http://prospect.org/article/opportunity-society

"Conservatives not only seek a world where everyone has the same opportunities, most of them think that's pretty much what we have already, so major changes aren't necessary, except in the area of getting government off your back."

"There are a thousand ways in which wealth determines the opportunities available to you, in large part by making things easy. Yes, if you're a poor kid being raised by a single parent who never finished high school, you can get to Harvard. But you're going to have to be one in a million. It's going to take extraordinary spirit, determination, and luck for you to make it. I'm sure Tagg Romney is a fine fellow, but the truth is that even if he was a lazy dolt he'd still do well. He went to the best schools, his parents gave him all kinds of enriching experiences, and he never had to worry about much of anything. He wasn't going to get pulled out of college and have to take a job if one of his parents got sick. When he decided this private equity thing looked interesting, there was an escalator waiting, and all he had to do was hop on. That's opportunity."

The article is built around the story of Mitt Romney's son Tagg, who despite having no experience in private equity, formed his own firm and managed to secure $244 million in investments from among his Dad's contacts and political contributors. The article makes the point that no matter how smart and hard working Tagg might be, without those connections he never would have been able to attract that kind of level of investment.

The point, simply, is that when Republicans talk about equality of opportunity, they're ignoring the plain and simple fact that no such thing exists, that people born into poor families attend poorer schools, lacking the and that most of the 'class warfare' stuff they rail against, like effective social welfare and public healthcare, is really just trying to get something closer to the even level of equality of opportunity Republicans claim they want.

The Republicans talking about equality of opportunity is just that - talk. Since I've started paying attention (mid 80's) the Republicans have moved away from that standard in every way except in their rhetoric. Everything they have done has been about helping the rich be rich, and keeping the poor poor.

If you want to see this in action firsthand, chat up one of their kids. They won't be able to kick you out fast enough lest their precious child get emotionally involved with <shudder> the lower classes.

(Thinking about it, that's probably true of all politicians. But at least the Dems try do do things to help the poor politically.)

Vulcan wrote:If you want to see this in action firsthand, chat up one of their kids.

Something tells me an adult trying to harass children is going to be viewed negatively anywhere. My boy would probably just walk right over you. he's less consdierate than I am (unless you're cute of course). Genghis Connie, well, if you've ever seen what a pack of vicious attack BADGER DOGs can do to a person in 60 seconds...

I suppose I should have clarified this. Since the article mentioned Mitt's son - who is what, 25ish? - I was referring to adult children. Especially if you are of the opposite gender.

Man I wish I had that kind of equality of opportunity.

Come on Republicans, you're slacking off, I want my equality of opportunity already!

Unlike this brat I'm having to WORK for a living where he gets easy street from day one >.<

Well, two words for you then:

BOOT

STRAPS

streamdragon wrote:Well, two words for you then:

BOOT

STRAPS

Or:

UNICORNS

ZEUS

streamdragon wrote:Well, two words for you then:

BOOT

STRAPS

But I don't wear boots...

How about

Lotto

John Dillinger?

How do you change it though. I always thought everyone should have the exact same education system, and all wealth confiscated when you die, but even that doesn't really work out.

Right-wing politicians deny class system exists.
Class system does actually exist.
Nothing new.

Frazzled wrote:How about

Lotto

John Dillinger?

How do you change it though. I always thought everyone should have the exact same education system, and all wealth confiscated when you die, but even that doesn't really work out.

If that happened i would never have been able to go to college frazz, my entire family gave me the money from my grandpas account when he died so i can go to college.
But yeah, standardized education is a good idea.

Frazzled wrote:How about

Lotto

John Dillinger?

How do you change it though

According to the Republican party, you change it through tax breaks to the rich and getting rid of the tax on capital gains (while taxing everyone else more by cutting down on exemptions that mostly apply to the middle class).

Joey wrote:Right-wing politicians deny class system exists.
Class system does actually exist.
Nothing new.

Left wing politicians argue that class system is rigid.
Class system is not actually rigid.
Nothing new.

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:Right-wing politicians deny class system exists.
Class system does actually exist.
Nothing new.

Left wing politicians argue that class system is rigid.
Class system is not actually rigid.
Nothing new.

Social mobility in the UK has all but ground to a halt thanks to piss-poor education for the masses.
Apparently the US isn't much better.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How about

Lotto

John Dillinger?

How do you change it though

According to the Republican party, you change it through tax breaks to the rich and getting rid of the tax on capital gains (while taxing everyone else more by cutting down on exemptions that mostly apply to the middle class).

According to Democrats you steal the money from the middle class to give it to other people. Wait, that applies to Republicans too. Neither are correct.

Oppotunity and education are the only real equalizers.

Frazzled wrote:According to Democrats you steal the money from the

Rich.

Incorrect. Rich pay less taxes than the middle class as a precentage. Poor pay less taxes than the middle class as a percentage. DOn't believe the propaganda. look at the facts.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:According to Democrats you steal the money from the

Rich.

middle class.

Although it's nice to hear you finally refer to it as stealing.

From biccat's article:
We are all going to have to contribute to this, and if middle class people’s wages were going up again, and we had some growth to the economy, I don’t think they would object to going back to tax rates [from] when I was president” - before the Bush tax cuts.

Yeah sure, IF wages were going up.

But they aren't.

Frazzled wrote:Incorrect. Rich pay less taxes than the middle class as a precentage. Poor pay less taxes than the middle class as a percentage. DOn't believe the propaganda. look at the facts.

Heritage claims the top 10% pay 71% of federal income taxes. Though, of course, we could then argue about what constitutes the middle class. The general rule being that the vast majority of people will at least claim to be.

Or did you mean as a percentage of income?

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:Right-wing politicians deny class system exists.
Class system does actually exist.
Nothing new.

Left wing politicians argue that class system is rigid.
Class system is not actually rigid.
Nothing new.

Social mobility in the UK has all but ground to a halt thanks to piss-poor education for the masses.
Apparently the US isn't much better.

I love how Biccat hasn't responded to this. I would be interested in what he'd have to say about it.

rubiksnoob wrote:I love how Biccat hasn't responded to this. I would be interested in what he'd have to say about it.

I love how biccat has had work to do.

Or, at least, the people biccat is doing work for love that biccat has had work to do.

Here's a chart that I'm going to post without any explanation:


See? Now why hasn't Joey responded to that?

edit: image fixed.

I'd have thought America of all places would at least try to be a meritocracy, what with the whole "american dream" thing. Standardised education is the way to sort it out, and personally i'd go down the route of negative income tax/unconditional basic income to sort out poverty and from there everyone has a better chance of fulfilling their potential.

Edit: Derp!

Biccat fixed his link.

Thanks Biccat!

dæl wrote:I'd have thought America of all places would at least try to be a meritocracy

What we do is pretend that we have a meritocracy and then ignore all evidence to the contrary. It makes us feel good, and that is the American way.

sebster wrote:The article is built around the story of Mitt Romney's son Tagg, who despite having no experience in private equity, formed his own firm and managed to secure $244 million in investments from among his Dad's contacts and political contributors. The article makes the point that no matter how smart and hard working Tagg might be, without those connections he never would have been able to attract that kind of level of investment.

Son of successful P/E manager has greater ease of entry into P/E management? SAY IT AIN'T SO.

This doesn't change that fact that fund management is easily among the most brutal, cutthroat industries on the planet, at least from a job security standpoint (although in the 'old days' it could be from a physical security standpoint too).

The article is more or less assuming that Tagg can be a bumbling buffoon (in the most cutthroat, profit-driven industry in the world, save for maybe drug running) and retain a quarter billion under management. Absolutely not. Easier access, perhaps, probably actually, but if he underperforms the indices then he'll face redemptions and $244 million begins to drop, precipitously. Similarly if he does well it will grow, but that will be because he's an adept and adaptable money manager, not because of a Ha'va'd education and Daddy Mitt. Money management is actually the worse possible analog for the silver-spoon trust fund baby 'success' story because it ultimately boils down to individual performance-driven results. Paris Hilton is a good example of somebody no one would care about except for her parentage; Tagg Romney probably not as much.

The point, simply, is that when Republicans talk about equality of opportunity, they're ignoring the plain and simple fact that no such thing exists, that people born into poor families attend poorer schools, lacking the and that most of the 'class warfare' stuff they rail against, like effective social welfare and public healthcare, is really just trying to get something closer to the even level of equality of opportunity Republicans claim they want.

Did you know Lloyd Blankfein was born broke? John Merton? That Corzine was a Democrat? That the richest individuals in the Senate are Democrats? Did you know that individuals like myself, a teacher's kid, born lower middle class, liberal arts degree, voted democrat in 08, are now working in risk management and prop trading for a seriously large market cap company?

I know guys like Tagg Romney. Personally, professionally. And that's how I know that 1. it does take a different sort of individual to work 80 hours a week in a high-stress environment, 2. 244 million under management makes him a tiny, tiny fish in the ocean of global capital management, and 3. it sucks not having a paycheck that isn't tied to your performance. See, that's the rub when you're a money manager, 70% of your compensation generally comes from your bonus -- taxed at a marginal 50% rate by the way--which is dependent on you beating the rest of the world. Oh, there's also a 50% washout rate, in general, in this field.

But I don't expect you to know that, or understand it. You'll read news blurbs and throw rocks, and think everything seems so'obvious' two weeks in hindsight. Heck, you already think you understand Tagg Romney's career path, and why he doesn't deserve to be judged on his own merits. Never mind that 'virtue' doesn't have a party affiliation (Corzine = Democrat lolol, Madoff = Democrat lolol).

As to social welfare? The Republican/Democrat divide isn't one about no social welfare vs. some, it's a divide over 'enough' vs. 'more. All the glorious social construct models that continuously point to 'more'? None of them can stand up to the real world fact that California is losing money/jobs/population to Texas, that Greece had one of the narrowest income gaps globally prior to the recession, and that the Pilgrims wouldn't have survived Plymouth if they hadn't gone from communal redistribution to free-market.

sourclams wrote:This doesn't change that fact that fund management is easily among the most corrupt, regulation-ignroing industries on the planet

I think I fixed that for you.

Although I should just remove "amongst the most" from that instead, but PMCs get rather close.

sourclams wrote:As to social welfare? The Republican/Democrat divide isn't one about no social welfare vs. some, it's a divide over 'enough' vs. 'more.

Given the rather hefty percentage of people in America who can't afford even basic medical care, I'd argue whether we have 'enough' social welfare in this country.

sourclams wrote:As to social welfare? The Republican/Democrat divide isn't one about no social welfare vs. some, it's a divide over 'enough' vs. 'more.

That presumes falsely that we have enough.

I'm going to cut to the chase here. Let's make it simple. Find me a person going into investment from a middle-class background who went to an average college, with the same GPA that Tagg Romney graduated with, who can scrape up $244 million from investors. Then tell me that everyone has the same equality of opportunity.

I know guys like Tagg Romney. Personally, professionally. And that's how I know that 1. it does take a different sort of individual to work 80 hours a week in a high-stress environment, 2. 244 million under management makes him a tiny, tiny fish in the ocean of global capital management, and 3. it sucks not having a paycheck that isn't tied to your performance. See, that's the rub when you're a money manager, 70% of your compensation generally comes from your bonus -- taxed at a marginal 50% rate by the way--which is dependent on you beating the rest of the world. Oh, there's also a 50% washout rate, in general, in this field.

Huh, the numbers are the same in my field (freelance and blind marketed graphic design) for hours, stress, and washout. Interesting though that 244 million would be considered incomprehensible in this field. That's the kind of number that would seem made up. That golden parachute is pretty valuable, it doesn't need to be made out of Jesus' own beard hairs to be a lot of money and people in financial fields don't actually work particularly hard when their average work week is put up against most other careers with non standard work weeks (IE not 9 to 5). The pay is dramatically better though.

Similarly if he does well it will grow, but that will be because he's an adept and adaptable money manager, not because of a Ha'va'd education and Daddy Mitt. Money management is actually the worse possible analog for the silver-spoon trust fund baby 'success' story because it ultimately boils down to individual performance-driven results.

Having followed the financial crisis pretty closely it really doesn't appear to work that way. About the only response to the JP Morgan 2 billion dollar magic trick last week was a shareholder lawsuit. Without that any removals would be accompanied by generous severances and that's just about the most extreme example of a failure from investment available.

As to social welfare? The Republican/Democrat divide isn't one about no social welfare vs. some, it's a divide over 'enough' vs. 'more. All the glorious social construct models that continuously point to 'more'? None of them can stand up to the real world fact that California is losing money/jobs/population to Texas, that Greece had one of the narrowest income gaps globally prior to the recession, and that the Pilgrims wouldn't have survived Plymouth if they hadn't gone from communal redistribution to free-market.

Or that Scandinavia beats us in virtually every quality of life metric possible? How about the fact that every lasiz faire economy in history eventually moved to a social capitalist model or failed? How about that German Economy eh? Pretty existant isn't it? Pretending that the argument about social wellfare is about enough/more is pretty abysmally ignorant of what should be plainly visible from right outside your ivory towers window. The sheer volume of people within this electorate that want massive "unspecified cuts", massive "unspecified overhauls" and massive "redistribution" shoots any idea that all people want is a continuation of policy right in its high horse.

Having followed the financial crisis pretty closely it really doesn't appear to work that way. About the only response to the JP Morgan 2 billion dollar magic trick last week was a shareholder lawsuit. Without that any removals would be accompanied by generous severances and that's just about the most extreme example of a failure from investment available.

Well yes, the financial industry is by far the most corrupt thing in the USA at the moment. Even the slaps on the wrist are more like slapping them with a small stack of $1000 notes and then letting them keep the money.

Melissia wrote:

sourclams wrote:This doesn't change that fact that fund management is easily among the most corrupt, regulation-ignroing industries on the planet

I think I fixed that for you.

Although I should just remove "amongst the most" from that instead, but PMCs get rather close.

Aside from the stuff you say with no practical knowledge of, experience in, or expertise about, Madoff and Corzine were both Democrats. Resolve that for me, please. After all, the OP is about the Republican-Democrat 'virtue' divide.

sourclams wrote:

Melissia wrote:

sourclams wrote:This doesn't change that fact that fund management is easily among the most corrupt, regulation-ignroing industries on the planet

I think I fixed that for you.

Although I should just remove "amongst the most" from that instead, but PMCs get rather close.

Aside from the stuff you say with no practical knowledge of, experience in, or expertise about, Madoff and Corzine were both Democrats. Resolve that for me, please. After all, the OP is about the Republican-Democrat 'virtue' divide.

It's about the conceptual divide in rhetoric, no one is going to readily deny that the upper echelons of politics are a money game. The system is built to elevate those who can purchase exposure. Don't equate the rhetorics of a movement with select corrupt participants. One could as easily point out conservative gays, Raegans tax hikes, or John Edwards lack of recognizably human soul. It's an equivocation.

sourclams wrote: All the glorious social construct models that continuously point to 'more'? None of them can stand up to the real world fact that California is losing money/jobs/population to Texas, that Greece had one of the narrowest income gaps globally prior to the recession, and that the Pilgrims wouldn't have survived Plymouth if they hadn't gone from communal redistribution to free-market.

And yet Germany, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, and a number of other European countries expend more on social welfare as a percentage of GDP than the US while also exhibiting healthy economies.

sourclams wrote:Aside from the stuff you say with no practical knowledge of, experience in, or expertise about, Madoff and Corzine were both Democrats. Resolve that for me, please.

A simple resolution is "it's irrelevant", given that my point was that the industry itself is widely corrupt.

For example:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/05/short-selling-litigation

This sort of corruption is common practice in the industry, as is the attempts to hide all evidence of it.

The lowest income gaps are shared by Scandinavia and Japan. They achieve this in different ways though, the scandinavians with a generous welfare state, the japanese by having very little difference between the highest and lowest wages. The benefits from a much more equal society are immense.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

ShumaGorath wrote:Huh, the numbers are the same in my field (freelance and blind marketed graphic design) for stress, and washout. Interesting though that 244 million would be considered incomprehensible in this field. That's the kind of number that would seem made up. That golden parachute is pretty valuable, it doesn't need to be made out of Jesus' own beard hairs to be a lot of money and people in financial fields don't actually work particularly hard when their average work week is put up against most other careers with non standard work weeks (IE not 9 to 5). The pay is dramatically better though.

This is basically what I consider quantitative evidence that 'you don't get it'.

244 million is his assets under management. He's going to have to make that amount perform as well/better than common indices (if he's a beta manager) or generate proprietary trades himself (if alpha).

His office will generate fees of probably 1-3% of the total funds under management, of which they'll pay their SG&A. That's a few million dollars annually, divied up between all staff, weighted most heavily toward the traders. Base salaries for traders are probably around 100k, then bonus.

Having followed the financial crisis pretty closely it really doesn't appear to work that way. About the only response to the JP Morgan 2 billion dollar magic trick last week was a shareholder lawsuit. Without that any removals would be accompanied by generous severances and that's just about the most extreme example of a failure from investment available.

The CIO resigned, the trader responsible resigned, and we do not know the status of their severance, and Jamie Dimon himself has said 'heads will roll' if impropriety is discovered. Investigations are still very much ongoing. Bottom line, we don't know what the fallout is because it hasn't resolved yet. It's quite possible that for a firm of that size, with that magnitude of positions, $2 billion can be lost purely around Basis risk, which is something few people outside of JPMorgan will know the intricacies of, and I doubt you even understand at a rudimentary level.

Or that Scandinavia beats us in virtually every quality of life metric possible?

Tiny, culturally, and geographically homogeneous country. /totally_the_same

Pretending that the argument about social wellfare is about enough/more is pretty abysmally ignorant of what should be plainly visible from right outside your ivory towers window. The sheer volume of people within this electorate that want massive "unspecified cuts", massive "unspecified overhauls" and massive "redistribution" shoots any idea that all people want is a continuation of policy right in its high horse.

I'm ridiculously far removed from the ivory tower. My role literally 'is' commerce. The 'sheer volume of people' in this 47% of the electorate that plan on voting Democratic, like you, don't even understand what they're trying to scapegoat. And, further, the two most visible examples of blatant corruption and financial failure of our generation have, thus far, both been Democrats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dæl wrote:The lowest income gaps are shared by Scandinavia and Japan. They achieve this in different ways though, the scandinavians with a generous welfare state, the japanese by having very little difference between the highest and lowest wages. The benefits from a much more equal society are immense.

Scandinavia is geopolitically insignificant, given that they are a tiny, homogeneous, remote, and stable region.

Japan has been in recession for 30 years.

And we've been in a recession for at least eleven.

Melissia wrote:

Having followed the financial crisis pretty closely it really doesn't appear to work that way. About the only response to the JP Morgan 2 billion dollar magic trick last week was a shareholder lawsuit. Without that any removals would be accompanied by generous severances and that's just about the most extreme example of a failure from investment available.

Well yes, the financial industry is by far the most corrupt thing in the USA at the moment. Even the slaps on the wrist are more like slapping them with a small stack of $1000 notes and then letting them keep the money.

Why is that corrupt? They made bad trades. They were fired. Life goes on. Meanwhile the Company made $18bazillion in the same quarter. thats capitalism. Thats how its supposed to work. Don't start getting preachy when someone in business actually loses money for poor decisioning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

sourclams wrote: All the glorious social construct models that continuously point to 'more'? None of them can stand up to the real world fact that California is losing money/jobs/population to Texas, that Greece had one of the narrowest income gaps globally prior to the recession, and that the Pilgrims wouldn't have survived Plymouth if they hadn't gone from communal redistribution to free-market.

And yet Germany, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, and a number of other European countries expend more on social welfare as a percentage of GDP than the US while also exhibiting healthy economies.

The Scandinavian countries also get taxed at an incredibly high rate, get a massive % of their income from the North Sea oil deposits (you know evil energy), and aren't spending wads defending Europe from the USSR (despite there being no USSR).

Frazzled wrote:Why is that corrupt. They made bad trades. They were fired.

And given massive corporate executive severance packages which they themselves wrote and signed. So not only did they fail, they wrote their own paycheck knowing that they'd fail, and gave themselves a ton of money.

Equality of opportunity my ass.

And let's face it, big companies are opposed to capitalism and free markets just as much as, if not more than, labor unions are. Subsidies, protective tariffs, lying to the customer, doing as little as possible, etc. Competition is anathema to them.

dogma wrote:

sourclams wrote: All the glorious social construct models that continuously point to 'more'? None of them can stand up to the real world fact that California is losing money/jobs/population to Texas, that Greece had one of the narrowest income gaps globally prior to the recession, and that the Pilgrims wouldn't have survived Plymouth if they hadn't gone from communal redistribution to free-market.

And yet Germany, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, and a number of other European countries expend more on social welfare as a percentage of GDP than the US while also exhibiting healthy economies.

Germany "works" because Germans actually "work"; they have relatively low unit-labor costs and maintain incredible levels of productivity in spite of a 50% tax wedge. Really it's impressive.

The empirical evidence would suggest that California is either massively inefficient, refuses to "work", or has some other environmental factor that makes them 'not Germany'. Whatever that is, Texas must have it in droves.

Melissia wrote:And let's face it, big companies are opposed to capitalism and free markets just as much as, if not more than, labor unions are. Subsidies, protective tariffs, lying to the customer, doing as little as possible, etc. Competition is anathema to them.

That's true.

If only we had a government that would refuse to help them stamp out competition.

A man can dream...

Melissia wrote:And we've been in a recession for at least eleven.

The US recession ended in 2011.

Since then my income is up 25% and you still don't have meaningful employment. I'm going to trust my knowledge and experiential base on 'the economy' (not to mention metrics like, oh, the market, gas prices, and unemployment) over your belligerent blame-makings.

sourclams wrote:The US recession ended in 2011.

Not according to the Republicans.

Also, stop pulling stuff out of your backside and assuming it applies to me. I've studied economics from both a business and an economist's standpoint, as well as having helped run a business.

sourclams wrote:The 'sheer volume of people' in this 47% of the electorate that plan on voting Democratic, like you, don't even understand what they're trying to scapegoat.

I agree, except I'd add that most Republicans don't understand either. I worked in financial services for about a decade. One of my takeaways was that the common complaints about the industry tend to be about the wrong stuff. There's no shortage of issues there, but they aren't the things that the public tends to get riled up about. Or what affects the small investor most.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Why is that corrupt. They made bad trades. They were fired.

And given massive corporate executive severance packages which they themselves wrote and signed. So not only did they fail, they wrote their own paycheck knowing that they'd fail, and gave themselves a ton of money.

Equality of opportunity my ass.

And let's face it, big companies are opposed to capitalism and free markets just as much as, if not more than, labor unions are. Subsidies, protective tariffs, lying to the customer, doing as little as possible, etc. Competition is anathema to them.

And none of that is illegal or unethical. If you don't like their management practices, don't own their stock.

Frazzled wrote:And none of that is illegal or unethical

Illegal no.

Unethical? Hell yse.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And none of that is illegal or unethical

Illegal no.

Unethical? Hell yse.

Not unethical. They made bad trades.
Either you just have youre fingers in your ears screaming "I can't hear you!" or you enjoy posting without a working knowledge of the subject.

This is basically what I consider quantitative evidence that 'you don't get it'.

244 million is his assets under management. He's going to have to make that amount perform as well/better than common indices (if he's a beta manager) or generate proprietary trades himself (if alpha).

His office will generate fees of probably 1-3% of the total funds under management, of which they'll pay their SG&A. That's a few million dollars annually, divied up between all staff, weighted most heavily toward the traders. Base salaries for traders are probably around 100k, then bonus.

You're thinking qualitatively, but oh well.

Base salaries for traders are probably around 100k, then bonus.

No, I understand it quite well.

The CIO resigned, the trader responsible resigned, and we do not know the status of their severance, and Jamie Dimon himself has said 'heads will roll' if impropriety is discovered. Investigations are still very much ongoing. Bottom line, we don't know what the fallout is because it hasn't resolved yet. It's quite possible that for a firm of that size, with that magnitude of positions, $2 billion can be lost purely around Basis risk, which is something few people outside of JPMorgan will know the intricacies of, and I doubt you even understand at a rudimentary level.

And I'm sure you're right down here in the ditches with me, especially considering an apparent lack of perspective on the "rolling heads" that followed the last wave of "Improprieties" during the last series of major banking scandals. Were you there arguing that we can't enforce laws because these companies need to maintain their expert managerial workforce back then? I have the memory and intelligence of a goldfish though, so I'll bow down to your "expert experiential experience" when talking about a company you don't work at and are similarly in the dark about.

Tiny, culturally, and geographically homogeneous country. /totally_the_same

Which is why I also brought up Germany. Hell, do you want to take this the other direction? Want to start listing countries that have significantly fewer socialist leanings than we do? Hows central Africa doing these days?

I'm ridiculously far removed from the ivory tower. My role literally 'is' commerce. The 'sheer volume of people' in this 47% of the electorate that plan on voting Democratic, like you, don't even understand what they're trying to scapegoat. And, further, the two most visible examples of blatant corruption and financial failure of our generation have, thus far, both been Democrats.

I'm pretty sure that ivory towers are generally manned by people whose jobs are commerce. We don't actually have wizards anymore, those things are expensive to build.

As for the most visible levels of corruption, one would think that the republican leaning establishment at the top of Lehman Brothers or the oil funded coke and hooker parties republican lobbyists kept getting invited to would be up there. But hey, lets not forget the blinders! It wouldn't be a discussion about finance and politics without them.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And none of that is illegal or unethical

Illegal no.

Unethical? Hell yse.

Not unethical. They made bad trades.

.., they set up the situation so that the company will pay enormous amounts of money them whether they fail or succeed, and then proceed to fail. Consistently.

And you expect me to believe that this is ethical?

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And none of that is illegal or unethical

Illegal no.

Unethical? Hell yse.

Not unethical. They made bad trades.
Either you just have youre fingers in your ears screaming "I can't hear you!" or you enjoy posting without a working knowledge of the subject.

A strong case can be made that it's unethical for a private bank to engage in large scale investment, but without the specifics of every trade that went wrong we can't say for sure if they engaged in unethical levels of risk. JP Morgan isn't really a bank anymore anyway, there are no realistic or accurate classifications for that kind of corporate establishment. Either way it probably shouldn't exist at all.

Frazzled wrote:
The Scandinavian countries also get taxed at an incredibly high rate, get a massive % of their income from the North Sea oil deposits (you know evil energy), and aren't spending wads defending Europe from the USSR (despite there being no USSR).

Germany and Belgium aren't Scandinavian countries, and both actually have tax rates on par with those states. Further, only Norway derives a significant amount of its GDP from oil. Sweden and Denmark have very diverse economies.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And none of that is illegal or unethical

Illegal no.

Unethical? Hell yse.

Not unethical. They made bad trades.

.., they set up the situation so that the company will pay enormous amounts of money them whether they fail or succeed, and then proceed to fail. Consistently.

And you expect me to believe that this is ethical?

Thats incorrect. They set up vast trades of vast quantities. JPM has a history of profitably trading, but they screwed the pooch. Thats called business.

If I buy and sell stocks as a day trader and I screw up and buy high when the market goes low I lose money and the other guy makes the money. Thats business. Thats what trading and hedging is. As noted someone(s) else made $2bn in profit.


You do know what hedging is right? You do admit that companies lose money...right? You do admit that sometimes companies can in fact lose money without it being some sort of evil criminal conspiracy by the Jews er what do you call it now Wall Street right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And none of that is illegal or unethical

Illegal no.

Unethical? Hell yse.

Not unethical. They made bad trades.
Either you just have youre fingers in your ears screaming "I can't hear you!" or you enjoy posting without a working knowledge of the subject.

A strong case can be made that it's unethical for a private bank to engage in large scale investment, but without the specifics of every trade that went wrong we can't say for sure if they engaged in unethical levels of risk. JP Morgan isn't really a bank anymore anyway, there are no realistic or accurate classifications for that kind of corporate establishment. Either way it probably shouldn't exist at all.

No, it can't. You can make the case that certain institutions shouldn't be involved in trading from a risk return basis, but there's no ethical issue here. Whats with you people and the whole "OOOOO everyone's a criminallllllOOOOHHH!"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
The Scandinavian countries also get taxed at an incredibly high rate, get a massive % of their income from the North Sea oil deposits (you know evil energy), and aren't spending wads defending Europe from the USSR (despite there being no USSR).

Germany and Belgium aren't Scandinavian countries, and both actually have tax rates on par with those states. Further, only Norway derives a significant amount of its GDP from oil. Sweden and Denmark have very diverse economies.

I wasn't referring to Germany and Belgium.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:And none of that is illegal or unethical

Illegal no.

Unethical? Hell yse.

Not unethical. They made bad trades.

.., they set up the situation so that the company will pay enormous amounts of money them whether they fail or succeed, and then proceed to fail. Consistently.

And you expect me to believe that this is ethical?

Thats incorrect. They set up vast trades of vast quantities. JPM has a history of profitably trading, but they screwed the pooch. Thats called business.

If I buy and sell stocks as a day trader and I screw up and buy high when the market goes low I lose money and the other guy makes the money. Thats business. Thats what trading and hedging is. As noted someone(s) else made $2bn in profit.


You do know what hedging is right? You do admit that companies lose money...right? You do admit that sometimes companies can in fact lose money without it being some sort of evil criminal conspiracy by the Jews er what do you call it now Wall Street right?

That is not what Melissia is talking about, she is talking about the practice that leads managers to award themselves VERY large severance pays when they are fired for their incompetence being unethical, not the practices that led to their termination of employment.

Managers can't award themselves large severances. If they can, thats bad management control and you shouldn't invest in them. Their bosses/BOD can but again it goes back to the fact that if you don't like the management don't invest in the company.

No, it can't. You can make the case that certain institutions shouldn't be involved in trading from a risk return basis, but there's no ethical issue here. Whats with you people and the whole "OOOOO everyone's a criminallllllOOOOHHH!"

Stop equating ethics and legality. They aren't the same thing. It's lazy and paints you as someone not to be taken seriously.

ShumaGorath wrote:

No, it can't. You can make the case that certain institutions shouldn't be involved in trading from a risk return basis, but there's no ethical issue here. Whats with you people and the whole "OOOOO everyone's a criminallllllOOOOHHH!"

Stop equating ethics and legality. They aren't the same thing.

True that of course that wasn't your argument.

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

No, it can't. You can make the case that certain institutions shouldn't be involved in trading from a risk return basis, but there's no ethical issue here. Whats with you people and the whole "OOOOO everyone's a criminallllllOOOOHHH!"

Stop equating ethics and legality. They aren't the same thing.

True that of course that wasn't your argument.

No, my argument was that we don't really know the ethics of the situation and that arguments can (and very often are) made that its unethical for private banking institutions to engage in high risk trading. You should of been able to interpret that (since I said it explicitly), but once again you've proven that you have no actual intention of ever engaging in these discussions in anything but a partisan and rather schoolyard manner.

You never said why banks are unethical to trade. Unethical implies moral wrongness to it. It could be inprudent on a risk/return basis. It could be inprudent because government guarantees of deposits exposes the taxpayer inordinantly and therefore they have an interest. Neither of those are ethical concepts.

Arguing that a person has to succeed when given an opporutnity doesn't change the fact that the opportunity was given.

I'm a government lawyer. I make a relatively small paycheck. I know that guys working in big law for six figures work a million hours and have a miserable experience. Doesn't mean I don't wish I had the chance to at least try that.

sourclams wrote:
Germany "works" because Germans actually "work"; they have relatively low unit-labor costs and maintain incredible levels of productivity in spite of a 50% tax wedge. Really it's impressive.

Arguably they are able to do so because they have extremely efficient social programs and an excellent education system (paid for by high taxes), leading to a highly skilled work force without all the attendant individual debt that the same requires in the US; allowing for a lower overall cost of labor.

sourclams wrote:
The empirical evidence would suggest that California is either massively inefficient, refuses to "work", or has some other environmental factor that makes them 'not Germany'. Whatever that is, Texas must have it in droves.

Outside of unemployment, California isn't all that different from Texas economically.

You never said why banks are unethical to trade.

Correct! I didn't! Good job!

Unethical implies moral wrongness to it.

It implies a lack of morality, not a presence of bad morality. It's the lack of ethics.

It could be inprudent on a risk/return basis. It could be inprudent because government guarantees of deposits exposes the taxpayer inordinantly and therefore they have an interest. Neither of those are ethical concepts.

Yes, they are. If risking the health and welfare of the financial sector and your clients money on high risk gambles isn't unethical to you than I don't think you get to have much say on what is or is not ethical anymore. I also didn't argue that they were unethical, just that it was a common perception. We don't know enough about these particular trades to say either way.

Frazzled wrote:
I wasn't referring to Germany and Belgium.

Were referring only to Noway then? Because Finland doesn't do a whole lot of oil production either.

Polonius wrote:Arguing that a person has to succeed when given an opporutnity doesn't change the fact that the opportunity was given.

I'm a government lawyer. I make a relatively small paycheck. I know that guys working in big law for six figures work a million hours and have a miserable experience. Doesn't mean I don't wish I had the chance to at least try that.

Agreed. A $240mm fund is not chump change. Its a small sponsor yes, but thats not just given to any hack coming out of business school. There are indeed connections involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yes, they are. If risking the health and welfare of the financial sector and your clients money on high risk gambles isn't unethical to you than I don't think you get to have much say on what is or is not ethical anymore. I also didn't argue that they were unethical, just that it was a common perception. We don't know enough about these particular trades to say either way.

Dude thats the fiduciary responsibility of every financial manager, every financial advisor, every damn certified personal financial planner out there. It risk vs. return. A portion of your investment pool, depending on your client's risk appetite, will go towards higher return/higher risk vehicles. Again its simple math and simple investing.
Evidently you have no concept of investing, financial markets, derivative markets, or well anything with $ signs it appears. There is hope however, I suggest FInance 101 at your nearest college or online university.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I wasn't referring to Germany and Belgium.

Were referring only to Noway then? Because Finland doesn't do a whole lot of oil production either.

Norway, Denmark. I don't know much about Finland other than something about having minor tiffs with the USSR and then picking the wrong side in WWII.

Frazzled wrote:
Norway, Denmark. I don't know much about Finland other than something about having minor tiffs with the USSR and then picking the wrong side in WWII.

But Denmark's oil exports are minuscule relative to its overall economy, largely because much of it is consumed in country.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

Scandinavia and Finland are tiny, geographically insulated, ethnically homogenous nations with natural resources whose economies are driven by manufacturing and resource exportation.

So, you know, not really like America at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

No, just people who take an infantile approach to taxation. There are plenty of intelligent posters, many of whom I disagree with, on dakka.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

Except that calling taxation theft is naive. Doing so willingly is childish as best.

You can call it coercion, you can call it unfair, you can even call it immoral.

It's not theft.

His comparison to a child whining about civil rights is actually rather apt.

Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

Except that calling taxation theft is naive. Doing so willingly is childish as best.

You can call it coercion, you can call it unfair, you can even call it immoral.

It's not theft.

His comparison to a child whining about civil rights is actually rather apt.

I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing.

Some people do though.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

Some people do that as well, but both groups are still wrong in calling it theft.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

"Wealth distrobution" is a loaded term.
Can you build thousands of miles of railways without putting money into the pockets of hundreds of workers?
Can you have an education system without paying teachers, cleaners, groundsmen, receptionists, clerical workers?
Unless you can, pretty much all government spending qualifies as redistributive.

Joey wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

"Wealth distrobution" is a loaded term.
Can you build thousands of miles of railways without putting money into the pockets of hundreds of workers?
Can you have an education system without paying teachers, cleaners, groundsmen, receptionists, clerical workers?
Unless you can, pretty much all government spending qualifies as redistributive.

I have to be incredibly explicit, but you do not? Wealth redistribution = government taking money from someone and giving it to someone else in return for no service or product. Teachers, DOT employees, soldiers, and police I believe are pretty much covered under my post.

Regardless, this is off topic and I shouldn't have gone there. let's get back to equality of opportunity.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

Plenty do the former.

As for the latter, I can't control how people perceive things. I can say that words still have meanings, and using the term theft in anything but a poetic sense to describe taxation is deeply flawed.

It also prevents any work to be done. We need taxes to operate as a nation. That's not up for serious debate. The only questions are "how much should we collect, and from whom?"

Those are very fuzzy questions based on numerous factors, and simplistic arguments about taxes, or some taxes, being theft d not help.

It's akin to discussing how to cook steaks, only to have some vegetarian pipe up that "meat is murder." First, shut up. Second, no it's not.

Ahtman wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing.

Some people do though.

On this very forum, even.

Taxation is taxation. I agree. The idea isn't so much about "theft" as it is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"A Government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw.

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give it to the other" ~ Voltaire

The government is robbing peter to pay perez to protect peter from paul the criminal.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxation is taxation. I agree. The idea isn't so much about "theft" as it is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"A Government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw.

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give it to the other" ~ Voltaire

You can't base actual political thought on pithy quotes.
Who exactly is "Peter" in the US? Who is "Paul"?

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxation is taxation. I agree. The idea isn't so much about "theft" as it is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"A Government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw.

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give it to the other" ~ Voltaire

Hence the fuzziness. There are two philsophical schools of thought: One is that without great and brilliant men, the working people would have nothing, and thus the working people should pay as much as they can possibly bear. The other is that without the support of working people, great and brilliant men coudl accomplish nothing, thus the great should pay as much as they can possibly bear.

In practice, balancing a tax code is bound by the practicality of actually being able to collect money. And, even the least cynical would agree, about getting congress to subsidize whatever you do somewhere in the code.

Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:Taxation is taxation. I agree. The idea isn't so much about "theft" as it is about robbing Peter to pay Paul.

"A Government that robs from Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul." ~ George Bernard Shaw.

"In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give it to the other" ~ Voltaire

Hence the fuzziness. There are two philsophical schools of thought: One is that without great and brilliant men, the working people would have nothing, and thus the working people should pay as much as they can possibly bear. The other is that without the support of working people, great and brilliant men coudl accomplish nothing, thus the great should pay as much as they can possibly bear.

In practice, balancing a tax code is bound by the practicality of actually being able to collect money. And, even the least cynical would agree, about getting congress to subsidize whatever you do somewhere in the code.

There is a third way, that the land of a nation is owned by all and should be rented, this rent could become the only tax and be used to pay for the welfare of everyone as it belongs to them anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

I think Alaska is run on lines similar to this, people are reimbursed for the natural resources farmed.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

All taxation is redistributive.

All taxation is also, ultimately, based on pandering to certain voters.

If taxes are raised to pay for a piece of infrastructure, the decision was made because a politician believed it was politically sound, and he believed it was politically sound because he believed it would get him reelected.

Vulcan wrote:The Republicans talking about equality of opportunity is just that - talk. Since I've started paying attention (mid 80's) the Republicans have moved away from that standard in every way except in their rhetoric. Everything they have done has been about helping the rich be rich, and keeping the poor poor.

Thing is, I don't 'equality of opportunity' is just rhetoric. You would have to basically be a complete monster to actually believe that a person born to poor parents ought to be trapped in poverty all their lives.

It's just that the trick Republicans play on themselves is that they pretend equality of opportunity exists, when it doesn't. I've actually have a decent bit of changing people's minds by showing them how low social mobility is in the US compared to other developed countries*. People think that the story they heard about that one exceptional individual who despite being born poor and facing all the hardships that meant, who became a successful lawyer, means that because he did it, then anyone can and they have nothing to complain about.

They don't get, and need to be made to understand, that that person was, literally, one in a million, and social mobility doesn't mean 'it's okay when one in a million can pull themselves out of poverty'. It means that if a person is smarter and more hard working, then that ought to matter a lot more than being born to wealthier parents, and that any step you can make towards that situation is better.



*Well, by internet standards anyway


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:How do you change it though. I always thought everyone should have the exact same education system, and all wealth confiscated when you die, but even that doesn't really work out.

More work, and more money, into improving low income schools would be a huge improvement.

Reducing the cost of college would be a huge benefit as well.

Reducing the cost of healthcare.

Making the minimum wage something a family can reasonably live on, without both parents working 50 or more hours a week.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Left wing politicians argue that class system is rigid.
Class system is not actually rigid.
Nothing new.

One of the usual suspects continues to pretend that the US doesn't have among the worst social mobility of all developed countries.

Nothing new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:I love how biccat has had work to do.

Or, at least, the people biccat is doing work for love that biccat has had work to do.

Here's a chart that I'm going to post without any explanation:

Your answer to the low level of social mobility in the US is to just pretend it doesn't exist?

fething pathetic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Son of successful P/E manager has greater ease of entry into P/E management? SAY IT AIN'T SO.

Yeah, obviously it's true. We all know it's true. The point is that Republican party rhetoric pretends it isn't true, because they like to pretend there is equality of opportunity, which, obviously, there isn't.

The article is more or less assuming that Tagg can be a bumbling buffoon (in the most cutthroat, profit-driven industry in the world, save for maybe drug running) and retain a quarter billion under management.

The article makes no such assumption. That's a piece of nonsense you've invented inside your head, purely for the purpose of ignoring the point the the article actually makes.

The simple fact is that your or I, no matter how smart and hardworking we might be, no matter how well we finished in business school, we cannot go to the market and access $244 million in investment when we've never had a day's experience working in private equity.

That's something that people like Tagg Romney can do, because they are born into vastly more opportunity than ordinary people. This makes a mockery of Republican efforts to pretend that there is anything like equality of opportunity in the US.

You don't like to recognise that cornerstone of Republican economic theory is complete bunk, so instead you make up some nonsense about how people are speculating that Tagg can fail and keep the money. So stop being disingenuous, and start talking about the actual issue - there is nothing like equality of opportunity in the US, something Republicans like to pretend they are in favour of.

Did you know Lloyd Blankfein was born broke? John Merton? That Corzine was a Democrat? That the richest individuals in the Senate are Democrats? Did you know that individuals like myself, a teacher's kid, born lower middle class, liberal arts degree, voted democrat in 08, are now working in risk management and prop trading for a seriously large market cap company?

"Here are some anecdotes, therefore there is no greater social trend".

You live in a country of 300 million people, there will always be exceptions to the rule. That doesn't dismiss the plain and simple fact that people who are born into poverty are far less likely to reach the middle class than someone born into the middle class. And that despite people like you pretending it isn't true, this situation is far worse in the US than it is in most other developed countries.

But I don't expect you to know that, or understand it.

I know all that, and I understand it. It is also completely and utterly irrelevant. I mean, seriously, you tried to make the poinst 'he isn't one of the biggest players in equity'. As if there'd only be a problem with equality of opportunity if a guy with no experience in private equity could command investment equal to the biggest funds in the world.

Seriously, just stop with the nonsense.

Heck, you already think you understand Tagg Romney's career path, and why he doesn't deserve to be judged on his own merits.

No I don't. I don't know, and don't care about Tagg Romney. That is, again, stupid nonsense you've invented inside your head. The point, simply, is that Tagg has received an opportunity miles beyond anything the average person could access. This shows, as one example of millions, that there is nothing close to equality of opportunity, despite the Republicans liking to pretend otherwise.

As to social welfare? The Republican/Democrat divide isn't one about no social welfare vs. some, it's a divide over 'enough' vs. 'more.

Where are you getting this from? Do you always have this much difficulty seperating reality from the visions in your head?

The point is equality of opportunity. The article, the very, very short article, stayed entirely to that point. And yet you're dragging in all kinds of other nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:Aside from the stuff you say with no practical knowledge of, experience in, or expertise about, Madoff and Corzine were both Democrats. Resolve that for me, please. After all, the OP is about the Republican-Democrat 'virtue' divide.

The 'virtue divide' is a piece of nonsense you invented in your head, to avoid talking about the gap between perceptions of equality of opportunity, and the actual reality of the situation.

Resolved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:This is basically what I consider quantitative evidence that 'you don't get it'.

244 million is his assets under management. He's going to have to make that amount perform as well/better than common indices (if he's a beta manager) or generate proprietary trades himself (if alpha).

This is absolute, definitive evidence you don't get it. Consider a guy who attended the same schools as Tagg Romney, with the same excellent results. Consider that guy has the same level of experience in private equity as Tagg Romney, absolutely none whatsoever.

Now consider that this guy doesn't have a wealthy father with excellent political and financial connections, and that he went out to the market just like Tagg did, and tried to gain investment. The odds are against that guy getting $244 in investment, let alone $244 million. But Tagg did it, because of his connections.

And that means Tagg has the opportunity to try his hand at managing a private equity firm, while the unconnected guy does not get given that opportunity.

This is because who your father is matters, and it matters a lot. Which makes 'equality of opportunity' a thing that simply isn't true.

It is staggering that you simply cannot comprehend this. It's almost as if that's a political truth you find threatens your world view, so you're doing everything possible to talk around it, and make up stupid nonsense that's easier for you. But that couldn't be true, could it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

Accountants can't do magic. They can only exploit the rules that have been left for them to exploit. The US tax code, with it's near limitless list of deductions proscribed by statute, is simply much easier to exploit (its also a right bugger to try and complete honestly).

A reform towards generalist definitions, with scope to empower the IRS to provide interpretation (that could be appealed) would produce a system that'd be much simpler for honest completion, and be much harder to exploit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:I don't think people really call taxation for the purposes of building roads, improving infrastructure, national defense, education, or social security stealing. People call taxation stealing when they perceive it as naked vote pandering via outright wealth redistribution.

And they're still completely and utterly wrong. Theft requires some element of illegality, which taxation cannot have. Words have actual meanings.

Polonius wrote:

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:

Joey wrote:It'd be nice to have a discussion about taxation without Americans whinging about "theft". It's like watching an 8 year old complaining about civil rights because he can't play his x-box past 10pm.
The middle class are taxed more because they have more money, how is that difficult?
It's well understood that the poor don't have enough to be taxed, and the rich can pay accountants to avoid it.

It'd be nice to have a discussion about American politics and taxation without a Brit coming in and calling us all children.

Except that calling taxation theft is naive. Doing so willingly is childish as best.

You can call it coercion, you can call it unfair, you can even call it immoral.

It's not theft.

His comparison to a child whining about civil rights is actually rather apt.

So its robbery instead?

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

ShumaGorath wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

Ahh but the left leaning members get to call people douches and dicks and that apparently is ok; so it all evens out in the end.

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

Ahh but the left leaning members get to call people douches and dicks and that apparently is ok; so it all evens out in the end.

I believe you were looking for this:

AustonT wrote:

Ahtman wrote:And yet, here you are, still being a colossal douche

AustonT wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So its robbery instead?

No, that would also require a law being broken. How is this difficult?

It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

Ahh but the left leaning members get to call people douches and dicks and that apparently is ok; so it all evens out in the end.

I've been banned like 20 times for calling spades spades. Sometimes you gotta stand up for whats right. Don't tell the mods though, if they hear I'm getting uppity I'm outta here for a few weeks.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not, but spam posts are harder to detect when they're couched in "political opinion" so he gets to keep making them. He knows full well what he's saying and why it doesn't make sense. Half of frazzleds posts in OT are flamebait designed to bring out a negative reaction from left leaning members.

Maybe 10% of fraz's posts are flame bait. About another 20% are spamming the Republican talking points of the day. But then there's like another 10% that are actually reasoned, interesting points.

Of course there's that whole other 50% about weiner dogs and texmex food.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:Ahh but the left leaning members get to call people douches and dicks and that apparently is ok; so it all evens out in the end.

Thing is, it really shouldn't be unacceptable to call someone a dick when they are acting like a dick. Being deliberating obtuse, refusing to accept basic facts that are well known or that have been established with outsides sources, and moving the topic around when you can't defend a position anymore is at least as poor as calling someone a rude word.

I'm not saying any of that to defend left wingers calling right wingers name, the above goes both ways. I guess my point is that moderating well is a really hard job, and worrying about name calling and nothing else would not be good, or effective moderating.

Joey wrote:

biccat wrote:

Joey wrote:Right-wing politicians deny class system exists.
Class system does actually exist.
Nothing new.

Left wing politicians argue that class system is rigid.
Class system is not actually rigid.
Nothing new.

Social mobility in the UK has all but ground to a halt thanks to piss-poor education for the masses.
Apparently the US isn't much better.

This graph only proves what we all already know, Scandinavians are the gak. Even the socialist whiners who didn't emigrate to America.

Ahtman wrote:

something something about spam posts...

Remember kids, when people you disagree with use inflated rhetoric to make a point, they're being inflamatory and are just plain wrong. When people you agree with use inflated rhetoric, they're being clever.

sebster wrote:

AustonT wrote:Ahh but the left leaning members get to call people douches and dicks and that apparently is ok; so it all evens out in the end.

Thing is, it really shouldn't be unacceptable to call someone a dick when they are acting like a dick. Being deliberating obtuse, refusing to accept basic facts that are well known or that have been established with outsides sources, and moving the topic around when you can't defend a position anymore is at least as poor as calling someone a rude word.

I'm not saying any of that to defend left wingers calling right wingers name, the above goes both ways. I guess my point is that moderating well is a really hard job, and worrying about name calling and nothing else would not be good, or effective moderating.

I was actually specifically referencing THIS thread when I wrote that.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450237.page
In which one left leaning member goes after another left leaning (I think) member with no apparent provocation. Ahtman just happened to be in a "the shoe fits" situation. I'm not innocent of going after people, it happens. Frazzled comments which may or may not be deliberately provocative and obtuse also keep a lot of topics going and further discussion. They may in fact be his opinion which like or not he has the right to give. Insults don't do much of anything except start an argument which inevitably does lead to moderation.

AustonT wrote:Ahtman just happened to be in a "the shoe fits" situation.

If you recall, when I referred to you as such, it was both apt, accurate, and limited to that instance, not a generic claim. It is both feckless and disingenuous to play the victim here; to act as if it didn't come after you being incredibly insulting is a bit of a stretch. If you want to continue to relive past dalliances we can do that or we can just move on and leave past posts in the past.

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:Ahtman just happened to be in a "the shoe fits" situation.

If you recall, when I referred to you as such, it was both apt, accurate, and limited to that instance, not a generic claim. It is both feckless and disingenuous to play the victim here; to act as if it didn't come after you being incredibly insulting is a bit of a stretch. If you want to continue to relive past dalliances we can do that or we can just move on and leave past posts in the past.

So...

It's victim blaming time?

Chowderhead wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:Ahtman just happened to be in a "the shoe fits" situation.

If you recall, when I referred to you as such, it was both apt, accurate, and limited to that instance, not a generic claim. It is both feckless and disingenuous to play the victim here; to act as if it didn't come after you being incredibly insulting is a bit of a stretch. If you want to continue to relive past dalliances we can do that or we can just move on and leave past posts in the past.

So...

It's victim blaming time?

We'd have to have a victim first, but forgoing that, isn't it always?

Ahtman wrote:

AustonT wrote:Ahtman just happened to be in a "the shoe fits" situation.

If you recall, when I referred to you as such, it was both apt, accurate, and limited to that instance, not a generic claim. It is both feckless and disingenuous to play the victim here; to act as if it didn't come after you being incredibly insulting is a bit of a stretch. If you want to continue to relive past dalliances we can do that or we can just move on and leave past posts in the past.

I see the shoe still fits.

sebster wrote:[Thing is, it really shouldn't be unacceptable to call someone a dick when they are acting like a dick.

I agree. I should be able to beat you to death with an angry wiener dog when you are deserving of being beaten to death with an angry wiener dog. Unfortunately we are in a less civilized place and can't do that. Its a shame really, my wiener dogs need a workout.

biccat wrote:
something something about spam posts...

Remember kids, when people you disagree with use inflated rhetoric to make a point, they're being inflamatory and are just plain wrong. When people you agree with use inflated rhetoric, they're being clever.

I don't think you know what spam is...

But, pretending that you do as regards your second and third sentences, this is apt:

I've created a monster.

AustonT wrote:I've created a monster.

Weren't we talking about equality of opportunity and why it was a such a crock of political bull at one point?

We all have the equality of opportunity to be dicks and douches in this thread. Therefore, it is always on topic.