The financial collapse was a result of mistakes, not crimes.

Absolutely false.

-> In America there have been just a handful of criminal charges brought against senior executives of banks, and even fewer successful convictions. This is very different from the response of prosecutors in earlier banking crises, such as the meltdown of Savings & Loans institutions in America in the 1980s. In that case more than 1,000 bankers were convicted for their misdeeds.

-> William K. Black [senior regulator who pursued offenders during the savings and loan crisis] tells Bill Moyers on the JOURNAL that the tool at the very center of mortgage collapse, creating triple-A rated bonds out of "liars' loans" — loans issued without verifying income, assets or employment — was a fraud, and the banks knew it. And while there is no law against liars' loans, Black points out that there are, "many laws against fraud, and liars' loans are fraudulent. [...] They involve deceit, which is the essence of fraud. "

-> Winner of the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2010, The Inside Job chronicles the fraud behavior which led to the financial crisis of 2008 and the recession.

The key word is "control fraud."

Banning revolving door employment deals isn't a good solution either. The government already has enough trouble attracting good people. If you want people that know how the system works, you need to hire people that have worked in the system. After their stint in government is over, those people expect to continue in their profession.

This is a common misconception. The financial system is mathematical but nowhere near rocket science. The majors of Wall Street executives clearly indicate this (I knew a fellow who became a senior executive at GS. A hypercompetitive jock with average intelligence).

Another case in point: Hank Paulson, former Goldman Sachs CEO, and former Treasury Secretary who crafted the bailouts. His undergraduate major? English.

End the revolving door. And firewall regulators from politicians.

Banning revolving door employment deals isn't a good solution either. The government already has enough trouble attracting good people. If you want people that know how the system works, you need to hire people that have worked in the system. After their stint in government is over, those people expect to continue in their profession.

This is a common misconception. The financial system is mathematical but nowhere near rocket science. The majors of Wall Street executives clearly indicate this (I knew a fellow who became a senior executive at GS. A hypercompetitive jock with average intelligence). Obfuscation has been the shield behind which Wall Street hid for many years during the 2000s. There are plenty of sharp people who can work as regulators. It is a different mindset from the money-at-any-cost Wall Street executive and they don't understand it. But it's there.

End the revolving door. With it, regulation becomes ineffectual. A farce.

Additionally, regulators need to be firewalled against politicians' retribution. The big donors give big money to politicians. They don't complain to the regulator, they complain to the politicians who defund and reassign departments pursuing the donor.

Example attacks are listed on Red Hat's security blog.

1) On the one hand, it seems to be fair to force users - be they companies or individuals - to pay based on usage. Based on how many packets they put on the network. Currently they do not do that. What they do is to pay for their connection. If you want a very high speed connection, you pay for that. The ISP won't guarantee that speed, except in bursts. Kind of like how a 2 x 4 piece of lumber is really 1.5 x 3.5. Conflicts arise when people try to use the full connection bandwidth in a sustained manner.

2) On the other hand, lack of net neutrality would open the floodgates for corporations to manipulate traffic. To create slow and fast lanes, to favor content, to create yet another pricing tier for American consumers who already pay among the highest prices in the world for high speed internet.

Based on the fact the government is already under regulatory capture (head of FCC is a telecom executive, head of FDA is a Monsanto executive, 2nd in command at the central bank is a Citigroup executive, etc, etc), allowing net neutrality to be defeated will result in a bad outcome for consumers.

Net neutrality is not perfect, but it's much better than ceding more control to cable companies.

The less you understand the company, the more attractive it is. I suspect the opacity of its operations are a draw.

I remember the tech bubble: "Two guys with a server and a dream" could make millions (on paper). If they cashed out quickly enough, they could turn it into currency.

As "crony capitalism" grows, the oligarchy is once again ascendant.

The real source is this Washington Post article(s). [washingtonpost.com]

Q.E.D.

I track my calories quite closely. Have for a few years now. Late last year, I went off meds - steroid-based - that I'd taken for decades for a chronic condition which had gone away. In the course of about 2 months, I gained ten pounds without changing my caloric intake. Freaked me out because I'd worked so hard to lose the weight.

That strongly suggested to me that there are in fact, other factors at play than just calorie balance. Calorie balance is a significant component but there seem to be other significant factors at play as well.

When you see a claim that a common drug or vitamin "kills cancer cells in a petri dish," keep in mind: So does a handgun.

Also, it seems to me that making rulings in order to achieve desired social outcomes rather than based on reasonable interpretations of the law undermines the rule of law.