StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:20 PM) Well sure, breaking into the nuclear plant business is going to have IMMENSE regulatory hurdles, in addition to lots of technological and capital ones. That's where I was today and what came to mind, though it certainly isn't the only one. This paper examines regulatory barriers to entry in developing economies but conceptually they touch on developed ones as well: http://personal.lse.ac.uk/estrin/Publicati...20sept%2028.pdf

I was speaking of regulatory space in general, not specifically in finance.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:05 PM) From first hand knowledge, it doesn't. Setting up a large-scale compliance apparatus is an expensive startup cost. Simply figuring out the regulations and the proper compliance is a hurdle.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 01:00 PM) That just isn't true. A significant firm went down, people will end up being prosecuted, count on it. I wasn't being very clear, sorry. I meant from MF people themselves, the classic non-apology apology, and perhaps from media stories, like the one linked. Just look at the phrase "somehow a shortfall happened." Shortfalls don't just happen, someone needs to perform an action for that to happen *edited for correctness

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 12:37 PM) A lot of government employees would get fired. That's why it will never get done. There's that, and there's also the fact that simple, clear regulations are easy to enforce. Complex, overlapping, unclear, thousands-of-unique-exceptions regulations are very difficult to enforce. And while they may be costly for big companies to comply with, it represents huge barriers to new entrants into new regulatory space.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 15, 2011 -> 12:52 PM) It was fraud. Period. That is sure what it seems like. But the language will never be "Person X committed fraud," it will be "fraud was committed." It's pervasive.

Republicans will whine and cry that Kagan should remove herself, Democrats will whine and cry that Thomas should recuse himself, neither will and the losing team's fans will always cry about corrupt officiating.

I love all these passive terms, "a shortfall somehow occurred" or "mistakes were made," hiding the actual agency behind actions.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 14, 2011 -> 07:15 PM) It should be. But the meat of this story has been floating around for about a month now inside the industry. I'm pretty sure I've read very similar stories several times over the years. congress's "inside trading" isn't new.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Nov 14, 2011 -> 06:29 PM) Seriously, I might love that. Then just reform it once the players go broke and cave. The Union can do that, so why not the league. complete destruction of their fanbases?

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Nov 14, 2011 -> 05:59 PM) And why don't they bring this up for Mittens? (let's see if you indeed do get it). It's true, no one ever mentions that Romney is a political weasel who oversaw a state-level template for ACA and who agreed AGW is a real problem that needs action at one point but now strongly opposes both because that's what will win him votes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 14, 2011 -> 01:41 PM) After checking, it seems generally agreed that is "A lot". Maybe more than has ever been set aside by the Court for a single case. They broke down the history on All Things Considered today. Until ~1845, there were no limits and the arguments could last days. By 1925, it was one hour per side, and then in the 70's it was reduced to 30 min. per side. Arguments against the Voting Rights Act in the 50's went longer IIRC, but this is the longest since at least then.

Scotus granted cert to several cases and set aside five and a half hours for oral argument.

Moore gets ejected but nothing for Stafford?

Dirty play by Stafford starts it, deserves the smash he got in retaliation.

This game is getting really ugly.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 05:35 PM) Who or what is that? I honestly wouldn't care if they shut down the entire athletic department there or bulldozed Happy Valley. Credit rating agency. Basically they evaluate the level of trust-worthiness of companies, institutions, governments etc. that issue bonds. It's a sign that they're seeing $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ liabilities lining up.

So moodys is considering downgrading penn state, and msnbc is asking psu for an official statement on the hs lb claim

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) That's what I am confused about. If you read everything that's out there, you can see a series of events where it was realized Sandusky was abusing children, the University found out, but was too afraid to report things correctly due to the impending fallout, both legally, and of course, to their reputation. So instead, they force Sandusky to retire, and supposedly ban him from bringing children to campus. They admit in the GJ report however, that this ban was unenforceable. They did however, make him a Professor Emeritus, and guarantee him access to the campus while he is retired, as well as a parking spot, and other fringe benefits. What doesn't make sense is, if they did indeed want to cover this all up, why would they give anything to Sandusky at all? Why not kick him out on the street and disallow all access to the University altogether? Did he threaten to go to the press and incriminate himself and the PSU coverup without these benefits the University gave him? I just can't make any sense of it at all, except that PSU covers this up and Sandusky then blackmails them into giving him access to the campus, and this tug of war goes back and forth until Sandusky finally gets busted for the final time and all the facts come out, exposing everyone. Sandusky's leverage involves him going to jail for life, where he'll be treated harshly, to put it mildly. I can't make good sense of this mess right now.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 04:18 PM) I didn't say I think he'd be doing it on his own. But if he was really recruiting for PSU, with McQueary working alongside him, then that absolutely means that not only did everyone at PSU cover this up, but it means that they actively used him for their benefit, meanwhile, placing him around other male minors. Up until now it's only been stated that he has been seen around campus, etc., but nothing where you could really say PSU continued to use him in their employ. And not only did they use him in their employ, but they continued to do so in a way so as to place him near more minors. That is a pretty huge nail in their coffin, if you ask me, and yet this news station seems to have no clue of the importance of the story they are breaking. Which is really the only reason I questioned whether Sandusky was actually recruiting on behalf of PSU in an official capacity still. I'm still trying to give PSU as much benefit of the doubt wrt "massive pedophilia coverup" but that keeps getting harder and harder.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) Journey, Thanks, just wanted to make sure that I wasnt completely crazy. FWIW I understand your point and think it is a valuable one.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:55 PM) Is anyone here buying his s***? Anyone perhaps besides shack? Also jenks (another lawyer!)

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:51 PM) So you're alleging what here, that no one has read the easily available grand jury report, or that the grand jury report is lies created by a grand jury determined to destroy Joe Paterno? He's correctly stating that the report is not the transcript while ignoring what logical, uncontested conclusions arise from said transcript.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 03:49 PM) Forced into retirement Banned from bringing children on campus 2010 banned from charity because of GJ investigation 2011, represents PSU to prospective football players on recruiting visits. Burn them. Burn them all.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Nov 11, 2011 -> 02:58 PM) Ah classic, when you cant defend a position, just make smarmy comments. Sex before marriage, morally wrong, FIRE THEM. At least according to Milkman. Because as he said, morals arent subjective, they are objective. So either something is morally okay or it isnt, there is absolutely no gray area. Thats the position your defending Kyle. Notice that in over 46 pages, Ive never had to resort to similar tactics, because my position is sound. l.o.l. You've had to resort to completely misrepresenting what anyone else is saying, so I don't know if "look what he's reduced to" is what you want to hang your hat on.