion. Or “just” $32 billion below our current goal.

So, this isn’t that complicated, in theory. Go back to 1998’s budget and, line by line, increase each one by 50% and say to each department, “Here’s your budget. Figure it out.”

How did we manage a decade ago on such “meager” funds relative to the population? I guess we were real Spartans back then. I’m betting we can survive – just barely – on the “old” budget, adjusted for population and inflation.

In fact, I have a proposal. Just pass legislation that limits budget increases to the higher of CPI inflation or the increase in the state’s population. What’s wrong with this approach?

EDIT: Now that I think about it, I guess the budget increase should be limited to the CPI increase PLUS the change in the population, to keep spending/citizen constant in real dollars.
***************************

What I’d like to see someone do – I’m (probably) too lazy – is to find out how much SD was spending on police/fire fighters/teachers, etc. in 1998. Then increase that number by inflation + the increase in SD’s population over the period. I’m going to bet that, as in the case of CA, these numbers aren’t going to match up very well. And I don’t recall folks complaining about the state of public services in SD in 1998. As in the case of CA, why can’t we live within our 1998 means, adjusted for inflation and population growth? Why is that so difficult?

[davelj]

[quote=gandalf]Bankers somehow ‘not responsible’ for a banking meltdown?[/quote]

Did someone say that somehow bankers were not responsible for the banking meltdown? Where did you read that?

What I said – if you’re referring to my comments – was that it’s difficult to assign individual bankers with blame – outside of the obvious villians – due to the complicated nature of the task. That’s a world apart from suggesting that they’re “not responsible.” They’re responsible, alright. It’s just very difficult to pin that responsibility down at the individual level outside of fairly obvious cases, which are the exception rather than the rule.

[quote=gandalf]
More important question:

Are owners, managers and employees of corporations so completely shielded from liability as to be ‘Not Responsible’ for the conduct of their firms?
[/quote]

Technically, senior officers and directors of banks are “personally and severally liable” for losses to the FDIC if their bank fails. The problem, of course, is that the FDIC has to prove criminal negligence, which is a difficult standard to prove. Having said that, during the S&L/banking crisis of the late-80s-early-90s, the FDIC sued officers and directors of 26% of the banks that failed. I think we’re going to see a LOT of law suits this time around as well. (The FDIC is just getting geared up for these suits right now.) The problem is that most of these folks who aren’t working at the top-20 banks – who TPTB won’t allow to fail – don’t have nearly enough net worth to plug the holes they’ve created. Not even close. But as a director of two banks, I’m quite aware that my net worth is on the line if something goes wrong. D&O insurance helps out a bit in this regard, but if a bank fails, the losses tend to dwarf the D&O amount by many multiples.

[Author]

Posts