southsider2k5

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) I had posted earlier about this, and was in basic agreement with you. But I do want to actually give somewhat of an answer to your last question. There are some regulations that should be put in place, that have come to mind during this crisis. Here are a few ideas: --The swaps market needs to be reigned in. Some of this capital from the bailout package should find its way to the LCH and CME Clearing, both of whom are working towards setting up a swap clearing house. This would be an immense help to stabilizing swaps risk and trading, and protecting assets. Further, regarding swaps, the rules as to valuation of swaps need to be standardized and more realistic. Buying protection on debt should NOT result in that debt being reflected as therefore risk free - that is a mirage. It would also be a good idea to require disclosure from banks and insurance companies as to how they are treating debt instruments as they pertain to the assets that are held on behalf of investors, shareholders and insurance clients. --There needs to be more transparency into lending institutions, regarding their standards for lending at various risk levels. Generalized statistics can fairly easily be generated, which should be accessible publically, for lenders who lend to the public. --The enforcement mechanisms in all the various financial agencies - SEC, CFTC, FRB, FDIC, etc. - need to be better funded and better trained. And there needs to be an enforcement mechanism that can look at ALL aspects of a given firm's financial risk as a total package. They can then report problems to people in power who can head off problems before they occur. I have said for a long time that we need less agencies, and to get this type of regulation under one roof so that the various pieces of our financial puzzle are regulated by complimentary sets of rules that work together co-hesively instead of competeing with each other for budgets and attention. The system we have now, sucks. It has no flexiblity in it, nor ability to adjust to changing times and technologies. We wait until something breaks, and then the Congress over-reacts to fix it, so they can brag to voters that they did something.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) I understand this, but are we now going to guarantee investments? That seems like a dangerous path to be on. We have been doing this for about 80 years now. It has been a dangerous path to be on since the beginning. Look at all of the government intervention and spending it has gotten us. This bailout is yet another function of the government making sure that nothing bad can ever happen.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 12:14 PM) Giving these banks money to do whatever they want with it does not help the economy or financial institutions. If they want a big handout, there are also strings that need to be attached as ANY major share holder (the government is now this major investor) would demand if investing this amount of capital. Yes, it is a false assumption that the entire banking industry would collapse if these failures we just gave 700 billion to, people whom manage these companies, have to report to their new owners. I think this debate is at the point where all we can do is watch what unfolds, time will tell if the bailout structure was appropriate. . You seem to have the basic assumption that if the banks are going to use the money for anything else but lending, that is wrong. The fact is that there are beause of Depression era banking laws and modern stupidities such as Sarbanes Oxley, there are more things to consider than just lending. If a banks capitalization falls too low, investors panic, sell, and it fails. If a bank doesn't have enough capital reserves to cover a specified percentage of assets, it fails. If value of assets fall to too low of a ratio as related to money lent out, it fails. It's not nearly as simple as people are trying to make it out to be. Sure it would have been great to have years to reform things the way they should have been done since the 1930's, but the fact remains, that at the rate that major financial institutions were failing, there wasn't time to waste. It's not like we were talking about Mom and Pop's bank down the street. The 4th largest investment bank in the United States failed. Most other banks have assets with other banks to fulfill their own reserve requirements. Banks are very interconnected. If the largest banks on the planet were starting to fail, it was time for action. That seems pretty obvious to me anyway. The whole idea of all of these "regulations" that you keep referring to making some sort of a difference is a myth. Places all over the world that are MUCH more heavily regulated than the US have been failing or getting governmental bailouts. Britian, Iceland, France, German, and Russia are places that come to mind right away. Please tell me what exact regulation has most of the world been missing that would have prevented this?

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 12:12 PM) Please correct my economic ignorance. If you are giving the money to the bank for a specific reason, doesn't it follow that the banks should use it for that specific reason? That doesn't seem like regulation, it seems like common sense. I didn't hear we need to give the banks money so the investors could be made whole as quickly as possible, but maybe I missed that. I thought that was one of the fundamental differences between savings (which are FDIC insured) and most investments the only guarantee is the SEC will try and keep the playing field level and fair. Without investers, the banks don't exist anyway, because they are in bankruptcy.

This is the kind of stuff that the McCain campaign missed the boat on. they waited too long to hit Obama on taxes, and the spending stuff was in front of them the whole time. From the promises Obama is making, his budget looks more like a Bush expansion of spending than the guy he has been calling George W Bush derisively since Day one of the Presidential campaign. http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=...p;org_name=NTUF

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 11:32 AM) Again, you are under the false assumption that not giving them a check with free reign will destroy all banks. Not giving them checks will destroy most banks. It is not a false assumption, no matter how many times you repeat it. All you have to do is look at the period of time leading up to this and how many huge banks were already failing. Exactly how would the problem have been solved with more regulations instead of money?

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 10:31 AM) We wouldn't be re-signing him. It would be a team option for $16M (which I highly doubt they pick up), or a buyout for like $4M (I think), and then MAYBE after the buyout they could make him an offer (which I also doubt). That is the only plausible scenario that could have taken place for us to re-sign the guy.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 10:04 AM) A 32 inch TV would be an upgrade for me. Me too. It is also the biggest TV that will fit into our entertainment center/kid's crap holder.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 10:18 AM) yeah pretty much. Sad isn't it. Which is why I know I can suggest this and not have it happen I'm sick of watching political campaigns with a new wave of promises and they didn't deliver on their last ones. I'm tired of politicians needing to start running for reelection 6 months after they win the last election. I'm especially thinking I don't want Presidents running for office for 30 months of a 48 month term. I think we are all sick of it, especially with as nasty and bitter as all of the candidates have been in this cycle, even more so in the last couple of months.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 05:03 PM) Incumbents will not be allowed to campaign beyond stating their accomplishments in office and debate their opponent. You just had time in office, tell me what the hell you did, not what you think you can do next time. You are in favor of eliminating the first amendment for some?

I still think there is a chance that Griffey is back next year. I think this was about them not picking up his option, which, duh, no one is paying $16 million for the guy. This doesn't mean we couldn't wait around and see what kind of offers he gets. Especially if one of the OFs/PK is dealt over the winter, Griffey could be a guy who could contribute 4 to 5 days a week and play RF, CF and DH. I could also see him being a quick study at 1B.

QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 09:08 AM) History channel has had a lot of shows in the bigfoot/ufo/loch ness vein lately. One of my favorite programs on there is Conspiracy!

Happy Birthday

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 09:05 PM) A small part of me always wished we could of won it at home. After the celebration for the divisional tiebreaker, I can only imagine what a World Title celebration would have been like.

The Onion couldn't make up better material.

Jason Caffey might well have received the worst contract in professional sports history with his $35 million dollar deal. You could definitely find some other arguements, but man did the Bulls dump him at the right time.

QUOTE (joeynach @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 07:28 PM) This is the new bar/restaurant area that has been rumored for awhile now. It actually dates back to when the new stadium was being built and they knocked out that old bar (i forget the name), and JR & Company promised to rebuild the bar(s) after the new stadium was completed. I remember talking to my friend who is a sox ticket rep and his brother about this at a game this year. He said they were defiantly planning on developing some sort of row of bars/restaurants underneath the ramps on 35th st. Obviously its more of a reconstruction/elimination of one of those ramps but you get the jist of it. I think this is really cool, its close to the Red Line stop and that 35th St ramp entrance area is has been so so widely under used and developed. Its nice to see the change. I cant wait to hear what announcement the sox make on what exactly is going in there. I would assume some sort of sports bars with both indoor and outdoor seating as well as some shops and vendors. Should be cool. I am guessing you are referring to McCuddy's.

You guys need to watch more history channel!

This was also a favorite of mine... http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_9VGZjBQHr0s/SQcI...-h/image003.jpg

http://conservativebadlands.blogspot.com/2...simple-way.html "Today on my way to lunch, I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed." "Once in the resaurant, my server had on an 'Obama '08' tie, and again I laughed as he had given away his political preference. Can you imagine the coincidence?" "Too funny!" "When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistibute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need - the homeless guy. Boy was he upset!" "I can imagine. I would be too." "So, I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside. I told him I thought he could use it more than my server. He was pretty excited and thanked me." "Dude, did you really do that? "Yeah, you bet! So, at the end of my rather unscientific redistibution experiment, I realized that the homeless dude was grateful for the money he didn't earn, but the waiter guy was REALLY upset that I gave his money away that he earned. But I thought the homeless dude needed it way more than the waiter." In the end, redistribution of wealth is great for some, but a joke to others.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:39 PM) unknown. They havent disclosed the amount of tickets they gave out. I have a hard time believing it'll be less than 500,000 They said in the Trib today Grant Park will hold about 70k for the event.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:23 PM) do I get a $150,000 clothing allowance from the RNC? Nah, you get millions on untracable prepaid credit cards.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) At our spot in the Rule 5 draft, we wouldn't be finding a better gamble than Nix for a 40 man spot anyway. I really doubt we are looking at anything in our minors that is going to be lost that will be better than Nix anyway.

QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:16 PM) Williams wanted Gaston not Guillen Reinsdorf backed Guillen. Kenny Williams got rid of the single greatest White Sox player since at least the Black Sox era, and a guy that Jerry loved. If that doesn't tell you what power Kenny has, I don't know what will.

Math is hard, let's go shopping!