algernonsidney

I was talking to someone today who lived in California today. I noticed that she had a WaMu checkbook. I asked her if the checks were any good. She then told me that she had a job that had required it. I've had direct deposit on every job since 1999 or so. Never once did I have a job that required me to use a certain bank. One has to wonder what kind of kickbacks WaMu was giving this company and what other companies WaMu was giving kickbacks to. It certainly makes you wonder about who you are dealing with. I honestly wonder why anybody ever deals with a big bank. I never have. When I lived in Ohio, my bank had about seven locations or so. Before that, I had dealt with even smaller ones. Now, for the first time in my life, I have a credit union. I have never been more satisfied with any financial institution in my life.

I'm not sure how I will be voting. Bob Barr lost my vote two weeks ago. We don't have any other option than writing someone in. I have talked to way too many people and know too much to vote for Barr. I really think that the American people deserve this election. Chris

Biden is making himself look like an idiot. Roosevelt wasn't President when it crashed. Roosevelt was the first President to appear on television, but there was none in 1929.

All you have to do is travel abroad. The last time I went to Canada, it was easy to change my money in Canada. When I came back to the USA, I stopped at three banks. The first one claimed that they didn't do enough exchanges of money. The second one asked me if I had an account and said that there was a service charge. The third one finally did it, and this was after I had gotten pretty far from the border.

I just thought of one enormous difference between now and what happened back in 1929. It's a big difference in banking and the nature of banking. I imagine it has a lot to do with our current situation. Banks used to be community-based banks. Now, many of them are part of enormous conglomerates. I'm sure people older than I am can remember. The city bank was an independent company in your town. It may have been called the Smithville National Bank. I can still remember these types of banks and savings and loans in my lifetime. It was owned and run by people in your town, and you probably knew most of the people who worked there. Slowly but surely, the community banks were bought out. Back in 1982 or so, I had my savings account with Colonial Federal Savings and Loan. Later it became Magnet Bank. Then it was Atlantic Financial. Then it was One Valley and moved to a bank where I had been before I went there. Now it's BB&T. Needless to say, the community bank isn't lobbying in DC. It never has been. And since it's actually part of the community, it understands that its success actually depends on the success of the community. I bet they haven't given out many sub-prime loans either. The community banks are also less likely to nickel and dime you with service charges for things that used to be free. I'm so happy to be part of a credit union. They actually give a crap.

I don't know about this theory. I imagine most of the sales come from personal recommendations. What kind of movie do you want to see made? I have no idea what kind of movie Ruddy would make. He did say that he would cut about 80% of the novel. In my opinion, that would be a complete butcher job. I want to see the movie done right.

When Buffett talks, I listen. You know it takes a great mind to play Bridge as much as he does.

I haven't seen them or read them. The only book-movie combos that I have consumed are The Fountainhead and The Hobbitt. The second one doesn't really count, since it was made into a cartoon. Ruddy's interview was enlightening. I'm not surprised by the story he told. If the book is too long, then it could certainly be made into a short series. You could spread it out over ten hours if you need that much time. My main concern is that people are going to walk out of the theater saying: "The book was better." I don't want to see that happen. And if someone totally butchers the story, it won't be helpful. Perhaps, a more important question here is: What makes it so important that this movie get made? Does everyone think that the world will change overnight once this film gets out?

And the war was quite destructive as a result. We are still paying for it today. DiLorenzo is a good man generally. But if you actually read Lincoln, you'll also understand his motivation. Many Americans saw the Union as essential to keeping the American experiment alive. While the Civil War was going on, the French were invading Mexico. And I have heard that Britain was actually amassing troops in Canada. Some felt that European nations wanted to divide and conquer the Union in order to re-colonize it. Lincoln's fatal error was his belief that the government could somehow return to its principles after the war--this was terribly naive. I don't think it was malice. That's what I believe. Slavery was actually keeping the South less wealthy. Tocqueville pointed out that immigrants didn't go there because labor was "dishonored." In the North, labor was "honored." I highly recommend _Democracy in America_. I was fortunate to have one outstanding history teacher in high school. He retired a year after that. He actually introduced me to Machiavelli and to Pearl Harbor "conspiracy" theories. He just loved to tell stories. If you ask me to sum up the cause of the Civil War in just one word, I would say: "Distrust." Fortunately, the country has progressed in many good ways since that time. One reason why some feared abolishing slavery was that they didn't think the animosity between the races could ever be overcome. The fact that many white Americans are now embracing an African American for the Presidency just shows how far things have come. Yes, there are still problems. There have been a few riots, yet we generally live in peace and harmony. Things will get even better once we get rid of this welfare state.

Ruddy claimed that he would have to cut it down about 80%. What would be left? If that's the case, I'm glad he didn't make it.

If some of the things I have presented are incorrect, please provide evidence that they are incorrect. Are you interested in facts? I will concede that you obviously know more about Charles Beard than I do. How long have you been interested in Beard? How many of his books have you read? How long have you been interested in this "progressive" school of historical analysis? What is the cause of this infatuation?

I wouldn't say that we "had to go to war." That is how it happened, however. I don't know enough about how it ended elsewhere to make an informed comment about how it ended. One theory I have is that it was because slavery was concentrated geographically in some sections of the country. I don't know if this is the case with other nations. There were many secessionist movements since the Constitution was ratified. The first was in the North when the US had an embargo and then a war with Britain. This hurt New England more than others, as they had a lot of trade with Britain at the time. It was highlighted by the Hartford Convention. One documented complaint was that there had been too many Presidents from Virginia. Then the South wanted more foreign trade. This lead to South Carolina attempting to nullify the "Tariff of Abominations." Not surprisingly, South Carolina was the first to secede. Of course, the concept of nullification went back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison), which argued that states should void laws which violated the Constitution. In this case, it was the very immoral Alien and Sedition Acts. Northerners like William Lloyd Garrison also had secessionist sympathies. Garrison called the Constitution a "compact with hell" because it supported slavery. He felt that the North was actually helping maintain the institution, and some slaveholders agreed. Escaping to the North wasn't enough to free a slave--he had to go to Canada. The South was especially fearful of becoming another Haiti. There, the slaves had risen up and massacred the masters in the 1790's. The US actually refused to recognize Haiti until 1862. Dred Scott also lead to Northern fears that slavery would spread all over the country. I think secession would have abolished slavery. It would have made it easier for a slave to escape. I think it also would have lead to more industrialism in the South.

What does this have to do with anything? I have never read the book. Since the book is on the top of your head, you must think about it a lot. You are the one who has introduced it into the conversation. I certainly don't need to read any book to interpret the Constitution--all I have to do is read the Constitution. I'm not writing anything about the Constitution. I'm writing about the motivations of the politicians who promoted certain programs before the time of the Civil War. In case you didn't know, Henry Clay had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was born in 1777. He was first elected to the Senate (illegally) in 1806. Years ago, I actually found a copy of eight books of Lincoln's writings at library sale. I read it all. That's where some of my knowledge about this comes from. Some observations I made are: Lincoln despised Andrew Jackson mainly because Jackson killed the Second Bank of the United States Lincoln hated slavery because it actually encouraged race mixing and wanted to send them back to Africa Lincoln loved Henry Clay and all of his corporate-welfare statist garbage Lincoln ran on a platform which actually called for subsidies for transcontinental railroads Lincoln wanted to restrict the growth of slavery and felt that "popular sovereignty" would encourage its spread You bring up books which have nothing to do with anything. I bring up facts. Do you have any facts? Or do you just have moronic, irrelevant comments about socialist historians that I have not read, but that you have apparently read?

If that is the case, then why did US Grant own slaves? If Grant wanted to protect slavery, then surely he would have not fought for the Union. And what about Major Robert Anderson? He was from Kentucky and also a slave owner. He was the Union officer specifically assigned to protect Fort Sumter. Finally, why did Robert E Lee free all the slaves he had inherited? He fought for the South, yet wanted no part of this "peculiar institution." Interestingly enough, General Beauregard had actually been a student of Anderson's at West Point. He was the one who led the attack on Fort Sumter. After the war, he became a champion of equal rights for the newly freed slaves. Lincoln was very much a proponent of Henry Clay's "American system." Basically, this was a system of high tariffs used to fund "internal improvements." Since Lincoln had also worked as an attorney for railroad interests, this meant corporate welfare. High tariffs hurt the South, as they wanted to export cotton to Europe and buy their manufactured goods. Not surprisingly, Lincoln's Presidency ushered in a new era of giveaways. We have never turned back since that time. The Homestead Act gave land to homesteaders and bred the usual corruption. They gave land to corrupt railroad interests. They also passed the Morrill Act, which helped create land-grant colleges. These same colleges would later come back asking for more handouts. Most destructive of all was the National Banking Act, which got the feds back into the business of printing money. Keeping consistent with their belief in fiscal restraint, the Confederate Constitution allowed for a line-item veto. It also disallowed the President from seeking re-election when he was President. He could run again, but he would have to sit out one term. The South sent people to DC to make an offer for the four military installations that were in states which had left the Union. Lincoln refused the offer. I have heard from one source that Fort Sumter was not actually a fort, but simply a place where tariffs were collected. Lincoln announced the Union blockade a few days later.

That's why McCain wants to have Sarah Palin around.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/023023.html REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP Posted by Lew Rockwell at September 23, 2008 02:59 PM DEAR AMERICAN: I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE. I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU. I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAMM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE. THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED. PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS. YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON (Thanks to Mike Holmes)

It looks like I will be flying to LA for a weekend workshop the first weekend of December. More specifically, it is in Santa Monica on Michigan Avenue. I will be in touch with the instructor next week and will see about setting up a room-share, as other people are travelling. It looks like public transportation can get me from LAX to Santa Monica. It also looks like hotels are pretty pricey there. I've looked around and found mostly resort-type places. I haven't found anything like a Super 8 or a Motel 6 there. Even the Best Western was pretty expensive. I don't need a resort. I don't care about the beach. I'm also going to assume that hotel taxes are outrageous. After all, this is Taxifornia. I will be arriving on Friday morning probably from Austin, Texas. I will go to the workshop at 6pm or so. I will spend just about all day (10am to midnight) Saturday and Sunday in the workshop. All I need is a safe and comfortable bed and a clean bathroom. Then I will return to Austin on Monday. It looks like it might be cheaper to rent a car and stay several miles outside of Santa Monica. Yet, it seems foolish to rent a car when I will be in this workshop for about 14 hours on two of the days. I also want to make sure that I am within a half hour of Santa Monica. Perhaps, I have been lucky. I have never had a bad driving experience in LA. Does anyone have any suggestions?

It didn't work then either. There are plenty of books you can read about how they prolonged the depression. I'm not biting any bullet or suffering. I don't collect any checks from the feds. If these programs go away, I don't see how I will be effected. Doctor Paul was apparently predicting the crisis with Fannie and Freddie as early as 2003.

It's an understatement to say that CEO pay has gotten totally ridiculous. It is often an issue where people are not getting what they deserve. Take Carly Fiorina's severance package, for example. One of the most principled CEO's, John Mackey of Whole Foods, recently decided to forgo his salary. He figures that he has already made enough money anyway. It seems that boards are not taking enough control of the situation. If anyone has an answer as to why the boards are not doing this, please give one. The stockholders are the owners of a corporation. However, it seems that boards don't always act in the best interest of the owners. If government gets involved, it will only get worse. One problem does seem to be the issue of limited liability. A privately owned business does not this kind of protection. Limited liability seems to create a situation in which the leaders are rewarded for picking winning strategies but clearly are not punished for picking losing strategies. It also seems that being a "successful" CEO requires one to be a politician. Being a politician is much different from running a business. If you want to read a good story about an excellent CEO who did not play politics, read the book _Southwest Passage_ by Lamar Muse. Muse was the first CEO of Southwest Airlines and laid the foundation for Southwest's many tremendous successes. He was fired / resigned from Southwest in 1978 largely for political reasons. Like most politicians, it seems that some CEO's simply go into a company and milk what they can from it. Then they leave and go somewhere else. They may also get fired for rank incompetence and leave with a nice big severance package. Just look at Carly Fiorina, who got millions for leaving HP in a shambles.

All Paulson cares about are his friends and himself. He certainly doesn't care if his interventions wipe out anyone else. He's a corporate-welfare statist.

To borrow a metaphor from my old history teacher, this is like giving aspiring for a brain hemorrhage. It relieves the pain--it doesn't solve the problem. With the destruction of the USA's credit worthiness, the neo-cons' war will go down the tubes. Gold will go to about $3000 per ounce. More and more people will steal catalytic converters from SUV's. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSPEK2402720080917 Finally, Henry Paulson became Secretary of the Treasury in July 2006. Guess what he did before that? He was the CEO of Goldman Sachs and had worked there since 1974. It's a shame that the world would have been so much better off if so many of these worthless Ivy Leaguers had never been born.

I'm sure you know more about this than I do. While I never met her personally, it seems that Rand became less trusting of people as she got older. It's no surprise that the people trying to make the movie now are friendly to David Kelley. Unlike Peikoff, David Kelley is actually a good ambassador for Objectivism. I do wonder if the movie does get made, how easy will it be for some of the people who worked on it to get jobs afterward? Based on this, it almost seems that a direct-to-video release would be more successful than a major theatrical release. I don't know how many listen to the critics though. There are a few, I trust. I do think that some of the actors and directors care about what they think. In Hollywood, "image is everything." Howard Roark worked because he loved the work. If he had worried about how much money he was going to make, he wouldn't have worked. We need the same kind of people making this movie. I bet Rand would want it that way. I still think it will get bootlegged, and a bootleg may end up being a better movie. Finally, I can add a few more ideological movies that made money: V for Vendetta and the X-men movies.

Actually, there is something else to consider about this movie. What is Michael Medved going to say? What is Roger Ebert going to say? What is Leonard Maltin going to say? What will others in Hollywood say? Considering what happened with the novel, I expect that Atlas Shrugged: The Movie will suffer a similar fate.

Thank you for bringing this up. I had never heard of this guy. It also seems that the Wrights were also more interested in war profiteering than Santos-Dumont. Perhaps this is why they are more famous here in the US.

Of course, that's not much better than Keynes. How many times has Brazil sent their military outside of South America? And how exactly is this going to bring down the entire country? At least they abolished slavery peacefully. What does racism have to do with a nation's prosperity? There was a lot of racism in the 1920's, but a lot of wealth was created too. The main question is: does Brazil have legal barriers in place that keep one race poor? I also have to ask: is there a connection between an increase in socialism and a decline in racism? In this country socialism has increased as racism has decreased. I have not been there. Switzerland has an alternative currency called the wir. When the politicians destory the Swiss Franc, the wir will bail them out. Every able-bodied Switzer is armed to the teeth, which is what keeps them free. Their military exists for the defense of the country, and they have been at peace since 1815. Gets you into Finnish and Hungarian Who cares about those languages? Well, excuse me for not having unlimited funds.