Rip Torn...was arrested late on Friday after police allegedly found him intoxicated and armed inside a Connecticut bank.
Obviously, it was just extreme dodge ball training:
- Never, never, never eat between the 3 main meals. Then eat what you want when it is time to eat.
- Snack between meals – starving yourself for 6 or 7 hours at a time between lunch and dinner means you will overeat at dinner.
- No fast food. Period.
- Everything in moderation. If you really want French fries and a hamburger, or ice cream, or a cookie it’s OK to indulge a little occasionally. Key word is occasionally. Better to indulge a little, than to binge later.
I think that 99 percent of why people don’t think of themselves as good cooks is that they’re reluctant to use salt at home.
Caught between exclusion from a normal family life and brutal behavior in the public sphere, the best outlet for many young men is jihad: “The bottled-up sexual rage of the Muslim male,” Darwish argues, “must explode in the faces of the foreign infidel.”
More than five years after the District banned the use of hand-held cellphones while driving, the first definitive evidence emerged Friday that it hasn't made the streets much safer.
Ten days after a national study found that cellphones and texting were to blame for 28 percent of crashes, a report released Friday concludes that hands-free cellphones are no less distracting than those held to the ear.
Tax changes have very large effects: an exogenous tax increase of 1 percent of GDP lowers real GDP by roughly 2 to 3 percent.
Don't conservatives favor labor mobility as being economically rational, efficient and leading to the highest benefit for individuals as well as productivity/wealth generation for the economy at large? Aren't you a capitalist?
Americans who want EU citizenship are just laborers who want the mobility to seek the best jobs/benefits/lifestyle available to them. What the desire for EU citizenship tells us is that the EU economy is offering attractants the US economy isn't. (Money, vacation time, health benefits, parental leave, worker friendly labor laws, etc.) The classic reasons for a brain drain.
Recognizing this doesn't make these folks unpatriotic, it makes them observant. Anymore than the millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, to America are not unpatriotic Mexicans, Chinese, etc., they just figured out they could get a better return on the investment of their labor here in America.
If you want to avoid a brain drain from America to Europe, (not to mention losing top international talent to the EU) appealing to people's patriotism will go only so far. Offering salaries and benefits and lifestyle that are competitive with the EU's is the only real solution.
Uh-huh. I seriously doubt that the truly talented and ambitious, the people who really are who we care about when talking about brain-drain, are saying to themselves, "Man, it would be so much better if I could work in a place with higher taxes and larger labor rigidities."
When you add the cost of health insurance to taxes in the US it's the same as the cost of taxes (which include health insurance) in the EU. But you get better services for your tax/insurance money in the EU. 'Truly talented people' figure this out quickly. The only group of people whose net tax burden is significantly lower in the US are the mega-rich Are you a multi-millionaire? Then why be a schill for them?
As far as 'labor rigidities'--most people are employees, not employers, including the international corporate elite, so 'labor rigidities' like job security, health benefits, parental leave, number of work hours, workplace safety, etc. appeal to them too. Truly talented and ambitious people care about not being worked to death, being able to spend time with their families too.
Your analysis is flawed. Sure, it would seem, prima facie, that employees would want labor rigidities, but a more careful analysis reveals that these increased rigidities adversely affect a talented employee's ability to take advantage of better opportunities indirectly thorough the disincentives to create jobs.
A plodder, who just wants a 9-5 job for the rest of their life with a single employer with no real ambition, loves the perks that come with labor rigidities. An ambitious person is constrained.
So, in the short-term, direct scope you proposed, yes, your logic makes sense, but if you broaden the analysis the opposite is true.
Stephanie Wahl, of the Institute for Economics, based in Bonn, said that those who are leaving Germany are mostly highly motivated and well educated. "Those coming in are mostly poor, untrained and hardly educated," she added.
Fed up with comparatively poor job prospects at home - where unemployment is as high as 17 per cent in some regions - as well as high taxes and bureaucracy, thousands of Germans have upped sticks for Austria and Switzerland, or emigrated to the United States.
Garde des Sceaux
1. The system cannot insure itself. People tried to hedge their portfolios against disaster but that hedge was only as good as the credit of the counterparty with whom the position was hedged. Here I confess that I was too inclined to believe the Greenspan argument that the new instruments had spread risk right round the system, and thus reduced the risk of a crash. This turned out to be wrong in practice, as well as theory; the risks were highly concentrated as AIG proved.
2. The three most important factors are leverage, leverage and leverage. At the macro level, rapid credit growth always precedes a crisis. At the micro level, Patterson quotes Ed Thorp** as saying that "Any good investment, sufficiently leveraged, can lead to ruin." And of course if credit growth is too fast at the macro level, investors will be piling money into the markets, slashing yields and trimming arbitrage opportunities and thus encouraging individual firms to use more leverage in order to earn the desired returns.
3. Economics and markets are not like chemistry. One can discover "laws" or patterns in past data, but acting on those patterns will affect the future; whereas a chemical does not change its behaviour because we have discovered it.
Henwood flails at both the Left and the Right, and he doesn't hide his biases, but he lovingly quotes Keynes and Marx a little too often. Henwood doesn't claim to be offering any practical investment advice; nor does he present any solutions to the problems against which he fulminates. The result is a difficult, divisive, unpleasant, querulous, and uninstructive book that larger business collections might tolerate.
Allow me a quibble over nomenclature (ie, the politics). To have this plan referred to as any kind of Glass-Steagall–”lite”, “in the spirit of”, whatever–annoys me because that designation is all about pandering to the view that the repeal of Glass-Steagall caused the crisis. It did not. And this plan (as The Economist’s article explains) does not come close to repealing the repeal.
There are things to be said for the proposal: it’s just that none of them has anything to do with the crisis we have just witnessed.
Mr. Dionne certainly knows that this nation was founded not as a democracy but as a republic.
Huck Foley, groveling minion said:
“Ach! Zese verdamt ‘bankers,’ vill ve neffer be free uff zem?!”
-Oberfuhrer Baracken Von Obamastein
“… repeal some of the legislation that allowed commerical banks and investment banks to merge and own other types of companies (like brokerages and insurance companies). ”
Seriously, how hard would it be for them to UN-repeal the Glass-Steagall Act? Instead, what I (and apparently Judah Kraushaar) expect we’ll be getting is “Protracted congressional hearings on the bank crisis, piecemeal new regulations, sporadic attacks on bank compensation, and an ad hoc approach to taxing banks…”
Short version: if THIS administration manages to fix this problem, it’ll be an accidental side-effect of their shabby populist demogoguing and scapegoating.
22.01.10 um 3:16 pm
Huck Foley, groveling minion said:
“I can’t recall the name of the legislation from the late 1990s that enabled commerical banks to own investment and insurance enterprises, but reviewing how that legislation has work (or not) might be a good thing.”
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999.
I wrote a case study about it, actually, but I won’t be trying to shoehorn it into this comments thread, despite my frustration at failing to find a publisher for it.
Very short version:
It acted in conjunction with the Community Redevelopment Act of 1977 to create a giant, fatal bubble in the housing market.
22.01.10 um 3:25 pm
I’m still waiting for a reasonable explanation why GLB, ie the repeal of Glass-Steagall, caused the problems.
As I see it, GLB allowed BoA to buy Merrill during the crisis, which ameliorated the conditions, not exacerbated them. Lehman and Bear were pure investment banks and the stuff still hit the fan.
The financial system changed since 1933 and the Chinese wall between investment and commercial banks was not only outdated, but unwise. To clarify: I’m all for keeping risky stuff quarantined, but I don’t think either keeping Glass-Steagall or re-instating is the ideal or even an effective way to do so in today’s financial system.
A poll conducted on behalf of the AFL-CIO found that 49% of Massachusetts union households supported Mr. Brown in Tuesday's voting, while 46% supported Democrat Martha Coakley.
One in ten British men have admitted using their partner's make-up
The banking crisis was caused, as banking crises are almost always caused, by banks lending too much money against dodgy collateral, usually property. So the way to tackle that is to restrict their leverage, insist on lower loan-to-value ratios, or intervene (via monetary policy) to try to curb credit growth.
For these reasons, real estate booms lead to financial crises such as the Asian crisis ten years ago and our current problems.
How would one separate prop trading from business done on behalf of clients? If a big client wants to sell 1m shares in IBM does the bank have to match buyer and seller? If instead the bank takes the position on its book until it finds a buyer, is that prop trading? Will it depend on how long it holds the stake? Or makes a profit? And if the banks do withdraw from trading, what does that do to spreads? The market will be less liquid, raising costs for the rest of us.
A clear pattern emerges: 1) Banks, other financial intermediaries, and stock markets all grow and become more active and efficient as countries become richer. As income grows, the financial sector develops. 2) In higher income countries, stock markets become more active and efficient than banks. Thus, financial systems tend to be more market based. 3) Countries with a common law tradition, strong protection for shareholder rights, good accounting standards, low levels of corruption, and no explicit deposit insurance tend to be more market-based, even after controlling for income. 4) Countries with a French civil law tradition, poor accounting standards, heavily restricted banking systems, and high inflation generally tend to have underdeveloped financial systems, even after controlling for income.
If you want to have a safe, secure banking system for small depositors, but don’t want to make risky investing illegal (which would be very damaging to the economy), the obvious solution is to not allow any one company to both take guaranteed deposits and also make speculative investments. This was the solution developed and implemented in the New Deal. We need a modernized version of this basic construct, and as far as I can see, this is what President Obama has proposed.
Tuesday’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election means that Democrats can’t send a modified health care bill back to the Senate.
Democrats have been insisting that that our health care system’s problems are caused by A and B and that the way to solve those problems is with some negotiable degree of X and Y. But Republicans, to the extent they are willing to acknowledge the problem at all, are insistent that those problems are caused or exacerbated by the levels of X and Y that are already in the system, or that adding X and Y will only create new problems without solving old ones. If that is true, then under no circumstance will you ever get a Republican to go along with a policy that uses X and Y as its principle mechanism, even if you minimize the amount of X and Y used. But that’s a far cry from saying that all Republicans will be unwilling to agree to something that relies on any one of mechanisms C-W, even if this is true of many or most Republicans.
The option of responding to this setback with determination exists. There’s no rule preventing the House from passing the Senate health care bill. For that matter, there’s no rule preventing the reconciliation process from being used to implement a carbon tax with the revenue split between rebates, investments in clean energy, and deficit reduction. That’s not going to happen, but the reason it’s not going to happen is that Democratic members of congress don’t want to do it. They could go down in history as the people who took bold action to solve that problem, but they prefer not to.
A French communist MEP said the United States should not be allowed to "occupy" Haiti on the pretext of handing out aid. You could dismiss that as a rant from the far left, except for the fact that the French press has been bandying the word "occupation" about all weekend
THERE are many things to worry about in Haiti just now. The immediate "visibility" of the European Union, you might think, is not one of them. Honourable members of the European Parliament, assembled in Strasbourg today, take a different view.
[During the Cold War,] We needed to defend against technologically advanced electronic eavesdropping operations, their agents trying to bribe or seduce our agents, and a worldwide intelligence gathering capability that hung on our every word.
In that environment, secrecy was paramount. Information had to be protected by armed guards and double fences, shared only among those with appropriate security clearances and a legitimate "need to know," and it was better not to transmit information at all than to transmit it insecurely.
Today's adversaries are different. There are still governments, like China, who are after our secrets. But the secrets they're after are more often corporate than military, and most of the other organizations of interest are like al Qaeda: decentralized, poorly funded and incapable of the intricate spy versus spy operations the Soviet Union could pull off.
As expected, North Korea now demands that sanctions be lifted and a peace treaty with the United States be negotiated and signed, before there can be any resumption of talks about North Korea's nuclear weapons program. The U.S. quickly turned this down, and told North Korea to start negotiating, or else they can starve in the dark.
I hope I’m not in bad odor with self-identified real conservatives for a number of reasons, but at the top of the list is my own self-identification as — well, let’s say a ‘mere conservative’. I suppose any confusion on this count is my own doing. During and immediately after the Culture11 years (2008-2009), my ‘project’, such as it was, involved what now strikes me as a far too academic move to peck tactically at the edges of certain debates while taking up strategically, for purposes of criticism, a position too readily mistaken for a view from nowhere. Even on its own terms, I can’t say that approach worked. But trying to match my dispositions, commitments, and convictions — to speak the language I tried to work with back then — to events on the ground in such a way as to ‘declare for’ one team or another seemed like an exercise in pundit theater. Often, in DC, if you want to make it as a pundit the first thing you must do (and sometimes the only thing) is pick, defend, and advocate for a team with the enthusiasm, if not the sophistication, of a well-paid lawyer. I hoped my unwillingness to sign up for an ism — neocon, paleo, libertarian, whatever — would be made good by the sweeping changes of ’09: the election of Obama, the defeat of the Clintons and Clintonism, the waning of the Iraq War, and, of course, the Econopocalypse. I bet that those things would make it possible again to speak intelligibly and successfully as an undifferentiated or otherwise unclassifiable conservative.
In the best post-mortem on Culture11, I was described as “far too idiosyncratic in [my] own politics” to get wrapped up in the “self-immolating Hindenburg of movement conservatism.” Since it’s movement conservatism itself that has started to change that formulation — courtesy, in no small part, of the tea partiers, I’m obliged, I think, to return the favor and step out from behind the mannered meta-critiques of yesteryear. This is a good place to start.
East-Coasters are a rugged breed, capable of standing up to temperatures below fifty and humidity over fifty percent. West Coasters are unspeakably delicate wretches, whose tans and conceits are the surface that conceal, badly, men of straw. Midwesterners we respect as a sort of shaggy breed of East-Coaster, bred for the winter, whose pizzas are deeper than ours.
It is no mystery why developed countries abandoned fixed rates. By anchoring the currency, governments forced the real economy to absorb shocks. This implied wage cuts or higher unemployment, all for the benefit of creditors. But in a democracy the votes of debtors tend to overwhelm the interests of creditors.
Freed from the need to defend their currencies, and with consumer inflation a minor problem over the past 20 years, central banks could afford to let interest rates drift steadily lower.
Don’t tell Jim Manzi but Denmark’s super-rich and features sky-high taxes and tons of green policies.
I think urban agriculture is a fine hobby for the really committed penny-pincher, but I think we also know just the sort of people who would take advantage of this new freedom. Insufferable, self-righteous [motherfucking] hipster vegetarians.
Le changement majeur des années 1980, c'est la "démocratisation de l'accès au supérieur", le fameux objectif de "80 % d'une classe d'âge au niveau bac". Bel objectif théorique, désastre total dans les faits. Aujourd'hui, je peux affirmer que nombre de titulaires du bac scientifique (ceux auxquels j'enseigne en première année de fac) seraient incapables d'obtenir le certificat d'études de 1950 : déficience en lecture (incapacité à comprendre des énoncés simples), en écriture (incapacité à construire des phrases grammaticalement correctes avec moins d'une faute d'orthographe par phrase en moyenne), en calcul (méconnaissance de la règle de trois, de l'addition de fractions, du volume d'un parallélépipède, confusion entre la surface du cercle et du carré, j'en passe et des meilleures). Chaque semaine je dois apprendre à mes étudiants des notions de base que j'ai moi-même apprises lorsque j'avais cinq ou dix ans de moins qu'eux.
The major change occurred in the 1980s with the "democratization of access to higher education" and the famous objective of "sending 80% of students to college." Beautiful in theory, but total disaster in actual fact. Today, I can attest that many students who focused on science in high school (and whom I teach as freshman in college) wouldn't have passed in 1950: deficiencies in lectures (incapable of understanding simple statements), in writing (unable to construct grammatically correct sentences with less than one mistake per sentence on average), in math (misunderstanding of cross-multiplication, of addition with fractions, of the volume of a cube/box, confusion between the surface of a circle and of a square, I pass them and better). Each week I must teach my students basic notions that I myself learned when I was 5 or 10 years younger than them.
Nor am I sure why Sullivan thinks that this is an example of Conor being a “contrarian conservative.”
Michael Hammer, the renowned management consultant, says this: I often recall advice once offered to me by a senior executive at a major pharmaceutical firm, an Englishman with the advantage of a traditional public school education. "All one need learn," he said, "is Latin and computer programming--Latin for communication and programming for thinking." He wasn't far off.
Each line of software that you write will interact with each and every other line of software. Unless you develop some big-picture thinking capability, your program will never work.
Europeans are far from monolithic in their preferences, but lots of them, in lots of countries, like long holidays, restrictive labour laws, generous welfare states and 35 hour weeks. They do not want to change university systems that spit out graduates in their late 20s or even early 30s, armed with masters degrees in psychology, rather than sending them out with bachelors' degrees in more vocational subjects. Europeans in some countries, such as the Netherlands, are more or less calm about the idea of official retirement ages being pushed back to 67. In others, it remains an incendiary suggestion.
DID none of them read the Lisbon Treaty? By them, I mean the grand commentators now tut-tutting in the pages of various European newspapers about the complexity of the European Union's new institutional arrangements.
In a world of low inflation and low interest rates, then logically currency moves should have a much greater impact on investors' portfolios. Investors ought to be much more twitchy, therefore, about countries with weak economies and budget deficits. That is why the foreign exchange markets are where the crisis will probably occur next.
students needed to learn how to think critically and creatively every bit as much as they needed to learn finance or accounting. More specifically, they needed to learn how to approach problems from many perspectives and to combine various approaches to find innovative solutions.
Two years ago, for example, the Graduate School of Business at Stanford made a sweeping curriculum change that included more emphasis on multidisciplinary perspectives and understanding of cultural contexts. The first-quarter mandatory curriculum, for example, now includes a class called “The Global Context of Management and Strategic Leadership.” First-year students also must take a course called “Critical and Analytical Thinking.”
The most obvious way that health care reform impacts people is by helping sick people get treatment. That said, most studies indicate that the impact of health care services on health outcomes is actually a lot smaller than people are inclined to believe. The health care system is, however, a major chunk of the economy. And making it operate more efficiently should thus have noteworthy macroeconomic impacts.
To be fair, this impact is not super-gigantic. And you could say much the same about reform’s deficit-reduction potential. It’s not something you should sneer at, but it’s not earth-shattering. And this is the way it goes with a very good, but fundamentally moderate bill. On all major fronts—growth and jobs, access, delivery system reform, cost control, deficit reduction, access expansion—it moves the ball forward.
Comment croire que le niveau des concours doit être intangible afin de fixer à jamais une hiérarchie entre jeunes Français à l'âge de 20 ans?