southsider2k5

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 08:52 PM) Why is it you only seem to want to acknowledge that either Obama changes everything, or nothing, when reality is clearly between? I think the spotlight has only been on the things that he said he was going to change, and has acted like Bush on.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:12 PM) Because I'd say 90% of people out there don't post the raw #'s, they post the comparison numbers. It makes sense anyway, it normalizes out the average inflation. And quite frankly, when I googled it, the first 10 graphs or so all showed it in that normalization. Here's the only presentation of the raw #'s I could find. Source is here, indirectly using the WSJ name. Grabbing a few extra details: I think the normalized one is also interesting in that it actually increases the boost the last 5 years or so, because the median income has declined relative to inflation. And one more point...if you accept that a huge chunk of corporate profits being tied up in bonuses and salaries is a problem, but you say that the government can't fix it, please offer up a solution, because right now nothing is going to fix it, and as I mentioned, the bonus reward for producing high quarterly/yearly profits combined with the lack of penalties for long term failure is almost a guaranteed method to continue driving the explosion of investment bubbles. Actually I don't really see it as a problem. Anyways, you really have to sit and look at the history of government intervention at each step of the way to really understand why we got the place that we are at, and why more government intervention is going to make everything worse in the long run. Community Reinvestment act.- Forces banks to loan to credit risks. This ties up capital in loans that are much more likely to end in foreclosure. The revisions over the years have only made things worse. Sarbanes Oxley- Adds layers of compliance to all corporations, but especially banks, whose whole existance is predicated on the valuation of their asset portfolio versus, plus their liquid assets, measured against their loaned out money. It has led to a massive speed up of bank failures. Many of these are banks that would not have failed historically, but do now because of new laws. This means more FDIC and/or TARP money. The irony is act didn't stop many acts of accounting fraud, right in the governments own quasi organizations of Fannie and Freddie. Another big effect has been to chase companies away from the US because of their compliance standards. The US IPO market has lost a bunch of ground to London especially. Fannie/Freddie- created to absorb risky loans, it gives corporate banks a place to dump off risky loan portfolio after the banks have collected all of the fees and earlier high levels of interest payments from them. It means that banks can engage in taking on more profitable, yet risk activity, and have no adverse effects if they can dump it off on the government. They really rewarded predatory lending by making no financial consequenses for it by the originator. Executive compensation disclosure- Meant to save corporations from themselves, instead it gives other executives the means to know what their peers are making. Imagine finding out the schmuck next to you on the internet all day at work was making twice what you were? All this did lead to an explosion of salaries and benefits as companies fought hard to attract and maintain the best talent. It also pushed up the scale for everyone else on the executive ladder. Financial sector oversight- Instead of having one unified, informed body that oversees the entire financial sector as a whole, we have hundreds of them, each over seeing a little fiefdom. There is no cooperation between organziations, nor is there any information sharing. Oversight is lax, and often bodies contradict each other in how things are managed. Things are are not allowed in one sector, are allowed in another, dispite relationships that would indicate they both should be managed the same way. Its a mess, and you only have to look at the corporate scandals to understand that. Basically time, after time, after time that the government has interveened thinking that they were fixing something, they usually didn't fix the problem, and they broke something else in the process. Waiting for our government to fix the problem which they created doesn't seem like a very smart plan to me.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123419413739063989.html

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 08:52 PM) Manchester eh? I went to Bethel for a few years, majored in watching basketball. Bethel has become a big feeder program for our local HS. One of their best players right now is an MCHS grad.

QUOTE (knightni @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 08:02 PM) O RLY? Where, Goshen College? Manchester. I did have a roommate from Wawasee, and one from Middlebury and long time girlfriend from SB. I got to know the area well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 07:41 PM) Are you coming back to Sarbanes/Oxley for that again? Because executive compensation was through the roof before that happened. It may not have worked but it was at least a proposed idea for fixing what was already being viewed as a problem; this graph. Sarbanes/Oxley may not have been a part of the solution, but it isn't the cause of the problem. That problem was there well before that bill. What did you post earlier about a completely different statistic being used to prove something that wasn't really relevant? Why post the ratios instead of the actual CEO compensation numbers? The rate of increase got out of control after the government tried to fix this. It doesn't give me great hope that they can fix it this time. Really that big public knowledge it what brought the whole stock and options thing into vogue, because others found out what they were missing out on, and this was a way a public company could give more money to a CEO without writing a bigger check. This wouldn't have happened if the government had stayed out of the way.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 04:38 PM) If you've got 10 minutes and can watch a video that sums up almost completely how we got in to this mess, I recommend this video highly. CNBC scores an interview with Nouriel Roubini and Nassim Taleb (author of the book "The Black Swan"). Roubini and Taleb spend their time elaborating on how the system has broken itself, how the mass of credit has screwed everyone, how everything is over-leveraged, how the corruption in the system has absolutely burnt everything down, and how we need complete reform and we need to clear out even the people running things right now because they were too dumb to see things coming and that helped build the problem. In response, CNBC keeps asking them for stock picks. Over and over. It's a true marvel. Edit; seriously, take the time to watch this video. They're explaining not just how the stock market is going down, but how the whole system itself, including the government, the media, Wall Street, etc., is fundamentally broken and needs reformed. The guys doing the interview are just fundamentally unable to process this idea. To them, this is all just another business cycle, things go down, then at some point they turn around. They simply can't assimilate the concept that the system itself is fundamentally broken or that if the appropriate action isn't taken now, it could just spiral down 1930's style. Watch how they blurt out "how does executive compensation have anything to do with this?" without realizing that executive bonuses based on short term profits directly feed in to over-leveraging and bubbles. The irony of that is if the government hadn't have made the disclosure of executive salaries a law for public companies, we would have never gotten into the situation where there was a public bidding war for executives, and their compensation packages would have never blown up the way that they did in an effort to out do one another.

ON the bright side, with Dayan's side, no steroid allegations to worry about...

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/111734/

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20...sp&c_id=cws

http://online.barrons.com/article_email/SB...NzkwNjc1Wj.html

QUOTE (joesaiditstrue @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 01:14 PM) A-Rod just admitted that he knowingly used steroids, to Peter Gammons This should be interesting Its the smartest way to handle it. We have seen what lying will do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 12:54 PM) 2 years, $45 million rejected outright, with Boras saying they'd only listen to "Serious" offers. That was back in Nov. 1 year, $25 million (2nd highest yearly salary in the game) rejected a week or so ago. I believe there was also talk about a third year making a total of $60 million from teh Dodgers as well.

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 12:31 PM) The real question is, if we sign Orlando Hudson and lose our first pick. Would that in effect make it worthwhile to sign Juan Cruz as well? I believe we would lose our second round pick as well in that case.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 12:40 PM) Then he should be working in DC or NYC right now because it doesn't seem that anyone understands economics fully these days. Or figuring out how to revive the dying RV production market in Elkhart/Goshen, Indiana. Talk about the wrong industry to be in now. Are you from that area? I went to college close to there, and went to school with a ton of people from around there. The next question would be, are you a Yoder, Troyer, Miller, or a Smith?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 12:29 PM) Ha, I didn't think you were serious. I guess I'll join since I had the concept! Admin please. Totally

So what exactly happens at a plushie birthday party? Hmm, nevermind, I don't think I want to know! Happy Birthday R&R

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:58 AM) Yeah. "Don't do steroids. All it got me were the two biggest contracts in the history of Major League Baseball and nights with the Material Girl way past her prime. Stay away!" http://www.facebook.com/groups/edit.php?su...gid=54482227273

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 11:56 AM) If this doesn't change the topic nothing will. Obama bumps head Maybe he won't be against artificial ceilings now!

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 11:23 AM) And yet, in the end, at this portion of their careers, Havlat when healthy is a more talented player. That's just the truth. Kane I wouldn't argue, Toews I would. The guy is a special player, and moreso than Havlat IMO.

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Feb 7, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) I think you guys are correct about Havlat thriving when he's not the center of attention... but Havlat is probably the most talented offensive player on this team. I would bet that he leads this team in points by the end of the year. When you get a chance, look at some of his highlight reels... they are simply amazing. Havlat's first year with the team, we were playing .500 hockey and he was near the top of the league in points -- until he got hurt. That's what keeps him from being "the guy." His shoulder kept him out the majority of last year because he did not want to get surgery on it... he did and he looks a lot closer to the 06-07 version we saw -- he's even become more of a team player IMO. If you can keep him at a reduced rate... you definitely do it John Toews is stunned and Patrick Kane just high sticked your ass.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 10:03 AM) Got 4 Cubs/Sox sat this morning on the presale, first time in years ive been able to get through Damn. Attendence is going to be pretty ugly this year if this is any indication.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:58 AM) Yeah. "Don't do steroids. All it got me were the two biggest contracts in the history of Major League Baseball and nights with the Material Girl way past her prime. Stay away!" That should be a facebook group. Please start it, so I don't have to!

I will say this much. This was a very difficult award to pick! We have so many incredible an unique sources for minor league information. Thanks to everyone!

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 8, 2009 -> 09:16 PM) From Bill Moysers'show last weekend, a couple interesting ideas. BILL MOYERS: I think you wrote that "The media stars in Washington almost never understand that there's anything wrong with the establishment of which they're a part." GLENN GREENWALD: That's right. I mean, if you were to say to normal Americans, and it's the reason why these issues resonated, and why Barack Obama made them a centerpiece of his campaign, that members of Congress leave office and make millions of dollars doing nothing other than essentially peddling influence to wealthy individuals who can have their way with Congress. Most people consider that to be corruption. That's what Barack Obama called it when he ran. Yet, to members of the media, who have spent their lives in Washington, who are friends and colleagues of the people who are engorging themselves on this corrupt system that is just the way of life. It's like breathing air or drinking water. It's not anything that's noteworthy, let alone controversial. JAY ROSEN: Well, what doesn't get considered, Bill, is that there could be anything radically wrong with Washington. That the entire institution could be broken. That there are new rules necessary. That idea, that the institutions of Washington have failed and need to be changed, doesn't really occur to the press, because as Glenn said, they're one of those institutions. And they're one of the ones that failed. And yet Obama was trying to put this man into his cabinet, dispite all of his campaign pledges and speeches to avoid this exact kind of person.