Right? So what in the world is everyone on about? How in the world can anyone be getting indignant as to what kind of massive, illicit intrusion into the private sphere this represents without knowing anything about the particulars?
I mean, the ditto-heads I get, they're just stupid. But for the relatively sane folks, hold your horses.
Look! Up in the sky! It's the unmarked black helicopters spying on you and trying to take our Macs and iPhones away!
Actually I haven't read any part of any newspaper in decades...
Common sense is all - just look at what's happening and draw conculsions about were the future will land.
PS: 6 months from now will be really rough or you ain't seen notten yet...
Just so you know, I was not being snarky.
The actual quote from yesterday's editorial in the WSJ was: "The President is so busy not running GM that he had time the night before to call and reassure Detroit Mayor Dave Bing about the new GM's future location. GM is being courted to move its headquarters to nearby Warren, Michigan.......We don't know whether GM should stay in Detroit. But we do know that the location of a company's headquarters is one of those decisions typically not made by people who are busy not running the company."
Watch out Silicon Valley and especially you Apple. You're favorite son's henchmen are coming for you. First the banking industry, then the Insurance industry, then the automobile industry now Silicon Valley and the Tech industry, who's next?
Is this the HOPE and Change you were expecting? Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Rodger
I hope you are joking, if not other go back to Texas and plan the next eight year reign of destruction, you never know in about 23 years the majority won't remember the mess that you and yours created and you might be re elected.
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
1)Maybe, it just means Apple might not consider you for a job if you currently work for Google, it does not mean you have to work for Apple and Apple is not require to even interview you, you can always get a better job elsewhere. Actually this usually held true working for Apple and having Apple on the resume usually got you a better deal from another company more then what Apple might be willing to pay you to stay.
2) No it does not, any company can hire from those listed, the agreement appears to be between the companies, there is nothing saying you can not leave to work for another smaller company.
3) Again not true, people are free to come and go at any company if they so choose, I'll give you this, working for a company like Apple and Google makes it hard for any company to lure you away, not because they have agreements between each other but because they compensate their employees well, and this is more then money in the pay check. Lastly, there is no law or rule that says because you start a company you have a right to hire anyone away from another company. Actually, if you are found trying to directly recruit people from another company you can find yourself in lots of trouble. This is why many companies hire head hunters, they contact the person and convince them to work for another company or competitor.
He mentions MS in post 6, you mention MS in post 4, but you begrudge him for dragging MS into the thread. Your different personalities really should collaborate more.
And then you mention it 2TIMES more than both of us just to add to your total posts which is like totally pathetic.
Agreed- I think we should send Barry and Michelle up to NYC again for another Broadway Show and dinner on the taxpayer instead.
the president gets a $19,000 entertainment account, $50,000 expanse account and a salary. Everything the president does is pay by our taxes. VP and congress gets similar accounts, plus retirement. Obama gets a jet, helicopter, free room and board, bodyguards, press agent, etc. George Washington has an expanse account IIRC, then congress revoked it and gave him a salary.
How did the government intervene in the creation and marketing of credit default swaps? Or Bernie Madoff?
Would we, arguably, have been better off if the government actually had intervened, before they became the problems they did?
The Senate Banking Committee refused to forward credit default swap legislation out of committee. The legislation would have categorized CDSs as insurance and forced AIG an others to have adequate capital to cover potential losses. The lack of such legislation allowed the CDS market to grow to about 100x what the underlying financials could support. In essence the CDS became vaporware backing other markets ability to over leverage.
That explicit action by Senator Frank as chair of the committee was largely to blame for where we ended up a year ago,
The Senate Banking Committee refused to forward credit default swap legislation out of committee. The legislation would have categorized CDSs as insurance and forced AIG an others to have adequate capital to cover potential losses. The lack of such legislation allowed the CDS market to grow to about 100x what the underlying financials could support. In essence the CDS became vaporware backing other markets ability to over leverage.
That explicit action by Senator Frank as chair of the committee was largely to blame for where we ended up a year ago,
For your conclusion to be true, you have to assume that the legislation would have passed both
houses of the legislature and been signed into law by George W. Bush. Considering that the Senate Republicans had enough votes to filibuster the bill and that Bush would never sign anything which increased the amount of regulation, such an assumption is pure fantasy. You have to realize that many bills are not forwarded, when the chairperson knows it will be a waste of time. They have to choose their battles.
For your conclusion to be true, you have to assume that the legislation would have passed both
houses of the legislature and been signed into law by George W. Bush. Considering that the Senate Republicans had enough votes to filibuster the bill and that Bush would never sign anything which increased the amount of regulation, such an assumption is pure fantasy. You have to realize that many bills are not forwarded, when the chairperson knows it will be a waste of time. They have to choose their battles.
Considering the bill was introduced by two Republicans and endorsed by the White House Chief-of-Staff the only thing stopping it from a floor vote was Rep Frank. Sure lots of bills aren't forwarded, but it is also pure fantasy to say that because a bill wasn't forwarded the entity that stopped the forwarding gets a free pass. I don't know how the bill would have faired on the floor, but at least we would have been able to hold our representatives accountable for their votes. I cannot take my senator or reps to task over it because some self appointed maven of "social financial fairness" from Massachusetts had the power to kill it as a single person.
[My oops from an earlier post, Rep Frank is in the House not the Senate.]
Comments
Actually I haven't read any part of any newspaper in decades....
No doubt. Judging by your prior post you get every bit of your information about the world from talk radio.
Or is referring to the "Democrat Congress" and the "accession of the Messiah" just common sense?
Time to split!
Time to split!
Okay, I'm outta here!
Right? So what in the world is everyone on about? How in the world can anyone be getting indignant as to what kind of massive, illicit intrusion into the private sphere this represents without knowing anything about the particulars?
I mean, the ditto-heads I get, they're just stupid. But for the relatively sane folks, hold your horses.
Look! Up in the sky! It's the unmarked black helicopters spying on you and trying to take our Macs and iPhones away!
Actually I haven't read any part of any newspaper in decades...
Common sense is all - just look at what's happening and draw conculsions about were the future will land.
PS: 6 months from now will be really rough or you ain't seen notten yet...
Just so you know, I was not being snarky.
The actual quote from yesterday's editorial in the WSJ was: "The President is so busy not running GM that he had time the night before to call and reassure Detroit Mayor Dave Bing about the new GM's future location. GM is being courted to move its headquarters to nearby Warren, Michigan.......We don't know whether GM should stay in Detroit. But we do know that the location of a company's headquarters is one of those decisions typically not made by people who are busy not running the company."
The link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124389952143874411.html
Watch out Silicon Valley and especially you Apple. You're favorite son's henchmen are coming for you. First the banking industry, then the Insurance industry, then the automobile industry now Silicon Valley and the Tech industry, who's next?
Is this the HOPE and Change you were expecting? Careful what you ask for, you just might get it.
Rodger
I hope you are joking, if not other go back to Texas and plan the next eight year reign of destruction, you never know in about 23 years the majority won't remember the mess that you and yours created and you might be re elected.
If true, it is anticompetitive in several ways:
1. It restricts the employee's ability to obtain the best employment.
2. It restricts the ability of a smaller company to develop new products if they can not hire the best people they can find.
3. It effectively partitions the market - and makes it hard for any company to enter existing markets - since they would be unable to hire at least some of the people they need to do so.
1)Maybe, it just means Apple might not consider you for a job if you currently work for Google, it does not mean you have to work for Apple and Apple is not require to even interview you, you can always get a better job elsewhere. Actually this usually held true working for Apple and having Apple on the resume usually got you a better deal from another company more then what Apple might be willing to pay you to stay.
2) No it does not, any company can hire from those listed, the agreement appears to be between the companies, there is nothing saying you can not leave to work for another smaller company.
3) Again not true, people are free to come and go at any company if they so choose, I'll give you this, working for a company like Apple and Google makes it hard for any company to lure you away, not because they have agreements between each other but because they compensate their employees well, and this is more then money in the pay check. Lastly, there is no law or rule that says because you start a company you have a right to hire anyone away from another company. Actually, if you are found trying to directly recruit people from another company you can find yourself in lots of trouble. This is why many companies hire head hunters, they contact the person and convince them to work for another company or competitor.
He mentions MS in post 6, you mention MS in post 4, but you begrudge him for dragging MS into the thread. Your different personalities really should collaborate more.
And then you mention it 2TIMES more than both of us just to add to your total posts which is like totally pathetic.
I think this is a waste of taxpayer money.
Agreed- I think we should send Barry and Michelle up to NYC again for another Broadway Show and dinner on the taxpayer instead.
Agreed- I think we should send Barry and Michelle up to NYC again for another Broadway Show and dinner on the taxpayer instead.
the president gets a $19,000 entertainment account, $50,000 expanse account and a salary. Everything the president does is pay by our taxes. VP and congress gets similar accounts, plus retirement. Obama gets a jet, helicopter, free room and board, bodyguards, press agent, etc. George Washington has an expanse account IIRC, then congress revoked it and gave him a salary.
How did the government intervene in the creation and marketing of credit default swaps? Or Bernie Madoff?
Would we, arguably, have been better off if the government actually had intervened, before they became the problems they did?
The Senate Banking Committee refused to forward credit default swap legislation out of committee. The legislation would have categorized CDSs as insurance and forced AIG an others to have adequate capital to cover potential losses. The lack of such legislation allowed the CDS market to grow to about 100x what the underlying financials could support. In essence the CDS became vaporware backing other markets ability to over leverage.
That explicit action by Senator Frank as chair of the committee was largely to blame for where we ended up a year ago,
It's easy. Microsoft is synonymous with corporate wrongdoing and anticompetitive practices. They were actually convicted, if you recall.
in regards to their tech. this is about hiring practices.
Here we go- drag Teckspud (not even mentioned in the thread) into it. So typical of the discussions around here.
Here we go- drag Teckspud (not even mentioned in the thread) into it. So typical of the discussions around
Here we go- drag Teckspud (not even mentioned in the thread) into it. So typical of the discussions around
The Senate Banking Committee refused to forward credit default swap legislation out of committee. The legislation would have categorized CDSs as insurance and forced AIG an others to have adequate capital to cover potential losses. The lack of such legislation allowed the CDS market to grow to about 100x what the underlying financials could support. In essence the CDS became vaporware backing other markets ability to over leverage.
That explicit action by Senator Frank as chair of the committee was largely to blame for where we ended up a year ago,
For your conclusion to be true, you have to assume that the legislation would have passed both
houses of the legislature and been signed into law by George W. Bush. Considering that the Senate Republicans had enough votes to filibuster the bill and that Bush would never sign anything which increased the amount of regulation, such an assumption is pure fantasy. You have to realize that many bills are not forwarded, when the chairperson knows it will be a waste of time. They have to choose their battles.
For your conclusion to be true, you have to assume that the legislation would have passed both
houses of the legislature and been signed into law by George W. Bush. Considering that the Senate Republicans had enough votes to filibuster the bill and that Bush would never sign anything which increased the amount of regulation, such an assumption is pure fantasy. You have to realize that many bills are not forwarded, when the chairperson knows it will be a waste of time. They have to choose their battles.
Considering the bill was introduced by two Republicans and endorsed by the White House Chief-of-Staff the only thing stopping it from a floor vote was Rep Frank. Sure lots of bills aren't forwarded, but it is also pure fantasy to say that because a bill wasn't forwarded the entity that stopped the forwarding gets a free pass. I don't know how the bill would have faired on the floor, but at least we would have been able to hold our representatives accountable for their votes. I cannot take my senator or reps to task over it because some self appointed maven of "social financial fairness" from Massachusetts had the power to kill it as a single person.
[My oops from an earlier post, Rep Frank is in the House not the Senate.]