Jenksismyhero

Looks like this might have been a hoax. CBS-Los Angeles had a story up about it, but now it's gone: "Restaurant Calls Photo Of Banker’s 1 Percent Tip, ‘Get A Real Job’ Message A Hoax " http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/27/...-newport-beach/

So my friends and I had a drinking Oscars watch party. What a terrible 3 hours. I mean, I hate these award shows anyway - millionaires circle jerking each other over what they do as if it's equal to curing cancer. But this one in particular made us laugh because Hollywood basically admitted that this year sucked and that in order for people to be interested they had to appeal to memorable movies from the past instead of focusing on the actual nominees. There were a couple of montages for no apparent reason other than to get a "hey remember that one?" reaction, Billy Crystal as a host, doing the same schtick he did 20 years ago, the cirque du soleil thing was just odd (when I watch a movie i'm not half naked doing one-handed hand stands). Just bad.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) As with the tea party movement, i'm a fan of the idealistic goal, but understand that a lot of that actual meat and bones are unrealistic and/or unsupportable The problem here is that, much like ss2k5's posts, this is entirely an argument by assertion. It's not easy to find contemporaneous support for what you're saying, but it's very easy to find support for the idea that private equity simply was not available and that the result would be an unstructured liquidation. This support comes from all over the political and economic spectrum. You're also missing a key component in that paragraph: it's precisely because Ford, GM, Chrysler and I believe the rest of the manufacturers producing domestically (Toyota, BMW, etc.) relied on the same supplier network that this was such a critical situation. GM, and to a lesser extent, Chrysler, represented a large portion of their business, and if they were to go down, the suppliers would as well. This would have impacted the entire US domestic auto manufacturing industry. Ford certainly didn't have tens of billions to swoop in and buy up pieces of GM. All of the auto manufacturers were bracing for substantial downturn in demand. This would not have been a long, drawn-out process. GM and Chrysler had already gone to the well once in late 2008 because they were on the brink of being insolvent. There was not time for suppliers to slowly absorb a huge hit to revenues; there wasn't time for manufacturing plants to transition to other makes and models while still keeping people employed. I think you can make a pretty compelling case. Every single one of these auto manufacturers were investing tons and tons of money in China, which has become their bread and butter. They were setting up manufacturing facilities that other foreign manufacturers would have been very interested in. Yeah, a lot was crap, but i'm confident other competitors would have jumped in to purchase those assets for pennies on the dollar. I think it's faulty to just flat out assume that everyone would have stopped working the following monday. It might have been difficult for a time, people might have been unemployed for weeks or months, but eventually they would have gone back to work. And perhaps that would have caused a wave of innovation you can't predict until businesses are forced to innovate. Maybe there would have been a big opening for those same suppliers to start manufacturing more green technology. Maybe the government would have been forced into providing all the green tech incentives earlier (and more of them). I think it's just speculation that the end times would have been the result.

I might be making the government contract thing up. I could have sworn I read that somewhere.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) The collapse of jenks, inc. won't cause national unemployment to rise by several percentage points. I agree 100% that, at least in the financial sector, many people have undeservedly made or expanded vast personal fortunes off of bailout money and that no one is seriously being prosecuted for the crimes that caused this collapse. Far too much money was given out with little or no control. Rattner said in December that the deals will likely cost the government $14B, all told. Balance that against the tax receipts generated from not losing 1M+ jobs and corporate taxes. Right, so get too big to fail, the government will bail you out, a select few will get filthy rich in the process and the whole thing starts over again. And btw, the whole GM being profitable could be a mirage. Wasn't there some big government contract they just signed in the last year or so? And aren't they shoving those Volts down their own employee's throats? Could have sworn I read stories just recently about that. Here was the 25 billion figure I read about....at the end of last year. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/17/good...s-14-3-billion/

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) "GM" is not a person. Whatever, same idea. Why on earth should I give GM credit for doing well AFTER such a debacle.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:53 PM) I feel pretty confident in saying that the #OWS movement as a whole strongly rejects libertarianism since it generally results in a propertarian minarchy and strict social stratification, at least according to liberal and leftist philosophy. I'd say it's better for society to make sure the economy doesn't completely collapse, putting millions out of work and leading to widespread suffering during a severe economic depression than it is to make sure a few people get punished for being "bad." But AFAIK, GM and Chrysler did clean house and the investors weren't the ones that were really bailed out, so you should be happy that a million jobs were saved. I'd also like to note that it was liberals and leftists pushing for tight controls on executive bonuses and compensation with the right (conservatives and libertarians) pushing back and decrying the end of capitalism. I meant more the anti-protect the rich and entitled people/corporations angle that i'm in agreement with. And don't you think that the whole letting the economy collapse is an oversell, just like the availability of private capital is/was? It would have taken years for the actual fall of those companies to happen. And that's assuming they would have fallen at all. At the end of the day I've guessing other companies would have stepped in to purchase the remnants and a lot of the various suppliers and manufacturing plants would have remained in business (after all, i'd bet a lot of those same suppliers/manufacturers also supply and manufacturer parts for other car companies...or gasp!...they might have innovated and done something else). Maybe a slow down, but not a complete closure. I think that angle is played up WAY too much.

Yes, i'm being a bit extreme here, but it does seem hilarious to me that we've done nothing in this situation over the last few years but prop up s***ty business models/practices simply because they were too big to fail. If I start my own company and I make dumb mistakes, the government isn't gonna rush in to provide me with the necessary capital that no one else will give me just so I can keep going and possibly fix it. And what's worse, we've written off what, like 25 billion (and growing) as a result of this? WTF not DEMAND payment if they're so profitable now. I could care less that it's the lowered value of a stock price. That's what we lost. Give it back, with interest.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) I would have expected the above from someone more likely to be an #OWS supporter, not someone who has strongly supported the idea that America is a meritocracy and that people who are poor generally deserve it. edit: Is GM still a s***hole company now that's it is generating profits and has reclaimed the #1 spot? What do you estimate the overall impact of the entire domestic auto industry (GM, Chrysler, all of their suppliers and then bringing all domestic auto production down with it) collapsing to be on the economy as a whole? I'd guess that we'd still be above 15% unemployment. "Well sir, I'm an AMAZING investment banker now. I mean, 3 years ago I lost all of my client's money, but now i'm back in the green!!"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:42 PM) I would have expected the above from someone more likely to be an #OWS supporter, not someone who has strongly supported the idea that America is a meritocracy and that people who are poor generally deserve it. I have always agreed with certain aspects of the Occupy movement. Just like I agreed with certain parts of Tea Party movement. Both borrow heavily from the libertarian mindset. And really it fits pretty well together - if you s*** in your bed, you gotta lay in it. Society isn't there to maintain the status quo when you don't deserve it. If you're a drug addict deadbeat that is dumb enough to have 3 kids you can't afford, why should society help you out? If you're a greedy millionaire that lost everything from piss poor management/terrible decision making, why should society help you out?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 02:19 PM) Steven Rattner: Man that sucks for those million workers, but too the f*** bad. It's so awesome how this world has completely mind-f***ed the masses. The aristocracy has gotten to a point where in order to preserve the aristocracy (lest the little people go hungry without their servant roles!) society must save them and KEEP them in the aristocrasy. What a bunch of s***. /rant Edit: I would rather have spent tens of billions keeping the unemployed on unemployment than allow these s***hole companies to keep their doors open. That goes for all of the financial institutions too.

But how can you honestly ever trust her again? Despite where you're at right now, remember two important things: (1) you deserve better than that, (2) there are a bazillion other women out there.

QUOTE (Felix @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) I wouldn't say "absolute s***," (possibly because I've seen what "absolute s***" looks like in the past with Jonny Flynn and even on his bad days, Rubio looks better than that) but he's been pressing way too much. He's also become a little loose with the ball this month, which has lead to some pretty ugly turnover totals and is something that definitely needs to get fixed going forward. He'll always average more turnovers than the average guard because he sees more openings that the average guard, but if you're consistently turning the ball over four or five times a game, it's unacceptable. As far as the lower assist numbers (7.5 in February after 9.1 in January).. well.. that's bound to happen on a team filled with godawful jump shooters. I don't really put that on him. Another major problem this season has been his shot selection. It looks to me like he's trying to draw fouls consistently on drives and will throw up an ugly, off balanced shot expecting to get a foul. He's never going to have a great shooting percentage, but he definitely needs to be more selective, especially on drives. That being said, he's a rookie. He's playing a s***load of minutes and the Wolves have really leaned on him, so it's bound to impact his play after awhile. I'm not really worried about it. I don't think he's going to be a superstar, but he has a very good career ahead of him (definitely an All-Star career, since he was built to play in those games) and will always have a huge impact on his teams. Sounds to me like the magical ride is over, he's been exposed as overrated, and we'll find him in an alley shooting up heroin soon. J4L you agree?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 01:28 PM) I love my wife. She's absolutely perfect for me and we couldn't be happier together. If she ever cheated on me, that'd be it. There'd be no forgiving. Some men might be able to do that, but I'd rather live life alone than try to "repair" a relationship with someone who could do that to me. +1

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 12:10 PM) This is pretty embarrassing: Romney campaign speech in Detriot They couldn't possibly have thought that they would have that many people attend a primary campaign stop. Edit: Was he making a speech about the American auto industry or something at Ford Field?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 10:37 AM) GMAB. Lin is not going to miraculously develop quickness and ball-handling at 23-years old. Those are things you either have from jump or you don't. Like Steve said, Lin's turnovers are not even NBA turnovers. Russell Westbrook turns the ball over a lot because he has suspect decision-making and at times tries to do to much. Lin's turnovers are just embarassing. He looked like Justin Bieber. No, not every team has the defensive personnel that Miami has. But there's plenty of ball-hawking, quick guards that are going to make it a priority to drape themselves all over him (without fear of getting beat off the dribble) and force him to go to his incredibly weak left-hand. I think he's plenty quick, and that's been proven the last few weeks. His ball handling is absolutely something he can work on. Good players work on it all of their careers. Just like a jump shot, which players routinely become better at as they get older. IMO his ceiling is a poor man's Nash. Someone who's not crazy quick, not crazy athletic, but someone who has a high bball IQ especially with the pick and roll. If you will recall, that type of PG thrives in a Dantoni system.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) Did you watch how many times Chalmers picked his pocket last night? They got up in his face, forced him left, and stripped the ball. AND his passing was bad. I certainly dont think his career is over, but like I said a few weeks ago when this "Jeremy Lin is happening" and "Linsanity" started, the book wasnt out on this kid yet. Once it is, he will be attacked and he wont look like the kid who is dropping 38 on the Lakers. He will have more games like that, but he wont do it all the time. And when good defensive teams get up in his face, he will look lost like he did last night. That's a fair assumption, but why isn't it a fair assumption that he'll work on his game to correct these deficiencies? Again, using Rose as an example, his first year he couldn't hit an open jump shot with much consistency. The game plan was to play off of him so he couldn't drive. Over the next two seasons he became a pretty decent shooter, especially from 3. I just see Lin's game as being correctable. Maybe he'll never be the strongest going to his left, but he can work on it and get better. He can certainly become smarter about passing the ball around as he gets more and more comfortable with his teammates and the NBA game generally. Last night a lot of his turnovers were also caused by him getting stuffed near the rim with his floaters. That was the first really physical team he's played, and they happen to be one of the best in the league.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Feb 24, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) No, he does not. The guy makes some terrible decisions passing the ball. He can dribble and get around guys pretty effectively when he needs to.

Sure, that's a terrible stat, but he's also a rookie. Did Rose have a jump shot when he was a rookie? All I know is that Lin plays the pick and pop better than the majority of PG's out there. He can hit a jump shot (in big moments), he handles the ball well and he has ways of driving and dishing to open teammates. He has some flaws to his game, but just about everyone does. I don't see how a bad game against "the best team to ever grace a basketball court" is the last straw on his career.

Christ can we calm down? I love the fact that the Knicks were a terrible team 2 weeks ago, and, according to you guys, have a back-up PG starting, and they Heat beat them. How is this a shock? I watched most of the game and I saw the same s*** from the Heat - suffocating defense (the physicality was not matched by the Knicks), rebounding and getting loose balls, good transition, and then they disappeared for stretches to let the Knicks stay in the game - truly becoming a hallmark of this Heat team that bit them in the ass in the Finals. I, for one, think the Knicks can hang with the Heat and make a series of it. I think they match up pretty good. I think Amare and Bosh is a good match-up. Chandler SHOULD destroy Anthony. Wade and Lebron are mismatches, but you gotta figure that Anthony will find his shot. And Lin needs to control the ball. Those are all coachable, doable things that they were terrible at last night. Also the sudden flip on Lin is hilarious. He's had one bad game out of 8 or 9 now. That's 8 or 9 total games he's started in the NBA essentially as a rookie. Why must people jump to conclusions so quickly - both from the Lin is going to be an all-star next year to the Lin is a scrub that doesn't belong in the league? Just let the dude play. Obviously we're going to find out over the next couple of months where he's at.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 07:25 PM) There's this thing called guarding your man. And Lin didn't do that at all. Lol, I see.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 07:13 PM) This isn't the first time. Deron Williams just recently kicked his ass. No offense man, but you have to be the most uninformed poster in this thread. In what world is 21 points, nine assists, seven rebounds, four steals and only three turnovers an ass kicking?

God I hate Shane Battier. It's so perfect he's on the Heat.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 05:31 PM) My point being is when Joakim's out, it's very hard for the Heat to score. I disagree. Gibson is better with blocks, but Asik just keeps teams out of the paint. I guess i'm equating "alter shots" with "blocks." Asik's problem is that he has no hands. He should average 6-8 pts a game on put backs alone, but he keeps bringing the damn ball to the floor and getting stripped.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Feb 23, 2012 -> 02:34 PM) Well, then Asik is in and when he went down in last years series, that was big. Asik can alter shots better than any center not named Dwight Howard. He kept Wade and LeBron out of the paint at times and the Asik-Deng trap was beautiful on LeBron. Either Noah is in and they can't trap us or Asik is in and we can trap them. I like me some Turkish Hammer, but I think Gibson is better than him on the defensive end. It's really too bad that Gibson has lost all confidence in his jump shot. Unless they're dunking the ball, he and Asik are both pretty worthless on the offensive end (except for rebounding).