Comments on: Corporate Sleigh Ride

By: pbr90

pbr90 — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:58:15 +0000

It’s a little curious that the barrier to discover mens rea is ignored in crimes like those of the bail out banks, and perhaps too much reliance upon corporate format and tradition that isn’t borne out by reality.

Where a corporation can be owned by a sole person, the corporate shield is a mere veil of deceit.
If veil is lifted, no preemptive immunity exists.

That there may be several corporate members who make up a corporation merely multiplies the deceivers, as in the case of the LLC. Mens rea is formed by registration of the entity in anticipation of avoiding mens rea to ignore its existence as pertinent to any crime, a.k.a., a license to steal, the way politicians or legislators earmark or steal through the privileges of immunity under the color of law and Constitutional privilege.

What is the difference?

By: wunsacon

wunsacon — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:48:13 +0000

Hey CNBC, even if you’re not going to maintain your own site, you’re going to keep reading Ritholtz I hope. Right?

By: CNBC Sucks

CNBC Sucks — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:21:26 +0000

Before I leave for Australia tomorrow, I just wanted to let everyone know that I have handed “custody” of CNBC Sucks to an old b-school buddy, George. CNBC Sucks is about to enter a new era of lameness (some of you would say, it’s the same old era of lameness), so if anyone wants to write your own rant post about CNBC, consider this: http://cnbcsucks.wordpress.com/2008/12/19/why-dont-you-blog-about-cnbc-on-cnbc-sucks/

Mannwich and leftback, I think retirement is final this time. Thank you all for the page views, and thanks especially to Barry Ritholtz.

By: constantnormal

constantnormal — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 05:11:43 +0000

@BR — OT (whatever this topic is, exactly)

So when are we going to see you plugging Bailout Nation on Letterman? And is the publisher flying you to Hollywood to do Leno’s show?

By: AGG

AGG — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:43:16 +0000

ASSUME = Make an ASS out of U and ME.
If there’s a way to get you to drop your guard, somebody out there is waiting for the chance to hit you with it. They may not be out to get you but you can be sure they are out to get your money.

By: AGG

AGG — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:40:52 +0000

Paranoid attitude:
Now that is something we could have used to reveal truth but didn’t because of peer pressure and media bullshit. We need to totallydispence with the nefit of the doubt for institutions crap. We need to stop assuming that “they” wouldn’t dare do such a thing. We need more paranoia.

By: AGG

AGG — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:35:08 +0000

jojo,
Good one! Thanks for a good laugh.
You too, Barry.

By: AGG

AGG — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:27:26 +0000

Dl,
The point is that the ENTIRE network of information we rely on is questionable. Protect yourself.

By: DL

DL — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:25:43 +0000

dig1 9:41

I read the article (by James Conrad). He makes too many points to comment on, but the tone seemed a bit paranoid. I don’t think that Bernanke is quite that sinister. I do agree, in part, with the following point:

“By avoiding the use of monitored Congressional funds, the Fed has embarked on a secretive campaign to buy toxic assets. They have refused to give any accounting of their activities, even though they are using taxpayer money to do this”

Yes, the Fed is buying assets from banks, to the tune of about 3 trillion dollars so far. No doubt many of them are “toxic”. But I don’t think it’s accurate to say that they are using taxpayer money. At the moment, the Fed is simply creating money, and lending against the assets. The 3 trillion dollar question, of course, is what those assets are really worth. And the answer, no doubt, is a lot less than what the Fed has paid for them. So unless those assets rise in value significantly through the normal course of events, one of two things will have to occur: (a) the Fed will have to print more dollars to make those assets rise in value, or (b) the shortfall will have to be added to the deficit (at some point). But I do think it’s inaccurate to say that the Fed is using taxpayer money at this point in time. That the Fed is doing this is not a secret; what is secret is the actual market-to-market value of the assets they have lent against.

All of this, combined with the various other backstops (of Fannie and Freddie, and of Citicorp assets) is very bullish for gold (in my opinion, and the opinion of many others). In the short run (the next 2-3 months), I think gold could go lower. But it should hit bottom soon if it hasn’t already. A price of at least $2000 for gold within three years seems attainable.

By: Transor Z

Transor Z — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 03:02:46 +0000

What’s up with the submarine cables getting cut? They’re saying major financial disruptions in the Middle East, possibly thru 12/31:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7792688.stm

http://www.dailywireless.org/2008/01/30/oceanic-fiber-cut/

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/04/technology/cables.php