Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Wilian View Post
    No one is saying Goldman Sach is actually working alone on all these. If you read the bit about future plans regarding copper, it names many more high end corporations:
    I think you're a bit out of your element.

    It took almost 20 years for any conclusive proof to arise that JPM had a colossal short silver position.... and that evidence came from them saying something like "Yes, we have a sizable short silver position, but it's a hedge rather than anything meaningful."

    It also wasn't very hard to find an NYT article on the metal in question. According to the NYT, Goldman isn't hoarding aluminum. They're storing it for other institutions.

    The price increases aren't a result of an aluminum hoard as much as they're a result of Goldman being a really shitty warehouse operator that managed to increase the time it took to get the metal from one warehouse to a customer from 6 weeks to 16 months.

  2. #62
    I am Murloc! Sky High's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SO-CALI
    Posts
    5,055
    unsurprised, Banks get away with financing terrorists and drug cartels in this day and age. as the saying goes; give man a gun he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky High Shark View Post
    unsurprised, Banks get away with financing terrorists and drug cartels in this day and age. as the saying goes; give man a gun he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob the world.
    Really? Money laundering again? Come on... there are actual reasons to hate banks. They never laundered money (At least not Bank of America, the only American bank I recall being implicated). Their lackadaisical safeguards against laundering, however, allowed it to occur.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Really? Money laundering again? Come on... there are actual reasons to hate banks. They never laundered money (At least not Bank of America, the only American bank I recall being implicated). Their lackadaisical safeguards against laundering, however, allowed it to occur.
    HSBC pretty clearly engaged in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  5. #65
    I am Murloc! Sky High's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SO-CALI
    Posts
    5,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    Really? Money laundering again? Come on... there are actual reasons to hate banks. They never laundered money (At least not Bank of America, the only American bank I recall being implicated). Their lackadaisical safeguards against laundering, however, allowed it to occur.
    I can hate the banks for whatever god damn reason I want. and yes, HSBC did it, and I don't restrict my ire to American banks only, buddy boy. and I guess that is cause to I don't know....evaluate these so called safe guards?

  6. #66
    Things that are legal today can become illegal tomorrow - but only if the general public (the people) ferociously object and protest such obvious scams.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    HSBC pretty clearly engaged in it.
    Banks in Lebanon and other nations were implicated and discovered to have done it too. HSBC, however, is British.

    Even then, it was another case of incompetence rather than actively aiding the terrorist groups. HSBC was also one of the institutions who sat squarely at ground zero of the subprime crisis.

    Frankly I can't think of a better example of Hanlon's Razor.

    Besides all that, they WERE fined $1.9 billion.

  8. #68
    11:00 best part :d
    That guy (>'.')>


    How i would rate WoW Cinematics : WotLK>MoP>Vanilla=Cataclysm>TBC

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky High Shark View Post
    I can hate the banks for whatever god damn reason I want. and yes, HSBC did it, and I don't restrict my ire to American banks only, buddy boy. and I guess that is cause to I don't know....evaluate these so called safe guards?
    The safeguards weren't the problem. It was the implementation (or lack thereof) that was the problem.

    That said, HSBC and Bank of America were both catastrophically incompetent back in the mid-2000s.

    Frankly I'm not sure how the people at HSBC were able to overlook $800 million in unidentified transactions. If I overdraft my account by a penny, you bet your ass they notice and try to charge me that fee.

    I mean HONESTLY. The most effective safeguard is to just demand a pedigree for the cash that's being transferred when it's over a certain limit. Many banks did this before Congress decided it needed to be a law. Hilariously, as simple as that safeguard is... HSBC STILL found itself coming up short compared to every other bank in the nation.

    How are these morons still in business?

  10. #70
    I am Murloc! Sky High's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    SO-CALI
    Posts
    5,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    The safeguards weren't the problem. It was the implementation (or lack thereof) that was the problem.

    That said, HSBC and Bank of America were both catastrophically incompetent back in the mid-2000s.

    Frankly I'm not sure how the people at HSBC were able to overlook $800 million in unidentified transactions. If I overdraft my account by a penny, you bet your ass they notice and try to charge me that fee.

    I mean HONESTLY. The most effective safeguard is to just demand a pedigree for the cash that's being transferred when it's over a certain limit. Many banks did this before Congress decided it needed to be a law. Hilariously, as simple as that safeguard is... HSBC STILL found itself coming up short compared to every other bank in the nation.

    How are these morons still in business?
    because they pay the right people. isn't that obvious? and hey I guess millions are a drop in the bucket for international banks.

  11. #71
    Bloodsail Admiral Sykol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Alberta
    Posts
    1,227
    Quote Originally Posted by SodiumChloride View Post
    LOL. The pot calling the kettle black here. I think you are missing the point.

    Just because millions of other companies are doing morally bankrupt acts, leaching off society, doesn't mean you should just throw up your arms, give up and allow it.

    What kind of ridiculous logic is this?

    My "parody" is to illustrate just how absurd you position is.
    Alright, Corporate Avenger. Do your thing. Oh, sorry, what's that? Nothing you can do? Well, shit, then the rest of us are in the same boat.

    By the way, there's really nothing you can do to stop a serial killer, either. Like this, you can alert the proper authorities and hope for the best, but unless you're willing to get your hands real dirty, you're shit out of luck.
    Unfairly deleted signatures. Unfairly deleted signatures everywhere.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Sky High Shark View Post
    because they pay the right people. isn't that obvious? and hey I guess millions are a drop in the bucket for international banks.
    Surprisingly, HSBC didn't actually receive bailouts and never went insolvent. Apparently the US subsidiary is staffed by slack-jawed yokels who need constant reminders to breathe, forget about verifying money sources. Meanwhile the non-US operations seem top notch.

    So I'm not really sure who they would have paid/bribed to be kept afloat... since it was never an issue.

    When the US subsidiary cost the company $2 billion in fines, I can guarantee you that heads rolled. I don't know whose but I'm sure the names aren't hard to find.

  13. #73
    Stood in the Fire Confucius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    430
    don't worry, all will be well as soon as Obama is elected President... oh wait

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Confucius View Post
    don't worry, all will be well as soon as Obama is elected President... oh wait
    4 years ago a random poster on Reddit went off on a diatribe about how America had made a catastrophically bad choice in voting for Obama. He pointed out (100% correctly) that Obama was a younger, blacker version of McCain.

    Oh sure the parties were different, but their stances on key issues as told by their voting records were so similar that they may as well have been John Jackson and Jack Johnson from Futurama.

    Someone dug it up today and it's now on the front page. Read it for yourself. It hasn't been edited (There would be an '*').

    While Americans thought they were voting for Obama instead of McCain, they were simply voting for a Giant Douche instead of the Turd Sandwich.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    4 years ago a random poster on Reddit went off on a diatribe about how America had made a catastrophically bad choice in voting for Obama. He pointed out (100% correctly) that Obama was a younger, blacker version of McCain.

    Oh sure the parties were different, but their stances on key issues as told by their voting records were so similar that they may as well have been John Jackson and Jack Johnson from Futurama.

    Someone dug it up today and it's now on the front page. Read it for yourself. It hasn't been edited (There would be an '*').

    While Americans thought they were voting for Obama instead of McCain, they were simply voting for a Giant Douche instead of the Turd Sandwich.
    There's always something about the Presidency that turns candidates without a backbone or proper leadership qualities into general crap.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    There's always something about the Presidency that turns candidates without a backbone or proper leadership qualities into general crap.
    Who would've thought that Obama would have been able to mask his horrible principles better than Romney?

    I can't believe I'm going to say this but it seems that with every new development, Obama is trying to be remembered WORSE than Dubya.

    Hilarious semi-related note. Remember how enhanced protection for whistleblowers was on Obama's campaign platform? Yeah... it's not there anymore.

    Looks like Obama is trying to pull a Beyonce or a Bieber and remove embarassing data from the internet. I don't care who you are, it ain't happening.

  17. #77
    Bloodsail Admiral Vathdar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    There's always something about the Presidency that turns candidates without a backbone or proper leadership qualities into general crap.
    Nothing new there, all politicians do that, it's pretty disgusting. We have 2 big parties in Hungary, the socialist party that was in government last time tried increasing higher education tuition fee's that the other big party, the liberals campaigned against, they made it a major part of their campaign to win the parliamentary elections. The liberals get 2/3 majority in the parliament and then implement what they were campaigning against but even worse.
    Now the socialist party is doing the exact same thing as the liberals were before the last elections.

    Politicians just change their stance on issues whenever it suits them the most. You really can only vote for the lesser evil in a lot of countries...

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by Butler Log View Post
    In a democracy, the populace has a big say in who is in government, and can throw out their unethical representatives. Remember, a government does not need to turn a profit to stay in business.
    Throwing out unethical representatives isn't going to ensure the new ones are any better despite their track records/promises. Also it's not going to change the government's unethical practices.

    I will say though that we really put too much weight on the Presidency. When push comes to shove Bush was not to blame for the wars besides having to announce it and Obama is not to blame for the NSA bs or anything. Contrary to what we are told, there are higher-ups than the President and they're the ones making these calls and no matter who we elect, it's never going to change any of it.

    /tinfoil hat but I'm being serious.
    Last edited by Flaks; 2013-07-27 at 10:20 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by High Overlord Saurfang
    "I am he who watches they. I am the fist of retribution. That which does quell the recalcitrant. Dare you defy the Warchief? Dare you face my merciless judgement?"
    i7-860 @2.8GHz | Radeon HD 7770 | 8GB DDR3-1333MHz | Corsair CX 430W |

  19. #79
    Moderator chazus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    10,573
    I think the truly sad part, given that this is all true as presented, is that my reaction to it is. "Eh. Pretty much expected such."
    Gaming: Dual Intel Pentium III Coppermine @ 1400mhz + Blue Orb | Asus CUV266-D | GeForce 2 Ti + ZF700-Cu | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 | Whistler Build 2267
    Media: Dual Intel Drake Xeon @ 600mhz | Intel Marlinspike MS440GX | Matrox G440 | 1024mb Crucial PC-133 @ 166mhz | Windows 2000 Pro

    IT'S ALWAYS BEEN WANKERSHIM | Did you mean: Fhqwhgads
    "Three days on a tree. Hardly enough time for a prelude. When it came to visiting agony, the Romans were hobbyists." -Mab

  20. #80
    The Unstoppable Force Aeluron Lightsong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jaina Proudmoore's side. Always and forever.
    Posts
    23,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Flaks View Post
    Throwing out unethical representatives isn't going to ensure the new ones are any better despite their track records/promises. Also it's not going to change the government's unethical practices.

    I will say though that we really put too much weight on the Presidency. When push comes to shove Bush was not to blame for the wars besides having to announce it and Obama is not to blame for the NSA bs or anything. Contrary to what we are told, there are higher-ups than the President and they're the ones making these calls and no matter who we elect, it's never going to change any of it.

    /tinfoil hat but I'm being serious.
    Pretty sure that's not how it works.
    Blizzard do not destroy Jaina Proudmoore's character. Make her who she once was, not full of rage and vengeance.,If you are curious about me or about my writing aspirations, feel free to pst me. Paladin-Sorcerer at your service! http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...htsongg/simple https://twitter.com/Aeluron1989

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •