[sanjuro]

doesn't exactly look like big oil is in their pockets, but congress could do something to give relief in the near term.

Give oil companies relief?

Well since I own $$$$ of oil company stock, yes, I do think we should give more tax breaks!

 

[$tinkle]

Give oil companies relief?

Well since I own $$$$ of oil company stock, yes, I do think we should give more tax breaks!

i'm one of those who think that corps are more responsible than the gov't with cash, especially when its availability is dictated by the free market, and not fiat.

 

[syadasti]

i'm one of those who think that corps are more responsible than the gov't with cash, especially when it's availability is dictated by the free market, and not fiat.

Subprime mortgage crisis? Those corps involved are more responsible than the government:huh:

 

[N8 v2.0]

when we walk back the cat, this is a bit intriguing given the tongue lashing issued by big oil last week to tell gov't the reason why supply is so disproportionate is due to their hamstringing legislation. doesn't exactly look like big oil is in their pockets, but congress could do something to give relief in the near term.

If congress resends their tax breaks guess what.. fuel prices still stay where they are now and congress has $58B to piss away on something else.. in the end the tax payer doesnt get a break at the pump. So who cares about Pig Oil's tax breaks. They really dont figure in the price at the pump.

 

[Silver]

Subprime mortgage crisis? Those corps involved are more responsible than the government:huh:

Not anymore, since we're on the hook for the $30B of trash that Bear Stearns bet big on while the CEO was off playing golf and bridge and smoking pot...

He's had it rough though. Instead of being worth a billion, he's only got $60 million or so now. He's almost poor...

 

[N8 v2.0]

Subprime mortgage crisis? Those corps involved are more responsible than the government:huh:

who's brillant law allowed banks etc to enter into bad lending practices in the first place?

hint:


congress

 

[syadasti]

who's brillant law allowed banks etc to enter into bad lending practices in the first place?

hint:

congress

So you are for tighter regulation in the oil industry too then

 

[N8 v2.0]

So you are for tighter regulation in the oil industry too then

i maintain all energy industries should have some regulation.. elec power, fuel etc.

But much like your regulated elec power rate, oil companies would be locked into an approved annual rate of return and would be allowed to pass thru the commodity cost of oil to the consumer as a variable... we would probably still be at the same price we are now however.

 

[$tinkle]

So you are for tighter regulation in the oil industry too then

yes, we need legislation to insure we don't buy oil sand product which reads "light sweet saudi crude"

ovaries & testicles; no parallel between these industries [energy & sub-prime lenders] wrt these recent rise in costs

 

[$tinkle]

i'm not sure which is greater pwnage: fauxnews shoutout, maxine waters looking like the jackass she is, or the relevance to this thread.

i like how the other 2 honorable members try not to pee their pants lollerfying @ her

 

[MikeD]

ovaries & testicles

Do those words rhyme?

 

[$tinkle]

Do those words rhyme?

depends what tongue you use i reckon

 

[N8 v2.0]

profit from those whom profit from the less fortunate!

May 29, 2008, 3:01 pm
MasterCard on fire, again

MasterCard (MA) surged 8% Thursday after the credit card transaction processor told investors it expects to grow faster even as the U.S. economy slows. MasterCard said it expects to boost earnings by as much 30% annually on revenue growth in the 12%-15% range, as the company benefits from the worldwide shift to electronic payments. Portfolio manager Dan Davidowitz at shareholder Polen Capital Management says one key to MasterCard’s success lies in its expanding profit margins. While the company is forecasting annual operating margin expansion of around 3 to 5 percentage points over the next few years, Davidowitz says he believes even that projection understates the company’s capacity for improved profitability. He believes the company’s operating profit can reach into the 50% range, up from the mid-30s this year. The growing margins explain why the stock, which came public just two years ago at $39, recently fetched $310 a share - a 695% return for investors who bought in at the IPO price. And considering the company’s strong position in emerging markets and the shift to plastic, says Davidowitz, “there’s lots of upside left.”

 

[ire]

profit from those whom profit from the less fortunate!

Damn, wish I bought stock at the IPO price

 

[N8 v2.0]

Damn, wish I bought stock at the IPO price

lots of upside left...

 

[ire]

lots of upside left...

Yup, they just need to get a mastercard into the hand of every Chinese person

 

[N8 v2.0]

Or Visa

ticker: V

http://finance.google.com/finance?q=v&hl=en

 

[$tinkle]

So what about the Scientologist who ran a Ponzi Scheme for over 10 years and stole millions of dollars from both members of the church and "normal" people, but gave millions to multiple charities?

Robin Hood? or Asshole with guilt?

what a difference 10 months can make, and bernie did it for what...30 years?

then there's the $180B for AIG...

 

[jimmydean]

what a difference 10 months can make, and bernie did it for what...30 years?

then there's the $180B for AIG...

What I find funny is his wife thinks she is entitled to keep the crap in her name.

 

[stoney]

What I find funny is his wife thinks she is entitled to keep the crap in her name.

It will end up setting a new legal prescident if they are able to take everything, but given that a marrige creates a legal bond between two individuals, and cash is fungible... Those funds are gone.

 

[ohio]

It will end up setting a new legal prescident if they are able to take everything, but given that a marrige creates a legal bond between two individuals, and cash is fungible... Those funds are gone.

I thought BECAUSE marriage creates a legal bond, his assets are her assets and vice versa, which would mean it all CAN be seized... If she'd been a mistress receiving gifts she would have scott-free (except for having to pay taxers on those gifts).

 

[Silver]

What I find funny is his wife thinks she is entitled to keep the crap in her name.

Yeah, if they had divorced 10 years ago, I wonder what Mrs. Madoff's views would have been on that.

I guarantee you that it wouldn't have been, "Let Bernie keep everything in his name!"

 

[Defenestrated]

Question to the monkeys, what is more important, ethics or efficiency?

 

[stoney]

I thought BECAUSE marriage creates a legal bond, his assets are her assets and vice versa, which would mean it all CAN be seized... If she'd been a mistress receiving gifts she would have scott-free (except for having to pay taxers on those gifts).

A legally married couple consists of three legal entities: Him, her, Joint.
There is a lot of legal grey area. how much she had pre-marriage, her employment/income historically, etc. all determine whether it could actually "be" her money... That being said, money is fungible. Even if they married with her holding 100mm in cash, and they only used his income, the fact that she used his funds, is use of stolen proceeds...

I've talked to a few accountants and lawyers about it, and there is no legal precedent in this situation.

 

[X3pilot]

Question to the monkeys, what is more important, ethics or efficiency?

That's like asking is it better to be lucky or be good? Or what is the sound of a one handed man with the clap? Or something like that...

 

[$tinkle]

Question to the monkeys, what is more important, ethics or efficiency?

'important' is so vague & subjective as to be irrelevant, and 'ethics' can mean 'abides by company policy' (think halliburton, wal*mart, or any other unsavory company)

b/c efficiency is quantifiable, it should be included in the final analysis, but not to the exclusion of all else, or a means to an end.

so pursue an ethical way to achieve maximum efficiency

 

[jonKranked]

It will end up setting a new legal prescident if they are able to take everything, but given that a marrige creates a legal bond between two individuals, and cash is fungible... Those funds are gone.

I thought BECAUSE marriage creates a legal bond, his assets are her assets and vice versa, which would mean it all CAN be seized... If she'd been a mistress receiving gifts she would have scott-free (except for having to pay taxers on those gifts).

A legally married couple consists of three legal entities: Him, her, Joint.
There is a lot of legal grey area. how much she had pre-marriage, her employment/income historically, etc. all determine whether it could actually "be" her money... That being said, money is fungible. Even if they married with her holding 100mm in cash, and they only used his income, the fact that she used his funds, is use of stolen proceeds...

I've talked to a few accountants and lawyers about it, and there is no legal precedent in this situation.

From what I've been reading, it sounds like she's going to lose "her" stuff; even though the property is in her name, she would have to prove that it was paid for in funds that weren't obtained illegally (ie via ponzi scheme).

 

[Defenestrated]

so pursue an ethical way to achieve maximum efficiency

Which is never the most efficient means by any measure correct?

 

[$tinkle]

i'm going for the lazy intersection of min/max curves