BERNIE MADOFF GETS 150 YEARS-DOW UP

the rolling eye smiley didn't tip you off

it would have, had I paid attention to it. I hate the things. Carry on...

interesting, you had to delete it to quote me, must have "noticed" it

The unintended humor at this site is just endless . . .

oh yeah, and to top it all off, i think i have shingles, ain't life grand

I know a good roofer in Trana who might be able to help you out . . .

I think you should feed some more to HAwkee. I was quite sad today and that bit of innocent humor was theraPutic.

He took a liberal interpretation
of his fiduciary obligations to his clients and of applicable law.

Bullshit, David,he took a CONSERVATIVE position, the traditional position of kings, nobility, oligarchs, and robber barons, the position that dates back thousands of years to the first states, coercive all of them until the LIBERAL changed theposition to government BY the people, FOR the people. That ultimately CONSERVATIVE position is "What's mine is mine, what's yours is mine too."

That is so true. A European investment cartel with $250,000,000 to invest, decided they might like Madoff's hedge fund, because of the returns promised, but they took the normal precautionary measures, and on the instructions of the CFO, they asked Madoff for a trading history. Madoff flatly refused, and the CFO basically said, "Don't invest with him, then." They took a couple of days to think about what they would do with all of that other peoples' money--and they wrote a check to Madoff for $250,000,000. Guess who got screwed in that deal.

I highly recommend getting a copy of Vanity Fair for Mark Seal's article entitled "Madoff's World," which is a detailed description of the history of Madoff's ponzi scheme, and all the greedy s.o.b.s who got suckered, and in the process, lost incredible amounts of other people's money. This is one of the worst examples of the classic dictum "if it sounds to good to be true, it is."

You can read at least the beginning of the article by clicking here, which will take you to Vanity Fair's online magazine. I've not tried to read it all, and it may require subscription to read it. But a political program i routinely listen to on the radio has quoted it extensively, and discussed the incredible chutzpah of Madoff, the incredible gullibility of investment advisors who really ought to have none better, and the bone-head attitude of the SEC, who were warned about this as early as 1999. If i have the time later, i'm going to go see if i can read the entire article without being obliged to subscribe. What i've heard read on the radio is just incredible--for the typical greed and stupidity of classic conservative financiers blinded by greed, and playing with other peoples' money, many of them pensioners.

I believe that David meant that Bernie had taken a "liberal interpretation" meaning "Abundant" "exclusive of nothing" or"unchecked". I dont believe he was trying to assert that it was a view consistant with the Liberal (party mind-set). I dont know but Im guessing thats what he meant.

If not, well , then itll be cream pies at dawn.

I wouldn't be so sure if i were you . . . David blames all evils on "liberalism."

Check out the Vanity Fair article, FM. On the radio, they were reading long passages, and then discussing it with their resident financial reporters. It's been fascinating, in a "watching a train wreck in slow motion" sort of way.

They did a pop-psych analysis of Bernie the other night on a local FM. (it was a precis of some tv show from which the radio glommed the audio feed and doctored it up to make it less like "Mythbusters" where the entire point of the show isnt made until the last 2 minutes).
The summary was that Bernie is a classic anti-social with an inability to even recognize his role in destruction of the lives of others. Its a condition that, like a serial killer, his only sense of any morality is that he alone is correct in his pursuits. He cannot relly understand our concept of law as it should pertain to him.
Hes a remarkeably flawed guy, bordering psychotic.

I hope they have him on a suicide watch in prison. He may try for an opportunity to off himself. (Not that theres anything wrong in that but it wouldnt give any peace to the thousands of victims)


I never tracked the DOW till the closing bell. How did it do?

hee hee, I was able to print off the entire article no problem. Ill read it this AM fer sher.

Damn . . . i saw all the subscription stuff at the top of the page, and thought "uh oh" . . . i'll have to go check it out later . . . of course, the radio show was good because it 'splained things for the financially impaired mind . . .

Up 91 points . . .

Jack (I hope u don 't mind my calling u Jack instead of MIke),
I 've explained this to u several times already.
OK -- lemme just take the vu that u r a busy fellow who did not see those posts.

One more time:
the words liberal and conservative were not chosen at random
to describe interpretation of degrees of fidelity.

Thay already MEAN something, to wit:
liberal means DEVIANT. Conservative or orthodox means NON-deviant.
In the absence of DEVIATION there can be no liberalism.

Infidelity = liberalism.
Rigidly unbending adherence to some concept (e.g., an agreement) = conservatism.

Conservative Barry Goldwater condemned liberals for their deviation
from constitutional practices, that limit the jurisdiction of government.

I am liberal about spelling because I reject n deviate from prevailing usage (to some extent).

We can throw away the words "conservative" and "liberal"
and substitute "rigidly unbending and non-deviant" for conservative
and substitute "deviant" for liberal.

The entire issue turns upon whether DEVIATION exists or does not exist.

Madoff DEVIATED from paradigmatic accounting practices
and deviated from accepted standards of honesty in his fiduciary obligations
(obligations of trust n confidence) to his clients.
For that reason he was liberal.

If Madoff had been conservative, then he 'd simply have implimented
rigidly accurate accounting practices n told the truth to his clients.

He did not relate to practices of royalty nor of oligarchy,
because he did not have that ability, because he was neither a king, nor an oligarch.
Therefore, he coud not possibly have been either liberal or conservative as to those practices,
as to which he was unrelated.

He was like someone who takes a liberal vu
of the rules of poker when he rakes in the pot claiming a flush,
when he has 4 spades and a club (hoping that no one will notice).
He 'd be even MORE liberal , if he claimed to have a flush
with 3 spades and 2 diamonds. (Of course, he 'd also be killed for his liberalism.)

Political liberals in America don 't like the constitutional freedom
that Individualism protects in American citizens, because domestic
government jurisdiction and personal liberty are INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL
and liberals want jurisdiction expanded so that government
can help the poor at the expense of the middle class and the rich.
That plot will be defeated by pure individual freedom from interference,
so liberals want deception to support illicit expansion of jurisdiction.

I 'm not sure whether u r trolling me about this n having a little fun at my expense.
Maybe it coud be possible.

Please, no pies at dawn.
That 's when I am joyfully heading to Idlewild Airport
on my way to the 2009 Mensa Annual Gathering in Pittsburgh.
I wanna have a clean suit.

Yes; "unchecked" is the closest description.

For instance:
if, by contract, one is supposed to show up at work at 10 AM
or get docked a day 's pay and he is docked for being a minute late,
the boss is conservative (meticulously inflexible) in his interpretation of the contract.
If he is half an hour late and does not get docked,
the boss is being liberal in his interpretation of the punctuality
provision of the contract. If he is 7 hours late and gets paid anyway,
the boss is being even more liberal. If he does not show up for work
for several months and gets paid regardless, the boss is being yet MORE liberal
in his application of the punctuality provision of that contract.

U r certainly correct ( let 's be clear on that -- no pies)
that I did not invoke the precepts of the Liberals
(except insofar as the general principle of deviation is concerned).

Does anyone know any good restaurants in Pittsburgh ?




David