Posted by: Frank G ||
03/20/2023 09:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11126 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Those "law students" have no idea about the law or the Constitution. If any of those losers get a degree and if they pass any Bar exam wait until they get in front of a real judge. Epic fail.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
03/20/2023 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Deacon Blues, most of them are getting a degree to become members of the nomenklatura ...being a lawyer is work!
#6
#2 Deacon Blues, most of them are getting a degree to become members of the nomenklatura ...being a lawyer is work!
Posted by magpie 2023-03-20 10:22|| 2023-03-20 10:22||
Magpie,
Spot on! They have no intention of ever practicing for as much as a minute in the defense or benefit of others - this is for revolutionary cred, no more, no less.
#7
getting a degree to become members of the nomenklatura
That’s an awful lot of debt to take on — though it’s my understanding that most lawyers do not make pots of money. The alternative career path would have to be pretty lucrative to make the law degree pay off...
#8
perhaps many get to be in the University DEI graft
perhaps others get to be in the Corporate ESG graft
also good cred to get hired by the hundreds of lefty NGOs
Posted by: lord garth ||
03/20/2023 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
#7 It'll turn out to be free when the Young Pioneers get their loan bailout. The entirety of the Left knew this would happen which is why they flooded the university with willing activists. They knew the game and we bet they couldn't pull it off. We lost.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/20/2023 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/20/2023 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Accepting all those previous comments, and recognizing al the chemical hazards, I wonder if there's another agenda here.
The overall rate for cancers of all types was 3% higher, the AP noted.
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/20/2023 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
^ #5
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/20/2023 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The rates of cancer among flight crews have been higher for decades. This is not new.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
03/20/2023 20:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"But in a yearlong study of almost 900,000 service members who flew on or worked on military aircraft between 1992 and 2017, the Pentagon found that air crew members had an 87% higher rate of melanoma and a 39% higher rate of thyroid cancer...."
"The military health system database used in the study did not have reliable cancer data until 1990 — so it may not have included pilots who flew early-generation jets in the prior decades."
#10
I recall the British Airways did exposure tests on Concorde pilots and found they had to limit flight crew time based on exposure to radiation at altitude. The pilots etc were getting more dosage than was permitted for Nuke plant workers.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
03/20/2023 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
[AmericanThinker] This week, a lot of attention has been focused on the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank. It is, in fact, a story of faulty accounting practices, poor government oversight, and the effects of government micromanaging markets at the same time that it fails in its oversight responsibilities. And you will be paying for it.
ACCOUNTING SHENANIGANS
Over at the Wall Street Journal, William L. Silber explains this better than anyone, and in terms anyone who ever purchased a government bond can understand. They are safe. The problem is liquidity:
SVB held tens of billions of dollars in long-term government bonds. On its face, this may seem like a prudent investment for a bank, but Treasury securities are riskless only when held to maturity. If you have to sell before then, you can easily lose money if market rates have risen since you first purchased the bond. For example, buying a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond with a 2% coupon at par and holding it for 10 years earns you 2% per annum. But if you sell early and rates have jumped -- say, 4% since you bought the bond -- then the price will have declined to about $838 per $1,000 face value, meaning you incur a loss of $162 per $1,000 bond.
The bank officers know, or certainly should know that is the case, and when the Federal Reserve increases interest those bonds are worth far less than an accounting system which shows it as a “held to maturity” item. You have incurred a loss if you have to cash it before maturity. But even so the income from the bond is listed as income, allowing the bank officers and managers to reward themselves handsomely for the “profits” on investment. Now you’d think federal regulators would know this, and they probably did, but looked the other way, for which they seem not to be held accountable.
SVB ... held about $90 billion of its $120 billion bond portfolio in its held-to-maturity investment account. As interest rates rose over the past few years, SVB did little to hedge against its exposure to rate hikes. So when depositors came demanding cash, the bank had far less than its book showed.
But that’s not all there is to the story. Read the rest at the link
#1
Shareholders and certain unsecured debt holders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law.
So the 'good' banks and investors must now cover the bad bank and it's investors. I believe the new term is a "socialized loss."
#2
I believe Nouriel Roubini, not exactly an Austrian economist, said 10-15 years ago something like "profits are privatized while losses are socialized".
#4
I don't know how much more of "having the adults back in charge" the country can take.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/20/2023 7:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
For example, buying a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond with a 2% coupon at par and holding it for 10 years earns you 2% per annum.
Will that 2% per annum cover inflation?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/20/2023 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#6
So it does appear that they had many more bad loans than has been apparent. And I guess that that is the reason why the FDIC swooped in.
If the only problem were the long-term treasuries underwater, SVB could have borrowed money from the Fed and ridden out the storm until the Fed lowered rates again (I know, I know, no conflict of interest here) and the treasuries returned to par. That is what the Fed is for, and its Regulation A (hint: the very first regulation) covers lending to banks. Since that did not happen, there has to be more than just the treasury maturity mismatch. And bad loans, depending on vast federal subsidies, appear to be the ultimate culprit.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/20/2023 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
[AmericanThinker] This week, a lot of attention has been focused on the collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank. It is, in fact, a story of faulty accounting practices, poor government oversight, and the effects of government micromanaging markets at the same time that it fails in its oversight responsibilities. And you will be paying for it.
