The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
“As a lifelong member of the Columbia Business School community, I adhere to the principles of truth, integrity, and respect. I will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.”
"Capitalism ho!"
Net effects of this: people who had bonuses in their contract this year will lose them. Future contracts will put more money in salary, less in bonuses, reducing flexibility re personnel decisions. Financial firms which have the means will repay TARP money ASAP to prevent future meddling by Congress, reducing efficacy of TARP.
Also, AIG loses a bunch of people who have specific knowledge as to their books. US taxpayer loses money as AIG has to hire new people who take time to get up to speed.
Also, AIG loses a bunch of people who have specific knowledge as to their books. US taxpayer loses money as AIG has to hire new people who take time to get up to speed.
I'm not sure I buy the arguement that the people who destroyed the company are the only ones that can give it a proper burial if only because of the results thier so-called expertise have given us so far.
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
For those who aspire to live in a high cost, high tax, big government place, our nation and the world offers plenty of options. Vermont, Canada and Venezuela all offer you the opportunity to live in the socialist, big government paradise you long for. –Senator Rubio
Financial firms which have the means will repay TARP money ASAP to prevent future meddling by Congress, reducing efficacy of TARP.
That assumes that banks with enough capital to pay back TARP money will be allowed to pay it back even if they wanted to. As you may have heard, US Bank's CEO Richard Davis made a splash last month with public comments that TARP money was (at least implicitly) foisted on even healthy banks like his, with not only strings attached but also a number of retroactive impositions in subsequent months, and that he and colleagues from other healthy banks actually would like to return it but are simply unable.
I got a chance to talk to the Chief Compliance Officer of [let's just say a "major bank," I don't want to get his ass in a sling over private comments] a few weeks ago about this very issue, and his understanding was that the TARP infusion originally had a number of limitations against any "3-year return," for instance. As you probably know, regulators are now engaged in a meticulous "stress testing" of all TARP recipients' balance sheets and discounted cashflows to get a better handle on who needs what for how long, and the CCO's opinion was that ["major bank"] might be able to return the money after that process satisfies regulators that they really don't need it and there's no systemic risk posed by a return. But the bottom line is that they're stuck with the money, its regulatory strings, and its undeniable equity-investment-deterring stigma for the time being even if they wanted to give it back.
I'm not sure I buy the arguement that the people who destroyed the company are the only ones that can give it a proper burial if only because of the results thier so-called expertise have given us so far.
What's the basis of your assumption that A) the group of people who destroyed the company through 2008 and B) the bonus-receiving group of people presently handling the "wind down" of Financial Products Division are necessarily coextensive?
Ed Liddy's not the only executive there who wasn't last year, and in his testimony he was adamant that the most egregiously destructive people from FPD are "long gone," so I'm genuinely curious exactly whom you think is there now that was then. Since the names of bonus recipients have been kept under wraps due to death threats, I doubt that you can identify them.
Obama will call for increased oversight of 'executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies' as part of sweeping plan to 'overhaul financial regulation', NY TIMES reporting Sunday, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE... Developing...
This is an unlinked Drudge headline, which means he dosen't have enough to put up a story yet.
No, I did not steal that from somebody on Something Awful.
That assumes that banks with enough capital to pay back TARP money will be allowed to pay it back even if they wanted to. As you may have heard, US Bank's CEO Richard Davis made a splash last month with public comments that TARP money was (at least implicitly) foisted on even healthy banks like his, with not only strings attached but also a number of retroactive impositions in subsequent months, and that he and colleagues from other healthy banks actually would like to return it but are simply unable.
I got a chance to talk to the Chief Compliance Officer of [let's just say a "major bank," I don't want to get his ass in a sling over private comments] a few weeks ago about this very issue, and his understanding was that the TARP infusion originally had a number of limitations against any "3-year return," for instance. As you probably know, regulators are now engaged in a meticulous "stress testing" of all TARP recipients' balance sheets and discounted cashflows to get a better handle on who needs what for how long, and the CCO's opinion was that ["major bank"] might be able to return the money after that process satisfies regulators that they really don't need it and there's no systemic risk posed by a return. But the bottom line is that they're stuck with the money, its regulatory strings, and its undeniable equity-investment-deterring stigma for the time being even if they wanted to give it back.
With regulatory burdens rapidly increasing like this you're going to find more firms publicly attempting to hand back that hot money. Unless the TARP administrators want to make those requirements explicit and public they're going to have to take the money back.
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
Tweet
Comment