SkyDekker

Actually Sarbanes-Oxley may well have created a significant part of this mess the financial markets find themselves in. Specially some of the accounting rules and regulations that followed it. Mark-to-market accounting rules probably didn't help here..... A combination of things drove AIG towards bankruptcy, more specifically what happened in AIG's financial servoices division, which is by all accounts a very small part of the company. Its the part of the company that was dealing with credit default swaps. New rules and regulations force the company to provide a value to these swaps. Problem is, they are impossible to valuate. As those swaps started to lose value due to the mortgage crisis, new accounting rules forced AIG to make pure judgement calls and start write assests down, even though there is no market to really base those values on. That leads to a lobsided balance sheet....to the negative side, which means the company has to make cash injections to keep the balance. Then the all powerful credit agencies downgraded AIG, making it next to impossible for them to raise that capital... There is lots of blame to go around, and there is most certainly not one issue that caused this collapse, but more likely a whole string of issues that led to it. To me, Sarbanes-Oxley and the accounting rules and regulations that followed it had a significnt negative impact on it.

Priceless. It will be years before we will truly find out what happened. But I have this nagging feeling it isn't over yet....

Try the Sheraton. There are two right across from eachother. Sheraton Manhattan and Sheraton New York Towers on the east side of 7th Ave around 53rd street. I stayed at the Manhattan a couple of weeks ago at $280 a night. Meatpackers District is great for night time entertainment. Buddha Bar certainly recommended. For food, I love Tao, but bring your credit cards, two maritnis run around $38. (Oh and make a reservation now if you want to get in)

Not true. Better regulation could have avoided this mess. At best setting minimum standards for mortgages would have prevented a lot of this. Basic capitalism doesn't allow for that though. Since in simplistic terms people think that poor decisions by stupid people only effect those stupid people. Such is just not the case. The demise of AIG would have cost a lot more than just some jobs on Wal Street. It would have likely caused many banks throughout the world to collapse. AIG does not solely carry the risk of those bundled mortgage debts. AIG played a central role in the opaque credit markets in which all major financial institutions find risk sharing partners in their investment vehicles. A liquidation of AIG would have had catastrophic effects on the world finanicial market. Now here is another sideplay. Anybody remember Hank Greenberg? He was the Chief Executive of AIG, until he got canned about 3 years ago. Surprisingly , it was due to an accounting scandal. Well, good ol Hank has now hinted that he may just make a bid for the company as the largest individual share holder. Incidentally, prior to last nights developments, he saw his personal wealth reduced by $6 billion on the AIG share plmuge alone.......

I thought McCain's speech was ok. I have to admit that I fell asleep about three quarters of the way through, since he really is a bad speaker. Couple of things that I got from the speech. Incredibly light on any economic initiatives, even lighter than Obama's speech. Apparently Americans should vote for McCain cause he got shot down over Vietnam, cracked in the Hanoi Hilton, but survived. I did get a good chuckle when McCain spent quite some time on how he is going to reach across the aisle, be bipartisan. Specially after the speeches from his party faithful the nights before.

Should have thought about that before you gave a war monger a second term. How do you intend for your country to pay for its debt?

There has to be increased tax revenue of some sort to pay for the massive amounts of debt. Sticking your head in the sand and hoping you die before you have to deal with it isn't really good policy. That is how I see McCain behaving. You talk about wanting a president who is able to make unpopular decisions. Telling people that as a country you have to pay for the decisions of your President is unpopular, but still something that needs to be done. So, what you really seem to mean is that you want a president who can make unpopular decisions you don't have to pay for.

Are people really that mindless? Normiss copied it from a chain email that has been circulating. You know those same chain emails that promiss you millions if only you send some of your personal information.

How else do you intend to pay for the massive amounts of money the US has spent over the last couple of years? You are behaving like the typical person who maxes their credit cards and then gets upset that they have to pay back the money.

Easy statement to make, since we'll never know if it is true or not.

So out of the two candidates, non have executive experience. Out of the two VP candidates one has executive experience. That of running a small town and 2 years of running one of the least populated states in the US. And people should base their votes on that? (Never mind the fact that Bush had prior executive experience and that didn't bode him so well)

None, but McCain hasn't run any government either. Isn't that the guy the Republicans want for president?

true, I would think he has some lingering mental limitations from that experience as well.

I think she gave a great speech, very entertaining. Also light on substance, but I guess that isn't her job. To me the moments that will stand out the most are: Her pregnant daughter holding hands with her "boyfriend". It was so constant that some one must have told them to hold hands on not let go. The guy also had this constant look on his face.....the look of, fuck I don't want to be here....should have pulled out sooner. The second moment I will remember is how incredibly stiff McCain looked when he came on stage. He was walking around like some one had shoved a broomstick up his ass. Now the reason I will remember those two things mostly, is because she didn't bring any substance into her speech, so there is nothing of substance to discuss either.

Mike, I am so sorry to hear of your loss. As a father of three young kids, I cannot even come close to imagining the emotions you and your family are going through right now.

I am sure McCain will do much better next week and tell you line by line where all the money is going to come from.

I don't understand this sudden obsession with experience for Republicans? You have voted in Bush twice and his main expeience has come from running companies into the ground. It wasn't a deterrent then, why is it now?

Exactly, the most important issue for the USA right now is whether or not there should be any restriction on gun ownership. NOTHING is more important.

I hear some of the caterers once served OJ Simpson food.

That reminds me of a couple of decades ago when US car manufacturers never would have believed that foreign cars would actually even be an issue.

His comment was that he came their with the goal of olympic gold and didn't care about the world record at that time. He certainly didn't do it at the 200 m race, so he may have taken some of the comments to heart.

Specially since Michael had proclaimed in the press that Bolt would not be able to do that during the Olympics.

Because I speculate that gun insurance would be significantly higher. Risk of significantly higher pay outs and probably a smaller base to recoup the costs. probably a much higher risk of lengthy litigation as well, as I am sure somebody will stand up and go after the insurers for non-insured guns as well. But, like I said, that's just speculation. I personally like the idea of treating them the same.

Insurance is a requirement to operate a car on public roads (and on quite a few private lands as well), so I don't see how that would not be part of a discussion on treating guns and cars equally. certainly not a strawman. I agree that none of that has to do with purchase for home defense. Never said it did either. Just saying that if you do treat them the same most people would not be able to afford to carry in public.

I could easily go for that. You might be forgetting that the insurance premiums will likely be so high that only Bill Gates and Warren Buffet will be able to own guns and take them off private property.