Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WikiLeaks: Banks, Dec 2010  
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2890 posts, RR: 8
Posted (3 years 11 months 7 hours ago) and read 2883 times:

Oh my,

What next ?  Wow!

Things are not looking good at all for these banks, whoever they might be ?

Goldmans were mentioned in the interview, but Assange did not confirm one way or the other.

I wonder whats going to come out when he reveals all in the leaks,not just the banks, but the corporate world too ?

Might be time to pull your money out for a while, at least until it blows over.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/tec...-a-bank-or-two-20101130-18emh.html


Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13141 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2871 times:

I wonder if it could be Bank of America, which has been in a lot of trouble over the Countrywide deal and a major figure in the mortgage mess due to their buyout of them. Some would love BoA to get it. It's just too bad the info will ruin the bank, but I hope it ruins the executives that really made the deals on the mortgage market that will really ruin it.

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2856 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1):
I wonder if it could be Bank of America, which has been in a lot of trouble over the Countrywide deal and a major figure in the mortgage mess due to their buyout of them. Some would love BoA to get it. It's just too bad the info will ruin the bank, but I hope it ruins the executives that really made the deals on the mortgage market that will really ruin it

Tend to agree. I always thought the senior managers/execs at banks had a fiduciary responsibility towards the stockholders to act in the best interest of them, not themselves. That means more conservative loan/mortgage practices, for one thing. Not screwing with the stock price to get the P/E up and max out their options/bonuses.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 1):
It's just too bad the info will ruin the bank, but I hope it ruins the executives that really made the deals on the mortgage market that will really ruin it.

No idea what that sentence was supposed to say  
Quoting TheCommodore (Thread starter):
Goldmans were mentioned in the interview, but Assange did not confirm one way or the other.

Oh boy, Sachs is already settling privately with the government on various fraud charges. This could get excited - competitors must be salivating.

Something tells me a few bank CEOs are going to sprout a few new grey hairs in the coming weeks.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinedeltaownsall From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2844 times:

Because bringing down behemoth banks is really a service to the people?   Crook bankers absolutely deserve to be held accountable for their actions, but "Too big to fail" is not just a tag-line to fool main street, and we'll all feel the pain if a bank like BAC actually falls. Are any of us are still under the delusion that Assange really wants to help anyone but himself?

[Edited 2010-11-29 19:48:26]

User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2890 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2833 times:

Quoting deltaownsall (Reply 4):
Because bringing down behemoth banks is really a service to the people? Crook executives absolutely deserve to be held accountable for their actions, but "Too big to fail" is not just a tag-line to fool main street, and we'll all feel the pain if a bank like BAC actually falls. Are any of us are still under the delusion that Assange really wants to help anyone but himself?

If what you say is correct, "and we'll all feel the pain" I presume you mean Assange too. Then I can't see this will help him in any way ?



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinedeltaownsall From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2826 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 5):

I'd imagine he'd be a little more prepared than most of us. But I didn't mean to imply that he'd gain financially, though I'm sure there is a way that could be arranged. Assange seems to run more on narcissism and some sort of power complex than anything else.


User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 37
Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 6 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

So depending on which banks are involved, and which other banks have exposure to the dodgy banks, we might we have to withdraw all of our funds ahead of that. Better yet, let's all do that anyway. We'll have a financial disaster.

User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2752 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 5):
If what you say is correct, "and we'll all feel the pain" I presume you mean Assange too. Then I can't see this will help him in any way ?

The average person would be hurt, but just like George Soros did when he took down the British Pound, if you know what's coming and put your funds in the right place, you can make a ton.

This guy is dangerous. There is no knowing how many people have already died because of his leaks (probably hundreds, by now), and if the guy starts getting his kicks by destroying businesses costing thousands or even millions of people their jobs and investments, then I say it's time for him to be taken out of the picture, one way or another.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21693 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2732 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
This guy is dangerous. There is no knowing how many people have already died because of his leaks (probably hundreds, by now), and if the guy starts getting his kicks by destroying businesses costing thousands or even millions of people their jobs and investments, then I say it's time for him to be taken out of the picture, one way or another.

If not him, it would be someone else. What you're really talking about doing is taking the internet out of the picture. And that's not happening.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 5 hours ago) and read 2713 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 9):
There is no knowing how many people have already died because of his leaks (probably hundreds, by now), and if the guy starts getting his kicks by destroying businesses costing thousands or even millions of people their jobs and investments, then I say it's time for him to be taken out of the picture, one way or another.

You're still missing the point with all this knee-jerk blame the messenger stuff. In the internet age, it is increasingly impossible to hide wrongdoing. Henceforth, the basic MO should be - don't do anything you don't want the public to find out about. Whistleblowing is not a new practice, but in this vein, it is an entirely different animal than it once was. Swifter, more penetrating, and with rapid results from a PR standpoint. Offing a guy or two is only going to bolster public reactions to this kind of activity.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 10):

You're still missing the point with all this knee-jerk blame the messenger stuff. In the internet age, it is increasingly impossible to hide wrongdoing.

What??? Are you saying that US officials should not be sending frank assessments of their counterparts to their superiors? That they shouldn't report who they feel has the influence and who doesn't on different topics? If diplomats cannot act discretely, do you think that Nixon could have opened up China, or that Begin and Sadat would have signed a peace agreement?

There is no redeeming value of these leaks. People will die because of them in large numbers.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4025 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
What??? Are you saying that US officials should not be sending frank assessments of their counterparts to their superiors? That they shouldn't report who they feel has the influence and who doesn't on different topics? If diplomats cannot act discretely, do you think that Nixon could have opened up China, or that Begin and Sadat would have signed a peace agreement?

Some people just don't understand that there is no diplomacy other than "back-door diplomacy". By its very nature diplomacy must be secret. But then again, I am sure there are people who believe diplomatic cable should be replaced by Twitter, so there's nothing we can do to reason with them.

The ironic things is that this is being released by a guy who claims to be doing this because he is against war, which must mean he is a) pro-diplomacy or b) pro-taking a shaft like a man and turning the other face. If a), then he just set back the very alternative he defends multiple decades.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlinembmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2466 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
People will die because of them in large numbers.

Thanks for that expert speculation.

Can I play the people-will-die card too?


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8640 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2430 times:

People die for lots of reasons. The truth, being one reason. Occasionally it's good for people to see the truth. Regarding wars, I can't see that Assange has invaded a single country. Just because the truth causes an uproar, does not negate the importance of knowing it. As a democracy, I see a benefit to leaks. Even the international relations... it seemed cleansing, more than anything. The world has a lot of crises right now, and we need a new perspective.

User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
Are you saying that US officials should not be sending frank assessments of their counterparts to their superiors? That they shouldn't report who they feel has the influence and who doesn't on different topics? If diplomats cannot act discretely, do you think that Nixon could have opened up China, or that Begin and Sadat would have signed a peace agreement?

I was actually referring to the banking industry in the post you quoted. I've expressed my misgivings about the diplomatic cables in the other thread - it makes the US look bad because whether it was an Army intel guy who did it (as the case may be) or someone in the DOS, it presents the appearance of total lack of control over our own people and intel. However the silver lining is that all this backroom stuff gets put out in the open and instead of 10 years of debate over Iran, perhaps now someone will simply do something dumb and accelerate the process.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
People will die because of them in large numbers.

People die because of hamburgers too - not sure what the point of this is.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinedeltaownsall From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 15):
People die because of hamburgers too - not sure what the point of this is.

Logical fallacy. The fact that someone will eventually/inevitably die of some indeterminable cause doesn't make killing them or risking their life today any more justifiable. Kind of ironic in regards to the wikileaks video release earlier this year, entitled "Collateral Murder."


User currently offlinembmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2321 times:

Quoting deltaownsall (Reply 16):
The fact that someone will eventually/inevitably die of some indeterminable cause doesn't make killing them or risking their life today any more justifiable.

Actually, your sentence above seems to point to fallacious reasoning. "Eventually/inevitably die" from some "indeterminable" cause? If the words "eventual", "inevitable", and "indeterminable" are all in one sentence how can one assert cause and effect? You're already acknowledging, by basis of your sentence, that they are indirectly linked.

So we make rules about things based on speculative, indirect, eventual, indeterminable links?


User currently offlinedeltaownsall From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2311 times:

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 17):

Substitute "indeterminable cause" with "hamburgers"   How easy is it to prove cause and effect in a "death by hamburgers" situation, anyways?

Taking a step back from the philosophical abyss, there is little speculation over the inevitability of death. The inevitability, however, does not mean that you can say "well, if I hadn't shot him today, something (hamburgers, perhaps) would have gotten him eventually, so it's ok." Or "lots of things can kill you, so it's of little matter if a wikileaks release gets you shot today instead of you dying of old age 50 years from now." Cause of death does matter, right?

Similarly, an uncontained failure of a major bank could very well cause a catastrophic collapse of the global financial system, causing huge loss of wealth (not just for the fatcats) all around the world, even worse unemployment, etc.

[Edited 2010-11-30 11:43:52]

User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2302 times:

Quoting deltaownsall (Reply 16):
The fact that someone will eventually/inevitably die of some indeterminable cause doesn't make killing them or risking their life today any more justifiable.
Quoting deltaownsall (Reply 18):
How easy is it to prove cause and effect in a "death by hamburgers" situation, anyways?

Very. Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and is primarily caused by the large deposits of saturated fats found in red meat and hydrogenated cooking oils. Still not sure how that claim had any weight.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinembmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2295 times:

Quoting deltaownsall (Reply 18):
The inevitability, however, does not mean that you can say "well, if I hadn't shot him today, something (hamburgers, perhaps) would have gotten him eventually, so it's ok."

And I think you're missing a vital point. Using your example above - "...if I hadn't shot him today...", you are assuming that leaks have definitely led to deaths or will lead to deaths. You've made quite a leap. Even the Pentagon has acknowledged there are no known deaths due to the leaks. So you've skipped past an important step.

Quoting deltaownsall (Reply 18):
Similarly, an uncontained failure of a major bank...

Once again, disclosures by Wikileaks about insolvency leading to financial ruin will always be merely conjecture. Did the leak speed the inevitable process up or did it cause the failure?

Are you willing to sacrifice truth and full disclosure based on speculation? That is truly an authoritarian mode of thinking.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8184 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2289 times:

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 20):
Are you willing to sacrifice truth and full disclosure based on speculation? That is truly an authoritarian mode of thinking.

Seriously couldn't have put it better.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlinedeltaownsall From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2277 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
Coronary artery disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and is primarily caused by the large deposits of saturated fats found in red meat and hydrogenated cooking oils.

Of course, but 100% correlation is impossible. How likely is it that a chronic hamburger eater kept a healthy overall lifestyle? That eating hamburgers was his only unhealthy habit? I realize that you were just throwing hamburgers out there to prove a separate point, but so was I. We don't want to get too off track here...

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 20):
And I think you're missing a vital point. Using your example above - "...if I hadn't shot him today...", you are assuming that leaks have definitely led to deaths or will lead to deaths. You've made quite a leap.

Fair enough. I agree that we (or at least I) don't know of any specific deaths as a result of wikileaks yet. For this reason you can say that I was speaking hypothetically in the case that the leaks have or at least will in the future cause at least one death, which I still think is very likely.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 20):
Did the leak speed the inevitable process up or did it cause the failure?

I'm not sure exactly what we'll be getting from the leaks, but in the fragile/panicky world of finance, loss of confidence in an institution, state, etc. can certainly cause a collapse where there would not have otherwise been one.

Quoting mbmbos (Reply 20):
Are you willing to sacrifice truth and full disclosure based on speculation? That is truly an authoritarian mode of thinking.

Call it authoritarian if you like, but I have no problem declaring on the record that 100% transparency across the board is irresponsible and dangerous. Still, there is a great divide between life under the "Washington" government, and life under truly authoritarian regimes.


User currently offlinembmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2254 times:

Quoting deltaownsall (Reply 22):
...can certainly cause a collapse where there would not have otherwise been one.

And yet this is still a speculative statement. Fact free no less. Certainly, a lot of things can cause other things to happen. Do you really think the world is safer and more financially secure because of limited disclosure?

Quoting deltaownsall (Reply 22):
Still, there is a great divide between life under the "Washington" government, and life under truly authoritarian regimes.

The "great divide" has gotten a whole lot narrower.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

The US administration does not seem to be too interested in going after Assange, but it appears the Russians are pissed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...-russians-play-by-different-rules/

Quote:
American intelligence and law-enforcement agencies, outraged by their inability to stop WikiLeaks and its release this week of hundreds of thousands of sensitive U.S. diplomatic cables, are convinced that the whistleblowing website is about to come up against an adversary that will stop at nothing to shut it down: the Russian government.

As U.S. officials struggle to control damage from the secret cables exposed by Wikileaks, Russia is planning to block a similar dump about the Kremlin.

National-security officials say that the National Security Agency, the U.S. government’s eavesdropping agency, has already picked up tell-tale electronic evidence that WikiLeaks is under close surveillance by the Russian FSB, that country’s domestic spy network, out of fear in Moscow that WikiLeaks is prepared to release damaging personal information about Kremlin leaders.

....

Assange has courted attacks from the Russian government, telling a reporter from the pro-government daily newspaper Izvestia last month that WikiLeaks had obtained damaging information “about Russia, about your government and businessmen” and “we will publish these materials soon.” Another WikiLeaks spokesman was quoted as describing the Russian government as “despotic.”

.....

Russian intelligence agencies have suggested, none too subtly, that WikiLeaks could be destroyed through cyberwarfare methods if the whistleblowing site did begin to create trouble in Moscow. Last month, the Russian news agency Life News quoted an official from the FSB’s Center for Information Security as saying that the government would be capable of organizing “the right team” to target WikiLeaks and “shut it down forever.”

And within an hour of this report the Wikileak site was brought down:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/11/...eaks-hit-by-powerful-cyber-attack/
What's the Russian version of 'cement overshoes'?

Assange has the arrogance, narcissism, and stupidity to follow through with his threats and the Russians won’t have any of it I’m thinking. Even now he is lecturing Hillary Clinton to resign:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2033771,00.html

In his twisted mind he thinks he has the world on its knees, and while Obama is most certainly a man who can be pushed around, I find it highly unlikely Vladimir Putin is (as much as I dislike him).



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 Aaron747 : Well of course not - remember what Ahmedinejad said? This is all a big CIA psy-op designed to turn the world against Iran. LOL
26 Yellowstone : More important than any arrogance, narcissism, or stupidity - he has the ability to follow through with his threats. It is impossible to expunge data
27 Post contains images deltaownsall : We are still talking about an event that we don't know much about, which may happen in the future. I don't see any way around speculation if we're go
28 RayChuang : I want to see if Wikileaks can dig up "dirt" on the Goldman Sachs dealings since 1999 that has caused so much financial grief around the world. I thin
29 Aaron747 : Jesus H. Christ, where did you come up with that idea? Intriguing, to say the least.
30 TheRedBaron : I want to play too...did you know that deaths cause by cold are 10 times higher than those by heat?... 100% transparency is required for a government
31 Post contains images CPH-R : You mean to tell me that WikiLeaks, that beacon of openness is keeping secrets of their own? By their own standards, that file should have been decry
32 Pyrex : Tell me this, yes or no: from now on should all diplomatic business be conducted on Twitter instead of diplomatic cable? Come on, simple question, si
33 TheRedBaron : yes. A democratic country that respects other countries doesnt need secrets and backstabbing and such. Remember that 150 years ago someone said: The r
34 Aaron747 : Um the nature of realpolitik, which is how nations conduct their business, demands holding things in confidence and playing sides to get the desired
35 Flighty : I agree that private citizens should enjoy a little privacy. But governments, neither here nor there. This is a little bit like embarrassing Facebook
36 Pyrex : Wow, can't believe you actually took the bait. So you actually believe that there should be no government e-mail addresses? Any time anyone working f
37 TheRedBaron : I guess you are a true diplomat since I never said that government should NOT have Emails. Kind of saying that they need to use invisible ink so we n
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
When Do You Take Down The Decorations? posted Sat Dec 27 2008 02:51:12 by Dragon-wings
Click Link For A Laugh Or Two posted Mon Dec 8 2008 12:21:18 by Luv2fly
Your Gas Station Or Two Of Choice posted Sun Jun 3 2007 00:20:56 by STLGph
Bush Busts A Move Or Two posted Thu Apr 26 2007 12:57:00 by CPH-R
Trance/Dance Tune "Take Control" Or Something posted Sat Mar 10 2007 21:12:55 by Kay
Nice Take Down By Las Vegas Metro Police posted Mon Nov 6 2006 08:18:34 by AAFLT1871
I Think I've Created A Monster (or Two)! posted Tue Oct 31 2006 09:34:34 by Carmenlu15
What A Strange Call ... Or Two Actually ... posted Mon Aug 28 2006 00:25:58 by NoUFO
One Or Two Mac-Related Questions posted Fri Aug 25 2006 14:13:13 by NoUFO
GMU About To Take Down UConn? posted Sun Mar 26 2006 23:30:52 by USAFHummer