Another one of those “no biggie” moments we’re all getting so used to.
Yes, yes, everything is fine economically. So what if the largest FOREX trader in the world and the globe’s 11th largest bank is teetering because after all this time the DOJ in America finally decided to levy a fine of consequence against a major bank.
My question is why is the US trying to break Deutsche Bank? If it wrote fraudulent mortgages and packaged fraudulent mortgage backed securities it deserves to feel pain. But other banks got off with wrist slaps.
Good on Democratic Senator Wyden too. (Who is part of the coalition opposing this new rule.) The guy is wrong on many things but on tech and privacy stuff he has often been very good.
The goal ultimately is to make it harder and harder for companies to fire anyone.
Sounds good for workers right? Well, it’s a double edged sword. If it’s harder to fire it’s much harder to hire. Companies fearing being stuck with poor performers will choose to not hire or to automate.
And check this video out. This is the sort of thing employers have to concern themselves with these days. Good luck keeping all the rules straight.
It seems the clear thing to do was for Ms. Lynch to exit the plane and at most shake hands with the former president. Also she should have made sure the meeting was on camera if she was blindsided (if). But she and Clinton clearly didn’t want the meeting made public. The only reason the public knows the meeting happened was because of the fine work done by a local Phoenix reporter. As such this incident appears to be a very serious issue.
No reason the public should see these before the election right? Not that important.
Free speech. Free speech. A thousand times, free speech!
This video isn’t really about climate change. It’s about free speech.
One may not like the opinion of another but in this country one is allowed to express unpopular opinions. Even if you think someone’s opinion or group is backward, hurtful, bigoted, uninformed, whatever, that person or group has the right to express that opinion. Unpopular speech is what the 1st Amendment is all about after all. One would think that Mr.
That seems reasonable in the “land of the free.”
(From The Daily Signal)
In 2014, the Institute for Justice found that net assets, or what’s left over after expenditures, into the agencies’ forfeiture funds reached $4.5 billion—an increase of more than 4,600 percent from 1986, when the Justice Department’s fund was first created. Net assets in the Justice Department’s and Treasury Department’s forfeiture funds first topped $1 billion in 2007 and have moved upward steadily over the last seven years.
Yup, that’s Ben Bernanke. The early years.
Well no kidding Mr. Bernanke. What makes you think that? Now?
It should be noted that it is very hard to write campaign checks from prison. That is really frowned upon. Outside of the big house however funds can flow to influence peddlers freely. And Obama made it clear who the bankers owed for their “freedom” when he explained to a group of senior banking executives post-acute crisis that the only thing standing between them and the “pitchforks”
Rules (or lack of) for them, and rules for the ruled.
This massive chicanery does not happen without a Federal Reserve system backstopping the deal. Fraud will always happen to some extent, but the fiat financialization of the globe allows this sort of shadiness to explode on a scale which is hard to conceptualize.
It “passed?” Why would the Department of Justice possibly “pass” on exploring whether Huma Abedin violated the law when the State Department itself was bringing her actions to Justice’s attention?
The rule of law (and not man or woman) is vital to a free society. If might makes right there is little room to do business, to invest, to build wealth, to be secure in one’s person, to be an actualized human being. If contracts can be dismissed and government officials and their cronies (in government and the nominal “private sector”) can do as they please because of their connections, we have a problem. And that is what we have now,
I don’t know Congressman Ted Lieu (D-CA), but on this subject at least he sounds like a pretty sharp guy.
We have locks on the doors of our houses to keep people – including on occasion the police (depending on the neighborhood I suppose) – out. We as free people have every right to encrypt our “papers and effects.” If the police want at the information they should have to at the very least get a warrant.