Yes Scrappy. Glad to hear about the stability, but sorry to here the cause of the problem in the first place. Here's hoping it was a major isolated slip instead of part of longer-term step backwards.

This guy being a dick has nothing to do with the economics of the credit crunch.

I wish I understood this better. It's freaking me out, and I have no idea what it all is, and how it rights itself. Every time I try and figure it out, my eyes glaze over from financial jargon.

This guy being a dick has nothing to do with the economics of the credit crunch.

It sounds like he was fined for being a dick during his deposition, not because they blame him for the credit crunch.

Can anyone explain to me why the water supply is a public utility and the electric and gas lines are private companies, even though they essentially have a regional monopoly? I mean, I can't choose which provider to use for my electricity, and they maintain the lines. Which, okay, but why aren't they a public utility and water is?

Probably the work of the same logic wizards who have the trains in this country be a public entity while the tracks are privately owned.

bon bon, I'll agree you have a point but think "rubbish" is a bit strong. It isn't so much that the guy was a dick (though if anything, that's a mild way of putting it). It's that he seemed to consider himself above the rules -- a relative of "the old rules no longer apply" attitude that governed during the boom times.

And based on what was said in the Legal Intelligence article, I have to admire opposing counsel for keeping cool in such a trying situation.

I do think being a dick might have been connected to him being a CEO. You don't generally get that kind of job by being a nice guy (I know there are exceptions).

Allyson, check this out: brenda m "Natter 57 Varieties" Mar 20, 2008 6:17:52 am PDT

bon bon, I'll agree you have a point but think "rubbish" is a bit strong. It isn't so much that the guy was a dick (though if anything, that's a mild way of putting it). It's that he seemed to consider himself above the rules -- a relative of "the old rules no longer apply" attitude that governed during the boom times.

Well, the credit crunch is caused by the actions of hundreds of people in the market, of which I can state with confidence, do not act like this guy. Sort of the most ridic ad hominem I've ever seen. In general, I think any argument that relies on everyone involved being mendacious or dumb has extremely poor explanatory power.

ETA: I also really don't agree that it had something to do with the old rules not applying, which is a narrative that has dominated in the past ten years or so that moralizes people in the market taking risks. There's no moral here. The capital markets are about taking risks. One time in a hundred, the risk will have a catastrophic effect. It happens. It doesn't mean the people who do it are stupid or evil.

wish I understood this better. It's freaking me out, and I have no idea what it all is, and how it rights itself. Every time I try and figure it out, my eyes glaze over from financial jargon.

Don't feel bad. I can't explain it to Bob Bob, and he has an econ degree and his father is a professor of finance.

As far as the water vs. electricity/gas, I assume it is because water is a resource controlled by the government, and electricity and gas are privately generated resources.

Can anyone explain to me why the water supply is a public utility and the electric and gas lines are private companies, even though they essentially have a regional monopoly?

I blame Reagan.

(Anyway, up here, electric and gas are so heavily regulated they're quasi-public entities anyway.)

I went to Yahoo News to check on the basketball scores and noticed that one of the headlines is about one of my studies. Not that the description has much to do with the study, which was a mathematical model of social perception:

[link]