5 year Lehman Bros Conktastrophe Anniversary

[Ibanez]

Fellas, fellas...let me help you out here.

In the early 70's, an uber-conk superman named Lewis Powell who was really, really scared of American commies (40 years too late) and really, really liked the Chamber of Commerce penned a screed called the Powell Memorandum suggesting that the Chamber of Commerce was the cat's meow and that great ideas and proper economics came from the corporate form and not from real live human beings.

Nixon liked him so much that Powell was appointed to the SCOTUS where he opined that corporations were in fact people in First National Bank of Boston vs. Belloti.

A few years later, Ronald Reagan really liked this line of thinking as well and decided to hate on some union members and promote the magic pixie dust of anti-regulatory capitalism, the free market, and pee-on economics.

Then, big, bad Bill Clinton came to power recognizing that his Democratic Party could not remain competitive relying on union support alone (who's power was dwindling)

Then big financial institutions, who caught wind that donks were now also willing to play and who were high out of their minds on the opiate of the tech boom spent billions lobbying for deregulation of the banking industry which had prevented a financial catastrophe for nigh on 60 years. Clinton signed it, but it was called GRAHAM-LEACH-BLILEY (after the conks who sponsored it).

Next Clinton, after getting swell advice from the committee to save the world...(yeah, these guys)


...

Also signed the Commodities Futures Trading Act, which deregulated something called the "Derivatives Market" which consisted of items described as "complicated financial instruments"... aka "you don't know what the fuck they mean...but trust us...we're smarter than you, they really are magical, and they're fancy!"

Pretty soon, bankers, realtors, mortgage underwriters, builders, developers, quasi governmental lending agencies, and itinerant strawberry pickers all joined in the orgy of free money, McMansions, perpetual growth, and deregulatory heaven...WHOOHOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Then it all came crashing down...like it has before.

Flash forward to today, and President Barak Obama has not done one single thing to fix the mess. Glass Steagal is still repealed, TBTF banks are larger than ever, and Larry Summers has actually been floated as the next Fed Chairman.

It's the financial Lorax. Both sides are culprits. But D1B is correct...greed is the root cause.

Summers withdrew his name.

[Baldy]

EVIL NASTY GREED

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A[/youtube]

[YoUDeeMan]

Summers withdrew his name.

Summer's over. We need a new Fall guy.

[GannonFan]

Gee, neat history lesson. Of course, it ignores that treating corporations as people, with respect to the law, happened far earlier than Lewis Powell. Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific happened in 1886, which I'm pretty sure was before Powell was even born. Of course, that ignores the fact that it was accepted judicial opinion for well before that, stretching back to common law. And then the US Code Title 1, written in 1947, actually calls corporations to be treated as people. And the eminent Hugo Black, he being the Supreme Court Justice appointed by liberal idol FDR in the 1930's, actually provided the basis for the ideas you claim to have been invented 40 years later, in his opinion in Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson. Are we now calling Hugo Black and FDR uberconks? Or is it possible that your reading of history is highly selective and in this case, flawed? Hmmm.

I'm well aware of Santa Clara v. Did you know it was actually an error written by the court clerk that was then adopted into law? And gee...when did I say it was invented by the 70's ruling? Or is it possible you're really butt hurt by the FACT that any reasonable human being would agree that a corporation and a human being are not the same entity?

You're confusing your history again (shaking my head at the deplorable state of what passes for history education in this age of people just making it up to score message board posts). The court reporter did not make an error in that he wrote down something that was incorrect. He wrote down, and the Chief Justice who said it confirmed it later prior to publication, what the Chief Justice said in open court prior to the arguments of the case. The "quirkiness" of it comes from the fact that the Court, in its decision of the case, didn't equate corporations as people as under the 14th ammendment, but that the comment from the oral discussion of the case by the Court did do just that. That's much different than it being "an error...by the court clerk".

And really, who is actually saying that a corporation and a human being are the same entity? Again, you're jumping to a simplified conclusion that is so simplified it's now incorrect simply to make a point you've already predetermined. Neither Roberts, or Hugo Black (amazing you consider Black to be an "unreasonable human being", nor any other Justice involved in these decisions has ever said that; they have always expressed that any similarities are limited on the corporation, and limited to how the Court rules. There is no Court ruling that corroborates your fanciful idea that corporations and human beings are the same entity in every way, just in narrow ways as defined by various Court rulings (i.e. they both can sue and be sued - a fairly good ruling I think in most circles -, that they can enter into legal contracts and enjoy the same limited protection under those contracts as actual people do - again, hard to argue that's a bad thing), and of cours the more controversial free speech one more recently).

So no matter how many times you type something with the word "fact" in all capital letters, it does not necessarily make it so.

[Ibanez]

Summers withdrew his name.

Summer's over. We need a new Fall guy.

I see what you did there.

[Ibanez]

Are donks still the salt of the earth?

[kalm]

I'm well aware of Santa Clara v. Did you know it was actually an error written by the court clerk that was then adopted into law? And gee...when did I say it was invented by the 70's ruling? Or is it possible you're really butt hurt by the FACT that any reasonable human being would agree that a corporation and a human being are not the same entity?

You're confusing your history again (shaking my head at the deplorable state of what passes for history education in this age of people just making it up to score message board posts). The court reporter did not make an error in that he wrote down something that was incorrect. He wrote down, and the Chief Justice who said it confirmed it later prior to publication, what the Chief Justice said in open court prior to the arguments of the case. The "quirkiness" of it comes from the fact that the Court, in its decision of the case, didn't equate corporations as people as under the 14th ammendment, but that the comment from the oral discussion of the case by the Court did do just that. That's much different than it being "an error...by the court clerk".

And really, who is actually saying that a corporation and a human being are the same entity? Again, you're jumping to a simplified conclusion that is so simplified it's now incorrect simply to make a point you've already predetermined. Neither Roberts, or Hugo Black (amazing you consider Black to be an "unreasonable human being", nor any other Justice involved in these decisions has ever said that; they have always expressed that any similarities are limited on the corporation, and limited to how the Court rules. There is no Court ruling that corroborates your fanciful idea that corporations and human beings are the same entity in every way, just in narrow ways as defined by various Court rulings (i.e. they both can sue and be sued - a fairly good ruling I think in most circles -, that they can enter into legal contracts and enjoy the same limited protection under those contracts as actual people do - again, hard to argue that's a bad thing), and of cours the more controversial free speech one more recently).

So no matter how many times you type something with the word "fact" in all capital letters, it does not necessarily make it so.

Yes Ganny it's a shame we're not all as historically accurate as you where we can cite case law from the 1800's off the top of our heads without prior research.

The court reporter ( who btw, happened to be the former head of a R.R. himself - see? I can read wiki too ) included the 14th amendment stuff in the head notes of the case even though it wasnt part of the ruling. That's an error. He second guessed this inclusion so much that he wrote a letter to the chief justice asking if it should be? The Chief Justice said 'meh...go ahead son, it's up to you. So the head notes of the case cast it as a 14th amendment argument and it gets interpreted as such in case law going forward.

Regardless, the framers clearly didn't intend for corporations and people to be treated as one in the same. So in a way, you're right...the law has a tendency to cherry pick which laws and protections apply. when was the last time a corporation received capital punishment?

But even IF case law and constitutional interpretation accurately portray the two as the same, remember, the law is often an ass...manipulated and twisted to fit the desires of those who can influence and benefit from it. Color me a reductionist all you want because that is
EXACTLY what I am. No reasonable person Judge Black or otherwise should have this type of confusion.

[Baldy]

Are donks still the salt of the earth?

In the context of Scipio, yes.

[GannonFan]

You're confusing your history again (shaking my head at the deplorable state of what passes for history education in this age of people just making it up to score message board posts). The court reporter did not make an error in that he wrote down something that was incorrect. He wrote down, and the Chief Justice who said it confirmed it later prior to publication, what the Chief Justice said in open court prior to the arguments of the case. The "quirkiness" of it comes from the fact that the Court, in its decision of the case, didn't equate corporations as people as under the 14th ammendment, but that the comment from the oral discussion of the case by the Court did do just that. That's much different than it being "an error...by the court clerk".

And really, who is actually saying that a corporation and a human being are the same entity? Again, you're jumping to a simplified conclusion that is so simplified it's now incorrect simply to make a point you've already predetermined. Neither Roberts, or Hugo Black (amazing you consider Black to be an "unreasonable human being", nor any other Justice involved in these decisions has ever said that; they have always expressed that any similarities are limited on the corporation, and limited to how the Court rules. There is no Court ruling that corroborates your fanciful idea that corporations and human beings are the same entity in every way, just in narrow ways as defined by various Court rulings (i.e. they both can sue and be sued - a fairly good ruling I think in most circles -, that they can enter into legal contracts and enjoy the same limited protection under those contracts as actual people do - again, hard to argue that's a bad thing), and of cours the more controversial free speech one more recently).

So no matter how many times you type something with the word "fact" in all capital letters, it does not necessarily make it so.

Yes Ganny it's a shame we're not all as historically accurate as you where we can cite case law from the 1800's off the top of our heads without prior research.

The court reporter ( who btw, happened to be the former head of a R.R. himself - see? I can read wiki too ) included the 14th amendment stuff in the head notes of the case even though it wasnt part of the ruling. That's an error. He second guessed this inclusion so much that he wrote a letter to the chief justice asking if it should be? The Chief Justice said 'meh...go ahead son, it's up to you. So the head notes of the case cast it as a 14th amendment argument and it gets interpreted as such in case law going forward.

Regardless, the framers clearly didn't intend for corporations and people to be treated as one in the same. So in a way, you're right...the law has a tendency to cherry pick which laws and protections apply. when was the last time a corporation received capital punishment?

But even IF case law and constitutional interpretation accurately portray the two as the same, remember, the law is often an ass...manipulated and twisted to fit the desires of those who can influence and benefit from it. Color me a reductionist all you want because that is
EXACTLY what I am. No reasonable person Judge Black or otherwise should have this type of confusion.

You calling it an error doesn't make it so. Your recitation of the facts (thankfully complete this time - bravo to you) can stand on their own, and they were clearly known and understood by people and Justices much closer to the time than we are today. You seem to imply that subsequent judges were hoodwinked by the head notes in the case and didn't understand the circumstances that led to the inclusion of the sentiment into those headnotes. Gee, if only they had the power of your clarity to see through the fog of their own ignorance.

I wouldn't call you a reductionist, that would imply that you even try to accurately break down something complex and understand it by the more simple parts that constitute it. I don't think you seem to be bothered with even taking that approach since it could contradict the presupposed understanding of something you have already concluded well before even approaching that thing. If you were a reductionist you might actually change your entrenched views on closer examination. What a drag that would be.

[danefan]

Fuck,there's a lot of words in this thread

People lost money. Most who did didn't care - they had a shit load already

Everyone else got fucked. Simple

[kalm]

Yes Ganny it's a shame we're not all as historically accurate as you where we can cite case law from the 1800's off the top of our heads without prior research.

The court reporter ( who btw, happened to be the former head of a R.R. himself - see? I can read wiki too ) included the 14th amendment stuff in the head notes of the case even though it wasnt part of the ruling. That's an error. He second guessed this inclusion so much that he wrote a letter to the chief justice asking if it should be? The Chief Justice said 'meh...go ahead son, it's up to you. So the head notes of the case cast it as a 14th amendment argument and it gets interpreted as such in case law going forward.

Regardless, the framers clearly didn't intend for corporations and people to be treated as one in the same. So in a way, you're right...the law has a tendency to cherry pick which laws and protections apply. when was the last time a corporation received capital punishment?

But even IF case law and constitutional interpretation accurately portray the two as the same, remember, the law is often an ass...manipulated and twisted to fit the desires of those who can influence and benefit from it. Color me a reductionist all you want because that is
EXACTLY what I am. No reasonable person Judge Black or otherwise should have this type of confusion.

You calling it an error doesn't make it so. Your recitation of the facts (thankfully complete this time - bravo to you) can stand on their own, and they were clearly known and understood by people and Justices much closer to the time than we are today. You seem to imply that subsequent judges were hoodwinked by the head notes in the case and didn't understand the circumstances that led to the inclusion of the sentiment into those headnotes. Gee, if only they had the power of your clarity to see through the fog of their own ignorance.

I wouldn't call you a reductionist, that would imply that you even try to accurately break down something complex and understand it by the more simple parts that constitute it. I don't think you seem to be bothered with even taking that approach since it could contradict the presupposed understanding of something you have already concluded well before even approaching that thing. If you were a reductionist you might actually change your entrenched views on closer examination. What a drag that would be.

That's some high quality smack right there Ganny. I got nothin!