Why should we believe that the motives of people in (cough, cough) “public service” are different from the motives of people in the for-profit sector? Was Jon Corzine a rapacious self-seeker at Goldman Sachs, then a public-spirited man when he was in the Senate and in New Jersey’s governorship, only to revert to form when he went to MF Global? If you doubt that this is true, and suspect that Jon Corzine was the same guy all along, why would you want to give government more power?
It’s a question that big-government supporters never answer. Partly because when it’s a John Corzine or a John Edwards, it’s not that big a deal. If either had been a Republican, it would have been second-coming type in the New York Times.
The Founders wrote a constitution on the basis that men are not angels, but “liberals” apparently believe that when they call themselves “liberal” and Democrats that they are, and will rule us wisely.
Drudge had a classic headline this afternoon.
It featured a picture of Corzine being sworn in, and the caption WHERE IS THE MONEY, MF?
I know some anarchists who are all about raising children who don’t know violence – not pacifists, but minds that are shaped to see force as an ineffective way to get what you want. When the world is populated with such people, and the state is recognized as an institution of force, the need for government will go away completely. It’s an interesting theory, but ultimately unworkable.
Long before that day arrives, those who still see force as an effective means of getting what they want will enslave those think violence is never the answer. A remarkablly low percentage of people with guns can control a much larger unarmed population.
Of course, self defense is considered ok.. as I said, not pacifists.
…so they’re breeding the next generation of servants?
Eloi.
I find the story implausible. While Corzine is no longer CEO of this company, it remains that he did have the power earlier to dig for answers on what happened to as much as a fifth of his customers’ funds.
Wikipedia claims slightly less than $39.7 billion in debt and $41 billion in assets. The leverage is currently somewhere around 30 to 1.
So what strikes me as likely is that the business took a gamble (here on European bonds) and lost big. Further, they were probably highly leveraged through perhaps not at the 30 to 1 level they currently are at. Then they were force to sell a lot of stuff by mark-to-market rules, making the loss bigger.
My sense here is that Corzine probably authorized the gamble and the high leverage involved. And he probably authorized the tapping of customer funds in order to cover cash flow when the company was selling off assets in the last few days of October.
I like when the Dems start their ‘rich guy’s suck, and Republicans are all about the rich…all of whom, suck…” mantra.
But IF you go check on the $$$, 8 of the 10 richest Members of Congress have a “D” behind their name! (2010 stats) And over the years when I’ve checked it has almost always been that way.
The part of this equation I’ve NEVER been able to wrap my head around is WHY the Republicans allow the lie(s) to just be repeated. If nothing else, it’s infuriating as hell to those of us who vote to the right, who AREN’T rich or well connected.
I’ll even admit here that I am drawing SSD checks. But here’s the problem with MY check.
For last year’s taxes, he IRS disallowed part of our deductions (I am still arm wrestling them) They said we owed an ADDITIONAL $1700.00.
Mrs Der S. makes less than $60K, and my check is $1203 per month.
So they want ALL of my check back, AND $500 MORE of Mrs. Der S.’s money. So my voting for the right side of the aisle certainly ain’t making US rich!
.
.
Trent,
those are the Eloi.
The Morlocks are currently living at Zoo-cotti Park!
The path to Hell:
1) “I never intended to break any rules, whether it dealt with the segregation rules or any of the other rules that are applicable,” said Corzine
2) Rep. James Sensenbrenner asked Holder: “Tell me what’s the difference between lying and misleading Congress, in this context?”
“Well, if you want to have this legal conversation, it all has to do with your state of mind and whether or not you had the requisite intent to come up with something that would be considered perjury or a lie,” Holder said.
Well, they had good intentions, but they won’t share those intentions with Congress.
Apparently Holder is using the George Costanza defense: “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
1) “I never intended to break any rules, whether it dealt with the segregation rules or any of the other rules that are applicable,” said Corzine
Notice how he didn’t deny actually breaking any rules, he just says he didn’t intend to break any rules.