US Debt downgraded by Standard & Poor

[RandomGuy]

Guess they weren't that impressed by the recent band-aid. -RG


-----------------------------------



NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States lost its top-notch AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's on Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.

U.S. Treasuries, once undisputedly seen as the safest investment in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as the UK, Germany, France or Canada.

The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, S&P said in a statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months.

(Reporting by Walter Brandimarte; Editing by Jan Paschal)

http://news.yahoo.com/p-reconsidering-u-downgrade-cnbc-001207261.html

-----------------------------------------------
This is the first major ratings agency downgrade.

Some smaller ones have already pulled the trigger.

You can pretty much lay this squarely at the foot of the tea party Republicans in Congress.

They will rather cynically try to spin it otherwise, but anybody with any common sense knows why this happened.

[InRareForm]

Any guesses on how this will affect gold. Guessing good news.

[Drachen]

Grand.

[4>0rings]

Well, it was a good 200+ year run.

[InRareForm]

Went from shit to shittier?

[DarrinS]

First time in US history. Hopenchange

Probably has nothing to do with the ridiculous spending.

[coyotes_geek]

I was one week off in my prediction.

[DarrinS]

We need a second stimulus to move us down another notch.

[DarrinS]

You can pretty much lay this squarely at the foot of the tea party Republicans in Congress.

They will rather cynically try to spin it otherwise, but anybody with any common sense knows why this happened.


Obviously we can blame this on Tea Party conservatives. It's not like "progressive" economic policies aren't an epic fail in other parts of the world. Talk about fucking denial.

[TDMVPDPOY]

if the usa defaults on its loans, wtf are those countries going to do about it?

trade sanctions wont hurt them, this will just force ppl to support to buy local made goods?

[DarrinS]

Rationale

We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the relatedLuck_The_Fakers_ fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.

[DarrinS]

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE7746VF20110806?irpc=932

[SnakeBoy]

You can pretty much lay this squarely at the foot of the tea party Republicans in Congress.

They passed a bill that would have prevented the downgrade. Harry & Barry didn't like it.

[DarrinS]

Well all be standard and poor if we keep following the left's fiscal policies. But, at least we'll all be equal.

[DMX7]

They passed a bill that would have prevented the downgrade.

LOL, ZERO EVIDENCE of that. :rollin

[DarrinS]

LOL, ZERO EVIDENCE of that. :rollin

But 100% evidence of downgrade.

[DMX7]

Well all be standard and poor if we keep following the left's fiscal policies. But, at least we'll all be equal.

"We got 98 percent of what we wanted” -John Boehner

[SnakeBoy]

LOL, ZERO EVIDENCE of that. :rollin




In a statement late Friday, S&P said it made the move because the deficit-reduction plan passed by Congress on Tuesday did not go far enough to stabilize the country's debt situation.

[Th'Pusher]

The grand bargain would have been sufficient, but the pussy republicans walked away from any revenues being part of the deal.

[DarrinS]

The grand bargain would have been sufficient, but the pussy republicans walked away from any revenues being part of the deal.

You guys are in serious denial.

[ElNono]

Obviously we can blame this on Tea Party conservatives. It's not like "progressive" economic policies aren't an epic fail in other parts of the world. Talk about fucking denial.

Funny, 3 out of 4 of the countries listed in the OP still issuing AAA bonds all run "progressive" economic policies, and all have a government-run healthcare system.

I'm sure "progressive" economic policies like unfunded tax cuts had nothing to do with this :rolleyes

[Th'Pusher]

You guys are in serious denial.

Denial about what. All the ratings agencies said they were looking for a deal in the 4T dollar range. That was on the table, with entitlement reform, but boehner walked away because he couldn't sell the revenue to the tea party. It really is as simple as that.

[ElNono]

All those extremely low dividends taxes are really trickling down... the country might be going to the shitter for you and me, but the top 1% sure ain't sweating it...

[boutons_deux]

the bond buyers, esp the wealthy US capitalists, LOVE a couple more percent. In fact, they may have paid, in some way, S&P. Plus Wall St probably placed bets on S&P doing it. Nothing happens in the fucking country unless the wealthy get wealthier.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

First time in US history. Hopenchange

Probably has nothing to do with the ridiculous spending.

Spoken like a good fucking minion.

It happens along with China's decision to downgrade days after the fiasco that is government and you conclude it was done at the behest of spending.

Its completely in response to the fuckup that is our political system, milquetoast.

They haven't given a damn about rising debts for 70 years, the government shows it ass, they downgrade and you conclude that now they finally care about spending. You literally just regurgitate GOP doublespeak.

They straight up say:


the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling

and


reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed

but you say the regurgitation of how literally the GOP is trying to cover its ass because while Obama is being painted as a pussy the GOP is being labeled as the bully which in essence lays the blame at their feet.

So now they are doing it over spending according to the RNC and apparently yourself. Lets just forget the part about them saying failure to raise taxes or the clusterfuck in the first place.

Its the same line of shit the RNC has been saying from the beginning of this entire fuckup. Obama cave's, China and S&P tell us that were fuckups and you continue the regurgitation with the exact same rhetoric.

Shoot yourself please. You are part of the problem and not the solution.

[ElNono]

BTW, we got here because both blue and red are FOS... that said, I don't really give a shit about rating agencies, tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the bond buyers, esp the wealthy US capitalists, LOVE a couple more percent. In fact, they may have paid, in some way, S&P. Plus Wall St probably placed bets on S&P doing it. Nothing happens in the fucking country unless the wealthy get wealthier.

Exactly who are thes 'capitalists' you keep talking about. What PACs, individuals, corporations or anything at all represents these 'capitalists.' Do you have any idea of specifics or is this just the boogeyman.

I am not arguing that there are not elites with access that are dominating the political landscape but i am a little old now for ghost stories.

[boutons_deux]

oops!

$2 trillion error in S&P calculations: US Treasury

"A judgment flawed by a 2 trillion dollar error speaks for itself," a Treasury spokesman said,

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/05/2-trillion-error-in-sp-calculations-us-treasury/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

===

After being trashed by the Treasury, S&P changed their logic of their downgrading from financial to political.

After the ratings agencies complicity rated toxic shit sold by the financial sector as AAA, they have NO credibility, no independence from the sellers of shit they are rating.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

First time in US history. Hopenchange

Probably has nothing to do with the ridiculous spending.

Would you like a cup of Tea Party with that shit sammich!?

[Capt Bringdown]

Well, I’m not gonna jump to any conclusions before I watch Fox & Friends on Monday and they explain all this to me.

[Wild Cobra]

We need a second stimulus to move us down another notch.
Tax increases will move us down also.

[DMC]

Bad credit/Obama

Nothing to see here

Actually like the piss poor money managing, over indulging pigs we are, we need bad credit to force us to curb our appetites for excess.

As far as ratings go: it's about like looking at Beckett's to see how much your new baseball cards are worth, or asking Enron to appraise their own value. S&P? LOL...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Tax increases will move us down also.

as evidenced by them saying in their statement:


We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process.

Shoot yourself too please.

[Wild Cobra]

as evidenced by them saying in their statement:



Shoot yourself too please.
There are other ways of raising revenue without raising tax rates.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are other ways of raising revenue without raising tax rates.

Please enlighten us.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No luck on wikipeida yet?

How about tariffs those are kinda like taxes but not quite.

Idiot.

[Trainwreck2100]

Please enlighten us.

find gold can't be THAT hard

[Vici]

It's like you people are trying to read in between the lines when there is nothing hidden. The whole fucking politcal show that the Republicans put on for us is the reason this is happening. It is beyond retarded, the SnP fucking says they wanted to see revenue increases in addition to cuts and somehow that means DON'T raise revenue? It defies all logic and sanity. This country is absolutey headed for disaster and it is plainly at the Republicans feet. It's clear they are willing to drive this country into the ground unless they get their way, which is going to drive this country into the ground. It's pathetic and quite frankly time to move.

[Trainwreck2100]

It's like you people are trying to read in between the lines when there is nothing hidden. The whole fucking politcal show that the Republicans put on for us is the reason this is happening. It is beyond retarded, the SnP fucking says they wanted to see revenue increases in addition to cuts and somehow that means DON'T raise revenue? It defies all logic and sanity. This country is absolutey headed for disaster and it is plainly at the Republicans feet. It's clear they are willing to drive this country into the ground unless they get their way, which is going to drive this country into the ground. It's pathetic and quite frankly time to move.

Blaming all republicans for the tea party. They are shooting themselves in the foot and too stubborn to realize it.

[TDMVPDPOY]

those govt bonds, even if they give you +%....point being the dollar aint worth shit if hyper inflation kicks in and prices increases for goods/services, your not actually gettin much for ur dollar

[ElNono]

Maybe we can ask the French to rescue us...

[Sisk]

All those extremely low dividends taxes are really trickling down... the country might be going to the shitter for you and me, but the top 1% sure ain't sweating it...

http://www.huliq.com/3257/nearly-50-percent-americans-pay-no-income-taxes-all-report

[ElNono]

http://www.huliq.com/3257/nearly-50-percent-americans-pay-no-income-taxes-all-report

Add this to that:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

[Sisk]

Add this to that:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

I'm failing to see how these articles relate, unless you're just pointing out the federal govt. is bringing in less money. True, but do you think that having nearly half the population not pay any income tax is OK? I understand the notion of "tax the rich" but I believe everyone should pitch in at least something.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm failing to see how these articles relate, unless you're just pointing out the federal govt. is bringing in less money. True, but do you think that having nearly half the population not pay any income tax is OK? I understand the notion of "tax the rich" but I believe everyone should pitch in at least something.

Did you just google 50% taxes and post the article cause your artcle also includes:


In fact, some of the wealthy want to pay more. While Senator Orrin Hatch, (R-UT), Republican on the Senate Finance Committee believes that the rich should just voluntarily pay more, there is a group called United for a Fair Economy who believes the rich should be forced to pay more, via higher tax rates. And the members of that group are all rich themselves.

On such rich person, Eric Schoenberg, spoke to AP. He inherited money and has a healthy portfolio from when he was an investment banker. 2009 was a bad year for him; his investments "only" brought him $200K. Normally, he makes "north of half a million a year." In 2009, his bad year, his federal income tax bill was slightly more than $2,000. "I simply point out to people, 'Do you think this is reasonable, that somebody in my circumstances should only be paying 1 percent of their income in tax?'"

They do not apparently have issue with it.

[Sisk]

Did you just google 50% taxes and post the article cause your artcle also includes:



They do not apparently have issue with it.

I guess you didn't read the part where I said I understood why the rich are taxed more.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess you didn't read the part where I said I understood why the rich are taxed more.

So you think the people in the article were not aware of your figures?

[Sisk]

So you think the people in the article were not aware of your figures?

What are you talking about? I'm saying the people who aren't paying a dime in income tax should be taxed. Period.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I hope you are also aware that 47% makes less than $25k a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Its wiki but it is what it is.

So what do you think the appropriate tax rate for people under the poverty line, unemployed etc is?

[Sisk]

I hope you are also aware that 47% makes less than $25k a year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Its wiki but it is what it is.

So what do you think the appropriate tax rate for people under the poverty line, unemployed etc is?

Unemployment benefits is a completely different can of worms. As are welfare programs. Anything is an upgrade from 0%.

Are you in support of almost half the country not paying a dime of income tax?

[Winehole23]

The gap in the ability to pay is at historic levels. Simpleminded egalitarianism of sacrifice hits some much harder than others.

[Winehole23]

At the top of the scale you don't have wage earners for the most part anyway. It's apples and oranges.

[DarrinS]

If you doubled the amount of taxes for all those currently paying taxes, we'd still fall short. That leaves ?? as the problem.

[TDMVPDPOY]

standard and poor gets to give out credit ratings, so who credit ratings them? are these clowns independently regulated? or just a bunch of number clowns obsessed with giving out their povs which can fck up a company/country by just being negative...

[DarrinS]

standard and poor gets to give out credit ratings, so who credit ratings them? are these clowns independently regulated? or just a bunch of number clowns obsessed with giving out their povs which can fck up a company/country by just being negative...

They are regulated by congress.

[Th'Pusher]

Frum has a good piece on this. i'm glad to see there are still some reasonable conservatives left: http://www.frumforum.com/sp-makes-clear-dysfunctional-politics-have-a-price#more-100486

Everyone, but the fucking moron republicans in congress seem to agree revenues are going to have to be part of the equation.

[boutons_deux]

"if hyper inflation kicks in"

yep, there's a real risk of demand pull inflation:

Luxury Goods Begin Flying off the Shelves Again

http://www.care2.com/causes/luxury-goods-begin-flying-off-the-shelves-again.html

With real household income stagnating/decreasing, 1M+ homes near/in foreclosure, 25M mal/unemployed/non-participating, there'll be no demand-pull inflation for years.

Commodity price-push maybe but that's out of US control, from drought reducing human and animal food, oil prices up (esp if neo-cons bomb Iran, Iraq tears apart(a certitude)).

[SnakeBoy]

They straight up say:


the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling

and


reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed




Well if we are going to edit sentences then they straight up said


related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements...will remain a contentious and fitful process.

[DarrinS]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-TdZ7wKLgMwg/Th-Qpq9P18I/AAAAAAAAGkk/id71C11AkoI/s1600/growth-federal-spending-revenue-600.jpg

[boutons_deux]

Darrin's graph LIES, as it's intended to do, and as expected from Heritage VRWC stink tank.

The graph is absolute numbers, not federal spending as percentage of GDP. That %age is about the same as the late 70s. There is no "runaway spending". That's the main lie behind the Repugs bogus debt limit "crisis".

Tax revenues, at all levels, have clearly dropped due the VRWC/Banksters' Great Depression, AND also the VRWC's constant, successful push for 30+ years to cut tax rates on the wealthy and corps, aka "starve the beast", resulting in US wealth and salary inequalities being at record levels and matching some extemely poor corrupt countries.

Keep setting up your LIES, and I'll keep knocking them down.

[DarrinS]

Darrin's graph LIES, as it's intended to do, and as expected from Heritage VRWC stink tank.

Source: White House Office of Management and Budget
:lmao

[scott]

It comical to watch the clowns on both sides of this play the blame game.

It's pretty simple. America has had a problem living within its means (meaning having a balanced budget) since 2001. Quite frankly, America has ALWAYS had a problem living within its means - we've only had a surplus for 12 years since 1940. But with access to cheap capital, shortsighted policymaking and the promise of seemingly unlimited earning power (we've never had any real threat to our economic dominance until the rise of Asia), it was never a concern.

Bring on 2002-Present when we've continually outdone ourselves with more and more spending we can't afford, but not our seemingly unlimited earning power has proven an illusion. We have a spending problem. It is obvious.

We also have a mountain of debt that needs to be paid off. That's a revenue problem. What America needs is not just a balanced budget, but a surplus budget so that we can reduce out debt burden. It's going to take bigger spending cuts than this BS Debt Deal plan. It's also going to take increased revenue. It's time to pay off our debts, America. We rung up the tab, now it's time to pay - not leave the problem for future generations to figure out.

[Wild Cobra]

standard and poor gets to give out credit ratings, so who credit ratings them? are these clowns independently regulated? or just a bunch of number clowns obsessed with giving out their povs which can fck up a company/country by just being negative...
I see you don't understand who they are. They are not a stock. the S&P index is just a group of stocks used as an indicator. I would say they are pretty qualified to rate individual investments and securities. No conflict of interest, if that's what you worry about.

[Wild Cobra]

Please enlighten us.


No luck on wikipeida yet?

How about tariffs those are kinda like taxes but not quite.

Idiot.
LOL... You're the idiot, always assuming. After 6 minutes... Guess what... I was already on the road on my way to work!

How about we simply remove the loopholes the some of the rich enjoy to reduce their taxes. It's not fair that not all the rich get these loopholes now is it?

[ElNono]

I'm failing to see how these articles relate, unless you're just pointing out the federal govt. is bringing in less money. True, but do you think that having nearly half the population not pay any income tax is OK? I understand the notion of "tax the rich" but I believe everyone should pitch in at least something.

I think we need both. Less exceptions and higher taxes. Obviously, that goes along with some spending cuts.

BTW, I'm not sure why you quoted my post to put that link up. It still doesn't address that the 15% dividend tax is among the cheaper out there, and trickle-down is a bunch of baloney.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL... You're the idiot, always assuming. After 6 minutes... Guess what... I was already on the road on my way to work!

How about we simply remove the loopholes the some of the rich enjoy to reduce their taxes. It's not fair that not all the rich get these loopholes now is it?

You mean raise the amount of money that they are taxed?

So you said that if we raise taxes, S&P would downgrade us again. So now you are saying that when they say 'raise revenues' that they want us to close loopholes but if they raise the rates they would down grade us.

Thats not even semantic tapdancing. Thats just sheer stupidity once again on display from a parts bin in the Great Northwest.

Idiot.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well if we are going to edit sentences then they straight up said

I didn't edit the structure of the sentence for a reason. Notice the lack of ellipses. IOW, i did not change the meaning of the sentence.

What they said clear as day is that we are a bunch of fuckups that they cannot count on to reduce spending and increase income to solve this problem like they had once thought we would.

I just pointed out the revenue portion that was used by the conjunction because to show cause. You are just rearranging sentences for fun.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Unemployment benefits is a completely different can of worms. As are welfare programs. Anything is an upgrade from 0%.

Are you in support of almost half the country not paying a dime of income tax?

What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for those well below the poverty level?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Source: White House Office of Management and Budget
:lmao

Other than mindless and obviously partisan ad hominem do you have an empirical basis for deriding their accounting methods. I really do not know.

Oh, and something NOT from a PAC please.

[SnakeBoy]

What do you think is an appropriate tax rate for those well below the poverty level?

5%

It would cut into their beer budget but they would survive.

[boutons_deux]

China demands U.S. 'live within its means'

"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,"

In addition to holding about $1.2 trillion in treasuries, an estimated two-thirds of China's $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves is estimated to be in dollars.
China's central bank must jettison trillions of incoming foreign exchange to ensure the yuan remains low. For the most part, U.S. treasuries represent the only destination large enough to accommodate China's holdings. Officials have periodically pledged to diversify China's reserves, but few alternatives exist.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw-china-response-20110807,0,3901161.story

=======

nobody forced China to invest in dollars. And China is screwing the world by keeping its currency pegged to dollar an fixed rather than floating rate.

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy...

Please notice I specified not to increase "tax rates."

[Wild Cobra]

5%

It would cut into their beer budget but they would survive.
What I fail to understand is how the poor can afford to smoke.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy...

Please notice I specified not to increase "tax rates."

The semantic tapdancing is weak in this one.

Well then by your little tapdance then removing discounts does not change the base rate either.

Look, dipshit. If they had wanted to be specific then they would have been specific. You have no basis whatsoever for your asinine interpretation.

Lets ask the everyone. Who here thinks that WC is right and that S&P by revenues meant all revenues but tax increases?

[Wild Cobra]

We all know what DC politicians are talking about when they say they want to raise taxes. They raise the tax rates, then add more loopholes that they and their friends can use.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

5%

It would cut into their beer budget but they would survive.

Thats so cute you characterize poor people as drunks to make yourself feel better for these positions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We all know what DC politicians are talking about when they say they want to raise taxes. They raise the tax rates, then add more loopholes that they and their friends can use.

I'm not a partisan and who are these 'friends' and the 'left.' You throw the latter out so much that it means very little. i just take it to mean registered democrats.

[Wild Cobra]

But 5% is so little. If they don't make much, how much would they feel it?

The point is that everyone needs skin in the game. Even if its small.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

China demands U.S. 'live within its means'

"China, the largest creditor of the world's sole superpower, has every right now to demand the United States to address its structural debt problems and ensure the safety of China's dollar assets,"

In addition to holding about $1.2 trillion in treasuries, an estimated two-thirds of China's $3.2 trillion in foreign exchange reserves is estimated to be in dollars.
China's central bank must jettison trillions of incoming foreign exchange to ensure the yuan remains low. For the most part, U.S. treasuries represent the only destination large enough to accommodate China's holdings. Officials have periodically pledged to diversify China's reserves, but few alternatives exist.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fiw-china-response-20110807,0,3901161.story

=======

nobody forced China to invest in dollars. And China is screwing the world by keeping its currency pegged to dollar an fixed rather than floating rate.

Now would us not paying our debts be justification for them going to war? i know that when creditors don't get paid they start seizing assets. Is not that kind of what that would be?

[Wild Cobra]

Now would us not paying our debts be justification for them going to war? i know that when creditors don't get paid they start seizing assets. Is not that kind of what that would be?
Cannot seize unsecured debt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cannot seize unsecured debt.

Legally in the United States sure. My point is that these are the types of things that countries go to war for.

[Wild Cobra]

Legally in the United States sure. My point is that these are the types of things that countries go to war for.
You're joking, right?

They would go to war, and spend far more money than we owe them? Get real.

[Darkwaters]

We need a second stimulus to move us down another notch.

You mean a third...

[ChumpDumper]

We need more tax cuts to move us down another notch.Just as applicable.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're joking, right?

They would go to war, and spend far more money than we owe them? Get real.

Clausewitz stated that war is just the ultimate form of politics. Its not about the cost as much as its about cost-benefit and your bush league personal finance interpretation of the accounting really does not bring much to the table.

it certainly would not be the first time countries went to war over debt.

[TDMVPDPOY]

govt could cut spending, how about the subsidies it hands out each year, humanitarian aid and shit

[ElNono]

govt could cut spending, how about the subsidies it hands out each year, humanitarian aid and shit

This has been discussed extensively before. Foreign aid needs to go for the time being, IMO. All of it, including Israel. You can't be helping somebody else when you have problems of your own.

[Nbadan]

BTW, we got here because both blue and red are FOS... that said, I don't really give a shit about rating agencies, tbh

...and neither will lenders....

[SnakeBoy]

Clausewitz stated that war is just the ultimate form of politics. Its not about the cost as much as its about cost-benefit and your bush league personal finance interpretation of the accounting really does not bring much to the table.


It's a dumb topic but since you're stuck on it why don't you explain to us the benefit of China going to war with us. Aside from destroying their own economy and getting their ass kicked.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's a dumb topic but since you're stuck on it why don't you explain to us the benefit of China going to war with us. Aside from destroying their own economy and getting their ass kicked.

Ahh, machismo in policymaking is just as good as oversimplification. What I am saying is that the system that was about to be dismantled makes it profitable to not mess with our interests over there.

If the hole things takes a shit then what is to prevent them from making moves on all of their territorial interests in the area. They have been playing cat and mouse games with the Indochina peninsula states for awhile now, have had a long history of wanting to move on Taiwan and an even longer history of fucking with the Japanese and Koreans.

Right now they are good they can buy natural resources from Australia, lend us money building up debt, steal our IPR. and employ their workforce by manufacturing the lions share of what we consume.

If we do not pay our debts then the entire system of exchange collapses. that impetus to make moves for territorial security and securing natural resources is there still.

Like I said counties have gone to war for less and geographically NATO is not in position to really control what they do in their own geographical region.

[jack sommerset]

Fucking Obama

[Trainwreck2100]

It's a dumb topic but since you're stuck on it why don't you explain to us the benefit of China going to war with us. Aside from destroying their own economy and getting their ass kicked.

seriously why would they go to war with people that buy all their cheaply made crap

[Sisk]

what do you think is an appropriate tax rate for those well below the poverty level?

4000%

[SnakeBoy]

seriously why would they go to war with people that buy all their cheaply made crap

Off topic but a friend of mine has been going to China regularly for business. He says it's pretty strange to go into stores there because you can't find any of that cheap chinese crap in China.

[MannyIsGod]

It takes some first class ignorance of the situation to take anything S&P says without a billion grains of salt. Especially when their own rationale and methods are utter crap not to mention contradictory. However, its not surprising idiots on both sides try to use this as a political arrow.

Look at the S&P reasons for the downgrade and take a look at the recent history of some of those variables and the ratings that S&P assigned. Its a joke as are all of the ratings by any of these agencies. Thats not to say the downgrades don't come with real consequences but no one ever said the financial sector was rational.

[ElNono]

Off topic but a friend of mine has been going to China regularly for business. He says it's pretty strange to go into stores there because you can't find any of that cheap chinese crap in China.

It's cheap for us... not necessarily affordable to them... that's the way that cycle works.

[DarrinS]

It takes some first class ignorance of the situation to take anything S&P says without a billion grains of salt. Especially when their own rationale and methods are utter crap not to mention contradictory. However, its not surprising idiots on both sides try to use this as a political arrow.

Look at the S&P reasons for the downgrade and take a look at the recent history of some of those variables and the ratings that S&P assigned. Its a joke as are all of the ratings by any of these agencies. Thats not to say the downgrades don't come with real consequences but no one ever said the financial sector was rational.

They're racists

[MannyIsGod]

Dig that whole deeper, idiot. :toast

[ChumpDumper]

Why would S&P care how the government pays the debt in its rating?

[Nbadan]

Yahoo News: "America's credit rating-intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans"


But that doesn't mean we should ignore S&P's Friday evening shot across the bow. In downgrading the U.S.'s credit rating, S&P points out what has long been obvious: Washington's inability to come to an agreement on how to close the large fiscal gaps that have emerged since the recession began is troubling. Recent events have sapped the agency's confidence that the government can and will do what is necessary to align revenues with spending commitments. And it's difficult to escape the conclusion that America's credit rating was intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans.

..............

But Congressional Republicans deserve much more of the blame. For this calamity was entirely man-made -- even intentional. The contemporary Republican Party is fixated on taxes. It possesses an iron-clad belief that the existing tax rates should never go up, that loopholes shouldn't be closed unless they're offset by other tax reductions, that the fact that hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than school teachers makes complete sense, that a reversion to the tax rates of the prosperous 1990's or 1980's would be unacceptable.


Yahoo News (Yahoo News: "America's credit rating-intentionally sabotaged by Congressional Republicans")

[TDMVPDPOY]

the amount of interest you clowns pay to china, keeps them going...now whether you guys go broke or not, doesnt concern them cause they already build a buffer even with 1/3 of there reserves is in US treasuries....they are building up their economy, there military...shit is going down...

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol G7 holding meetings over americas financial crisis...at least 4 countries in the g7 has no business talkin shit or should have powers to talk shit who do shit all

[boutons_deux]

America hasn't defaulted on bonds interest payments, America pays its bills.

S&P, after being trashed for their $2T error, then said their downgrade was political, not financial.

S&P, Fitch, Moody's were all criminally in complicity with their Wall St owners, in falsely rating toxic crap like sub-prime mortgages, as AAA, but the USA isn't AAA anymore?

Guess who owns that $T1.1 in toxic crap now? yep, the downgraded American government

[Vici]

Off topic but a friend of mine has been going to China regularly for business. He says it's pretty strange to go into stores there because you can't find any of that cheap chinese crap in China.

That is beyond wrong and stupid. FFS the batteries you buy over there are rolled by hand. Let me say that again. The batteries you buy over there are rolled by hand. The crap the Chinese buy is much worse than what we buy over here. I don't know where the hell your friend got that, are you sure he isn't an idiot and was in Japan?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

America hasn't defaulted on bonds interest payments, America pays its bills.

S&P, after being trashed for their $2T error, then said their downgrade was political, not financial.

S&P, Fitch, Moody's were all criminally in complicity with their Wall St owners, in falsely rating toxic crap like sub-prime mortgages, as AAA, but the USA isn't AAA anymore?

Guess who owns that $T1.1 in toxic crap now? yep, the downgraded American government

Nice, so now you are pretty much regurgitating the White House's lines. If you read their original release they pretty straightforward talk about the political process. Let's see:


We lowered our long-term rating on the U.S. because we believe that the prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress....

I will say that the White House's spin is more centered around the actual downgrade's legitimacy versus the GOP's which is straight up about the blame game but at the same time you still show no original thought that I see.

[boutons_deux]

"the GOP's which is straight up about the blame game"

Boner's "straight up":

he claims he got 90% of what he wanted, and he's the one who was forced by his own party's crazies to fake this debt ceiling "crisis". iow, the crisis is 100% political, not technical or financial, due to Boner and his crazies.

So if it's Boner's political bad faith, fakery, and Boner's 90% successfull, then

Boner and the Repugs FUCKING OWN the S&P downgrading.


Bitch, meet slap, and GFY.


.

[jack sommerset]

yeah yeah that's the ticket

Barry is a fucking coward and those who defend him (trolls included) are fucking cowards. Get another dem to run for 2012 if you are so bent on blamming the GOP for all your troubles cuz barry ain't getting the job done and will lose. If you are so stupid you can't reconize. Go Fuck Yourself and god bless america!

[boutons_deux]

Yes, Barry has no balls.

But Boner and the REPUGS own the downgrade.

God doesn't GAF about America. And Repugs FUCK America.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"the GOP's which is straight up about the blame game"

Boner's "straight up":

he claims he got 90% of what he wanted, and he's the one who was forced by his own party's crazies to fake this debt ceiling "crisis". iow, the crisis is 100% political, not technical or financial, due to Boner and his crazies.

So if it's Boner's political bad faith, fakery, and Boner's 90% successfull, then

Boner and the Repugs FUCKING OWN the S&P downgrading.


Bitch, meet slap, and GFY.


.

You absolutely miss the point. the only one you are slapping is yourself. My comment about the RNC's comments was not a judgement either way. You felt the need to attack it and then assumed that was my position.

My position is that all you do is parrot what the WH and DNC put out as spin over and over again. You lack any independent thought.

[SnakeBoy]

That is beyond wrong and stupid. FFS the batteries you buy over there are rolled by hand. Let me say that again. The batteries you buy over there are rolled by hand. The crap the Chinese buy is much worse than what we buy over here. I don't know where the hell your friend got that, are you sure he isn't an idiot and was in Japan?

By your own statement the chinese crap we see in our stores is not available in china. So what are you getting your panties in a wad over?

[Agloco]

Isn't the AA+ rating still on a ngative outlook? What does that mean for my Ovaltine stock?

[jack sommerset]

Fareed's Take: We've downgraded ourselves.

We have demonstrated to ourselves, the world and global markets that our political system is broken and that we are incapable of conceiving and implementing sensible public policy.

True dat brother (not racist) true dat.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/07/fareeds-take-weve-downgraded-ourselves/?hpt=hp_c1

[ElNono]

Fareed's Take: We've downgraded ourselves.

We have demonstrated to ourselves, the world and global markets that our political system is broken and that we are incapable of conceiving and implementing sensible public policy.

True dat brother (not racist) true dat.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/07/fareeds-take-weve-downgraded-ourselves/?hpt=hp_c1

He's spot on. Congress is a joke, both sides of the aisle.
He's also spot on we're going to need both spending cuts and tax increases to get shit in order again.

[TE]

He's spot on. Congress is a joke, both sides of the aisle.
He's also spot on we're going to need both spending cuts and tax increases to get shit in order again.

Now why can't this just happen?

[boutons_deux]

USA is not downgraded, except by S&P.

This maybe a defensive move by S&P because now if DoJ goes after the ratings agencies for their role in lying about AAA ratings for toxix MBS, the S&P could claim the DoJ investigation was in retaliation for the the downgrade.

USA pays its bills, including all interest on bonds. No default. There is no real downgrade. Like the Repug debt ceiling charade, S&P is full of shit.

[Marcus Bryant]

Now why can't this just happen?


Because any increase in tax collections is giving in to 'socialism' and any entitlement reductions is giving in to the 'Teabaggers' or what not. Or, the issue is not a problem to be solved, but rather an opportunity to be exploited and used to follow one's blind allegiance to whichever ideology they worship.

[DarrinS]

You can raise taxes to the highest levels in history and not cover the deficit. Do people not understand the scale of what went down in the past three years?

[DarrinS]

We could fix this shit tomorrow if any trillionaires existed (individual or corporation).

[ElNono]

You can raise taxes to the highest levels in history and not cover the deficit. Do people not understand the scale of what went down in the past three years?

Who says you have to cover the deficit in one year?
Do people are that stupid?

[DarrinS]

Who says you have to cover the deficit in one year?
Do people are that stupid?

Do people are that stupid?

[DarrinS]

Drink

[DarrinS]

We need to get people back to work in the private sector. How will raising taxes help this effort?

Discuss

[ElNono]

Do people are that stupid?

Seemingly... the first step to start paying down debt is to have more income than expenses. That's certainly attainable with a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts (heck, arguably you can do it with tax hikes alone).

What's so difficult to understand?

And lol @ pinning this down to the last 3 years, and overlooking the previous 8. Good partisan hack. :tu

[ElNono]

We need to get people back to work in the private sector. How will raising taxes help this effort?

Why strictly in the private sector?

And lol @ moving goalposts...

[MannyIsGod]

You can raise taxes to the highest levels in history and not cover the deficit. Do people not understand the scale of what went down in the past three years?

Link?

[boutons_deux]

Do we have assholes here pinning the deficit and bogus downgrade on Barry?

You asked for it:

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2011/07/31/31debtlimit_graphic1A__1312092683_2361.gif

:lol

dubya "I didn't wanna scare the kids" owns $T6.1, and then passed a ton of tax expeditures and 2 bogus wars, and cratering economy to Barry. :lol



St Ronnie doubled the debt :lol

[Galileo]

Greenspan: US Can Pay Any Debt It Has Because It Can Print Money To Pay It (VIDEO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_N0Cwg5iN4

[boutons_deux]

The world's bond markets basically ignore S&P "political punditry", keep buy US bonds, and with no significant change in rates.

[cheguevara]

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2011/07/31/31debtlimit_graphic1A__1312092683_2361.gif

:lmao Dubya

The war in Iraq and the disregard of the US real estate ripoff by banks sealed the fate of this great nation. All is pretty much lost. Time to tighten the belt. Hard times are a coming.

thanks dubya

In all fairness it's not all thanks to him. He was just an idiot, the ppl around him are the ones who buried us with their fear mongering. The TKO that Bin Laden dealt us really was the beginning of the end. Most were in a daze worried about security instead of paying attention to the bank's highway robbery.

[CosmicCowboy]

Your chart is wrong.

Bush increased the debt 5 trillion in 8 years. Sucks, but he did it.

Obama has increased the debt 3.6 trillion in 30 months.

The math is pretty simple if you are intellectually honest.

The national debt was 5.7 trillion when Bush took over from Clinton.

The national debt was 10.7 trillion when Obama took over from Bush

The national debt is currently 14.3 trillion

[johnsmith]

Bitch, meet slap, and GFY.




Really? "Bitch, meet slap"......really?:rolleyes

[MannyIsGod]

Your chart is wrong.

Bush increased the debt 5 trillion in 8 years. Sucks, but he did it.

Obama has increased the debt 3.6 trillion in 30 months.

The math is pretty simple if you are intellectually honest.

The national debt was 5.7 trillion when Bush took over from Clinton.

The national debt was 10.7 trillion when Obama took over from Bush

The national debt is currently 14.3 trillion

If you're intellectually honest you don't break things down that way at all and you don't leave out mention of the largest recession ever. Bush and his policies have far more to do with the debt than Obama has had although Obama is not innocent by any means.

[RandomGuy]

You can raise taxes to the highest levels in history and not cover the deficit. Do people not understand the scale of what went down in the past three years?

If we raised taxes to the highest levels in history, then the deficit would disappear, and the debt would start getting paid down.

Do you not understand anything about economics or our tax system?

[RandomGuy]

Your chart is wrong.

Bush increased the debt 5 trillion in 8 years. Sucks, but he did it.

Obama has increased the debt 3.6 trillion in 30 months.

The math is pretty simple if you are intellectually honest.

The national debt was 5.7 trillion when Bush took over from Clinton.

The national debt was 10.7 trillion when Obama took over from Bush

The national debt is currently 14.3 trillion

The comparison's are not really all that valid between Bush and Obama.

It's the revenue, stupid.

Mandated spending, by law, is not as flexible or dynamic as the economy itself.

If the economy takes a nose dive, and tax collections plummet, as they did, there is not a whole lot that a president can do to change that, other than some direct stimulus, which was done.

Playing the silly partisan card about who ran it up more than who, is really pointless at this point anyway. Not that that will stop anyone from doing it. (sighs)

The solution, real austerity with tax raises, is obvious to everyone, but the Norquistians running the GOP.

The sooner we bite the bullet, the better.

[Agloco]

Bush increased the debt 5 trillion in 8 years. Sucks, but he did it.

Obama has increased the debt 3.6 trillion in 30 months.

I wonder how much of Bushs debt was borne of necessity? I wonder the same of Obamas.

[ManuBalboa]

lolololol america

and lol at these pussies saying "revenue" instead of just saying new taxes.

[101A]

Funny, 3 out of 4 of the countries listed in the OP still issuing AAA bonds all run "progressive" economic policies, and all have a government-run healthcare system.



Just getting into this thread, and this is bound to be OT as this quote was from page 1, however, I need to point out that the United States ALSO has a government run healthcare system. In fact, our government spends more capita (including ALL citizens, not just those covered by govt. healthcare) than any of the countries you reference.

Obviously those countries social policies are not OUR social policies. I have long argued that the problem is not government per se, but is, in fact, the United States Government

[boutons_deux]

"revenue" instead of just saying new taxes."

:lol at you stupid right-winger who equate revenue with tax rate increases.

local, state, federal tax revenues are down due to lower consumption (sales tax), derated property values and foreclosed property (property taxes), and 25M people un/mal-employed or no longer "participating" in the labor market.

Just getting people back to work and consuming again, WITHOUT RAISING TAX RATES, would help tremendously in reducing the pain of the Banksters' Great Depression.

[MannyIsGod]

Just getting into this thread, and this is bound to be OT as this quote was from page 1, however, I need to point out that the United States ALSO has a government run healthcare system. In fact, our government spends more capita (including ALL citizens, not just those covered by govt. healthcare) than any of the countries you reference.

Obviously those countries social policies are not OUR social policies. I have long argued that the problem is not government per se, but is, in fact, the United States Government

:tu

Whats really frustrating to meet is seeing people point to our crappy policies and try to use that as proof that certain social policies can't work.

[boutons_deux]

"problem is not government per se, but is, in fact, the United States Government"

The US govt is whatever the Corporate-Americans and capitalist want it to be.

The govt is a proxy for the real wielders of power, and they aren't Human-Americans.

[ElNono]

Just getting into this thread, and this is bound to be OT as this quote was from page 1, however, I need to point out that the United States ALSO has a government run healthcare system. In fact, our government spends more capita (including ALL citizens, not just those covered by govt. healthcare) than any of the countries you reference.

Obviously those countries social policies are not OUR social policies. I have long argued that the problem is not government per se, but is, in fact, the United States Government

Well, that's certainly true. It's also worth noting that certain US government run healthcare is pretty good too, IMO. (the VA).

The US simply has a nice scam going on. They let insurers pick up most of all the low-risk pool, and then the insurers drop them all off to the government when they become high-risk or lose their jobs.

[boutons_deux]

"ALSO has a government run healthcare system. In fact, our government spends more capita (including ALL citizens, not just those covered by govt. healthcare) than any of the countries you reference."

US govt only runs the VA. It runs an healthy insurance operation (not the health care syste).

The exorbitant costs of US sick-care are due to waste, fraud, inefficiencies, and greed of the docs, hospitals, for-profit health insurers, NONE of which is caused by the US govt.

[CosmicCowboy]

If you're intellectually honest you don't break things down that way at all and you don't leave out mention of the largest recession ever. Bush and his policies have far more to do with the debt than Obama has had although Obama is not innocent by any means.

My post had nothing to do with whose fault it was.

The simple fact is, the numbers in the chart were WRONG. I pointed that out and gave you the REAL numbers.

[boutons_deux]

Credibility, Chutzpah And Debt
By PAUL KRUGMAN

To understand the furor over the decision by Standard & Poor’s, the rating agency, to downgrade U.S. government debt, you have to hold in your mind two seemingly (but not actually) contradictory ideas. The first is that America is indeed no longer the stable, reliable country it once was. The second is that S.& P. itself has even lower credibility; it’s the last place anyone should turn for judgments about our nation’s prospects.

Let’s start with S.& P.’s lack of credibility. If there’s a single word that best describes the rating agency’s decision to downgrade America, it’s chutzpah — traditionally defined by the example of the young man who kills his parents, then pleads for mercy because he’s an orphan.

America’s large budget deficit is, after all, primarily the result of the economic slump that followed the 2008 financial crisis. And S.& P., along with its sister rating agencies, played a major role in causing that crisis, by giving AAA ratings to mortgage-backed assets that have since turned into toxic waste.

Nor did the bad judgment stop there. Notoriously, S.& P. gave Lehman Brothers, whose collapse triggered a global panic, an A rating right up to the month of its demise. And how did the rating agency react after this A-rated firm went bankrupt? By issuing a report denying that it had done anything wrong.

So these people are now pronouncing on the creditworthiness of the United States of America?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/opinion/credibility-chutzpah-and-debt.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

[RandomGuy]

Well, that's certainly true. It's also worth noting that certain US government run healthcare is pretty good too, IMO. (the VA).

The US simply has a nice scam going on. They let insurers pick up most of all the low-risk pool, and then the insurers drop them all off to the government when they become high-risk or lose their jobs.

That sums it up.


FWIW, the Economist, once again, nails it:

Three examples of downgrade chutzpah


CHUTZPAH is not a word I often use in my writing, but it kept bouncing around my head this weekend as I read about S&P's downgrade of America's credit rating. So many of the actors in this mini-drama displayed such shallow self-understanding, combined with impressive audacity, that it was impossible to ignore their impudence. Three, in particular, stood out in my mind.

Let's start with the actor who seems to be ignoring some basic facts. As my colleague points out in a must-read post on Free Exchange, S&P's downgrade of America's credit rating was not about the country's ability to pay its debt, but its willingness. And lately, a troubling number of American politicians appear comfortable with the idea of stiffing the country's creditors. One of those politicians is Michele Bachmann, who said she would not vote to raise the debt ceiling, despite having earlier voted for a budget that would've necessitated doing just that. As the deadline for default loomed, Mrs Bachmann and others downplayed the consequences, even as their actions pushed America to the brink. Yet over the weekend she not only blamed the president for S&P's downgrade, she blamed...the raising of the debt ceiling. "This president has destroyed the credit rating of the United States through his failed economic policies and his inability to control government spending by raising the debt ceiling," Mrs Bachmann said. That is an impressive amount of chutzpah, or choot-spa, even for a presidential candidate.

Yet Mrs Bachmann's criticism of the White House was not all absurd. She said the president was "AWOL" and "missing in action" in the debt-ceiling debate. While this was not true of late, the president's failure to either embrace the Bowles-Simpson plan or present a deficit-reduction plan of his own allowed the Republicans, and the tea-party movement in particular, to monopolise the issue. Lexington asks some pertinent questions in his latest column: "Could [Mr Obama] not have made raising the debt ceiling a condition of extending the Bush-era tax cuts last December? And why did he take so long to show that he cared about putting America’s finances in order?" The Republicans can plausibly claim that their actions forced the president to get serious about the deficit. So it was with some chutzpah that Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, responded to S&P's downgrade by saying, "We must do better to make clear our nation’s will, capacity and commitment to work together to tackle our major fiscal and economic challenges." That would've been good advice for the president some months ago.

But the White House also has some cause to criticise S&P. I mean, this is S&P, one of the rating agencies that showed astounding incompetence in failing to properly grade the mortgage-backed securities that nearly sunk the world economy. Then, on Friday, as they were contemplating America's downgrade, they sent the White House budget numbers that were off by some $2 trillion. Acknowledging the error, S&P said its decision was still justified based on the poisonous political atmosphere in Washington. So the firm that could not be trusted to accurately assess objective measures of credit-worthiness is now basing its decisions on completely subjective criteria? Chutzpah, on which Paul Krugman and my colleague have more.

Yet who can blame S&P? America's politicians inspire no confidence in their ability to put the nation's finances right, or to keep from blowing up the economy. As my colleague pointed out, Mitch McConnell says debt-ceiling brinkmanship is now the new normal, because the first go-around was so much fun. Michele Bachmann, meanwhile, is second in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, and most of her competitors showed similar intransigence, mixed with varying degrees of opportunism, during the debt-ceiling debate. As for the president, he still has no plan for long-term deficit reduction. So yeah, S&P failed to accurately identify the junk that made up those troublesome mortgage securities. But I can hardly fault them for trying not to repeat the mistake when evaluating the make-up of America's political system, which is ultimately responsible for paying the country's bills.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/08/sps-credit-rating-cut


More fodder for the Daily Show, I'm sure.

It is really a sad comment when our nations finances and the politics around it is such fertile ground for satire...

and by fertile, I mean break out the waders, 'cause it's gettin' deep.

[Wild Cobra]

The world's bond markets basically ignore S&P "political punditry", keep buy US bonds, and with no significant change in rates.
Didn't I say it wouldn't make much difference?

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder how much of Bushs debt was borne of necessity? I wonder the same of Obamas.
That's part of the problem in trying to assign blame. Some of it is impossible to avoid, and set up from previous years.

[Wild Cobra]

:tu

Whats really frustrating to meet is seeing people point to our crappy policies and try to use that as proof that certain social policies can't work.
Social policies can work, but I especially have a problem that allows people not to be accountable for their part.

You know. Maybe we should implement government health care. That in itself would become a serious tort reform for medical malpractice, because the federal government will say "Fuck You" when someone tries to sue. That just might make it cheaper.

[boutons_deux]

"I especially have a problem that allows people not to be accountable for their part."

you mean like the financial sector assuming NO ACCOUNTABILITY for the Banksters Great Depression, while paying the hate-media, including people here, to blame it all on stupid, greedy Human-Americans, CRA, and F&F?

Seems like the only people you like to shit on your mythical Welfare Queens in Cadillacs.

[RandomGuy]

Moar goodz from ma peeps at the Economist:



Standard & Poor’s decision to downgrade America’s credit rating on Friday is momentous, but not, I suspect, for the reasons most people will cite. Many worried that interest rates would skyrocket and the markets sell off. This seems unlikely. The news won’t be a surprise and S&P was kind enough to dampen any impact by waiting until after the markets closed. There are very few investors who will be compelled to sell Treasury debt because it’s rated AA+ instead of AAA. Banks will not have to hold more capital against their Treasury holdings, regulators confirmed.

Another popular interpretation is that this is a wake-up call about our runaway debt. And indeed, S&P, in its decision, did cite the inadequacy of the debt deal agreed to by Congress and Barack Obama this past week:

[T}he fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.
Not surprisingly, Republicans seized on this as evidence that their strategy and views have been vindicated. The office of John Boehner, speaker of the House of Representatives, called it the “latest consequence of the out-of-control spending that has taken place in Washington for decades.”

But this interpretation is incomplete and misleading. As S&P’s announcement makes clear, the inadequacy of the deal was only one motivation. As important (to me, even more important) was the the reckless and divisive battle that preceded it:

The political brinksmanship of recent months highlights what we see as America’s governance and policymaking becoming less stable, less effective, and less predictable than what we previously believed. The statutory debt ceiling and the threat of default have become political bargaining chips in the debate over fiscal policy … [This] weakens the government’s ability to manage public finances …
This is crucial. Sovereigns aren’t like companies. They can’t go bankrupt, and creditors can’t seize their assets. Their creditworthiness depends as much on their willingness as their ability to pay. As Felix Salmon presciently noted before the announcement was made, it’s not our ability to pay that’s in doubt:

America’s ability to pay is neither here nor there: the problem is its willingness to pay. And there’s a serious constituency of powerful people in Congress who are perfectly willing and even eager to drive the US into default. The Tea Party is fully cognizant that it has been given a bazooka, and it’s just itching to pull the trigger. There’s no good reason to believe that won’t happen at some point.

Absent the toxic politics that infected the debate, we could have hammered out a deal that stabilized the debt without squeezing the economy too much in the near term. After all, Britain, Germany and even Italy seem able to do so, and we have in the past, too.

Investors largely tuned out the debt-ceiling debate until its final days out of a belief based on long experience that for all the antics and rhetoric of the Tea Party, the people who actually run Capitol Hill would never compromise the country’s credit worthiness. After all, it was Mr Boehner who reminded his freshmen colleagues that on the debt ceiling they’d have to act like “adults.”


That is not what happened. As the fight dragged on, the leadership moved closer to the Tea Party, not the other way around. And they seem happy with the results. Why else would Mitch McConnell have promised on August 1st to do exactly the same the next time the debt ceiling must be raised?

It is striking that the proponents of this strategy seem so oblivious to its impact. Our economy is lubricated by a sophisticated and stable credit market whose most vital component is also the most ephemeral: trust. As the crisis amply demonstrated, when trust erodes, the system freezes up. America has built a reputation for responsible and credible management of its finances over the centuries, and that reputation has been reduced to a political football, like a federal judgeship. Henceforth a foreign pension fund or central bank that once mindlessly ploughed his spare cash into Treasurys will have to think twice.

I never had much sympathy for the view that America’s economy was about to be eclipsed by China’s, and the main reason was our political institutions. Those checks, balances and laws provide an orderly means to change course in response to new challenges. China’s authoritarianism deprives the government of a feedback mechanism to tell it when it is meeting the needs and aspirations of its people. That makes its system intrinsically fragile.

Events of the last few weeks have forced me to reconsider. While the crash of a high-speed train highlighted many of China’s ongoing weaknesses, it also revealed, in the vigorous reporting and commentary that followed in print and online, a nascent apparatus of accountability. Conversely, America’s ostensible success in avoiding default in fact highlighted the growing dysfunction of its political institutions. If these events are portents of things to come, then the day when China displaces America as the world’s economic superpower is closer than I thought.

My more optimistic take is that the behavior of the markets and record disapproval ratings will force Congress to acknowledge the idiocy of their recent behavior and to adapt by substituting compromise for brinkmanship. Investors won't learn much new from S&P's announcement. Politicians should.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/08/sps-credit-rating-cut

[CosmicCowboy]

Social policies can work, but I especially have a problem that allows people not to be accountable for their part.

You know. Maybe we should implement government health care. That in itself would become a serious tort reform for medical malpractice, because the federal government will say "Fuck You" when someone tries to sue. That just might make it cheaper.

You are kidding, right? Like the USDA did with Pigford?

[RandomGuy]

Social policies can work, but I especially have a problem that allows people not to be accountable for their part.

You know. Maybe we should implement government health care. That in itself would become a serious tort reform for medical malpractice, because the federal government will say "Fuck You" when someone tries to sue. That just might make it cheaper.

Probably. I have come to think that defensive medicine drives a lot of the cost inflation.

Not sure I would entirely like to live in a country where I could not seek redress for getting the wrong limb amputated, or a clerical error costs me sight in one of my eyes. (latter almost happened to my wife, we didn't sue, but probably could have been successful had we done so)

[ElNono]

The fact that lenders are lining up to lend money to the US at very low rates (before the debt ceiling brouhaha at least) means that they are really not concerned with the government's ability to pay. We can discuss whether the deficit and debt is too big or small, but at some point it's just an academical discussion.
What's troubling is that some members of Congress think defaulting is a viable option.
Reagan's "starving the beast" never worked.

[Wild Cobra]

You are kidding, right? Like the USDA did with Pigford?
Ooops....


I forgot the blue.

[CosmicCowboy]

just broke through 11,000

[CosmicCowboy]

Here comes QE3.

[Wild Cobra]

just broke through 11,000
It's only down about 10% since the republicans pussied out and gave Obama the deal he wanted.

Now I can buy 11 stocks for the price of 10!

[ElNono]

Gold broke the 1,7K mark. Oil is down, and so are Bank stocks.

[Wild Cobra]

Gold broke the 1,7K mark. Oil is down, and so are Bank stocks.
Banks are the only one actually affected by the degraded ratings of US securities.

[ElNono]

Banks are the only one actually affected by the degraded ratings of US securities.

How so? They can still borrow at 0% from the government...

[Wild Cobra]

How so? They can still borrow at 0% from the government...
I forget the details, but in general, banks have money that people place in their care. They in turn loan this money out. they are required by law to maintain a certain percentage of these assets in AAA rated securities. Sure, banks can still do other practices with all forms of loans and securities, but the AAA aspect of a given percentage is real.

[CosmicCowboy]

I forget the details, but in general, banks have money that people place in their care. They in turn loan this money out. they are required by law to maintain a certain percentage of these assets in AAA rated securities. Sure, banks can still do other practices with all forms of loans and securities, but the AAA aspect of a given percentage is real.

Oh, they already fixed that. Bank regulators have announced they will still count treasuries as AAA rated securities.

[Wild Cobra]

Oh, they already fixed that. Bank regulators have announced they will still count treasuries as AAA rated securities.
LOL...

They are willingly, violating the law?

[ElNono]

LOL...

They are willingly, violating the law?

You expected different?

The only reason I see bank stocks being down right now is because of major lawsuits going around (like AIG just suing BoA a few days ago). There's billions riding on those lawsuits.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

They are willingly, violating the law?Does the law say they have to be rated AAA by all rating bodies?

[coyotes_geek]

LOL...

They are willingly, violating the law?

I don't think it's law that everyone has to abide by S&P's ratings alone.

[SnakeBoy]

The only reason I see bank stocks being down right now is because of major lawsuits going around (like AIG just suing BoA a few days ago). There's billions riding on those lawsuits.

From what I've heard on the business shows there is alot of concern over the liquidity of some of the big banks like BoA. BoA stock is down to around $6, I don't think that's just because of the lawsuit.

[ElNono]

From what I've heard on the business shows there is alot of concern over the liquidity of some of the big banks like BoA. BoA stock is down to around $6, I don't think that's just because of the lawsuit.

I thought they passed the 'stress tests' with flying colors?

[coyotes_geek]

Granted it's only been a couple of days, but I'm glad to see that the downgrade hasn't pushed mortgage rates up. Wife & I have been thinking about a refi and I was afraid that the downgrade was going to blow our opportunity. Not sure how long it will last though. We went ahead and locked in today.

[RandomGuy]

From what I've heard on the business shows there is alot of concern over the liquidity of some of the big banks like BoA. BoA stock is down to around $6, I don't think that's just because of the lawsuit.


I thought they passed the 'stress tests' with flying colors?

They did.

Investors seem to be discounting that they have made adequate provisions for losses, and they are getting re-sued by some big players, including Fanny and Freddy asking for new settlements in the billions.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/08/financial-markets

[RandomGuy]

Does the law say they have to be rated AAA by all rating bodies?

In the long run, the actual difference in returns between AA+ and AAA is almost statistically non-existant.

[vy65]

They did.

Investors seem to be discounting that they have made adequate provisions for losses, and they are getting re-sued by some big players, including Fanny and Freddy asking for new settlements in the billions.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2011/08/financial-markets

A little off point, but the most recent suit was by AIG. That lawsuit is basically for fraud and is a really weak claim.

[Winehole23]

Will BoFA settle, or fight the whole way?

[vy65]

Will BoFA settle, or fight the whole way?

Settle.

[RandomGuy]

A little off point, but the most recent suit was by AIG. That lawsuit is basically for fraud and is a really weak claim.


BofA now trades at a mere one-third of its book value, suggesting that investors don’t trust the stated value of its assets relative to its liabilities. A cloud of uncertainty still hangs over its potential losses from duff mortgages inherited through the acquisitions of Countrywide, a big lender, and Merrill Lynch, one-time packager of the most egregious structured securities on Wall Street. A group of investors and New York’s attorney-general have challenged a $8.5 billion settlement the bank struck in June with buyers of mortgage-backed securities that had soured. AIG joined the fun on Monday, suing BofA for $10 billion for mortgage fraud, which the bank denies. The bank admitted recently it will have to pay more than previously expected to compensate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for dodgy loans that Countrywide had palmed off onto the housing-finance agencies.

Hmm, I seem to remember that they were also being sued by Fanny/Freddy.

Heh, the Economist nick-named them "Tank of America".

D'oh.

[RandomGuy]

Will BoFA settle, or fight the whole way?

Settle. That is what does the least amount of damage to the balance sheet.

Investors hate lawsuits with unknown amounts of potential damages.

If you are getting sued and might lose, you have to carry a liability on your books, and that doesn't help your ratios. Better to bite the bullet, and pull the band-aid off quickly. Pardon the mixed metaphors/cliches.

[Winehole23]

Settle.On such obviously weak accusations. What a shame.

[vy65]

On such obviously weak accusations. What a shame.

Just because a claim is weak doesn't mean that it's not capable of being used to leverage another entity into settlement.

You do realize this is how litigation occurs in the context of large corporate entities, right?

[CosmicCowboy]

I guarantee that neither side wants to go through a full blown public discovery phase...both will end up covered in shit...

[Winehole23]

Just because a claim is weak doesn't mean that it's not capable of being used to leverage another entity into settlement. I'm vaguely familiar with the custom.

You do realize this is how litigation occurs in the context of large corporate entities, right?Pretty much, but I'm no expert on litigation b/w large corporate entities. Are you?

[vy65]

Yes. I'd say I am.

[vy65]

And if you were vaguely familiar with the custom, then you wouldn't imply that a weak claim is not capable of causing a corporate entity to settle.

[DarkReign]

And if you were vaguely familiar with the custom, then you wouldn't imply that a weak claim is not capable of causing a corporate entity to settle.

Ignorant question of the day...

Please explain how a weak litigious claim would/could cause a corporate entity to settle?

This question assumes the defendant has an argument (which may not be the case in this instance).

[vy65]

Ignorant question of the day...

Please explain how a weak litigious claim would/could cause a corporate entity to settle?

This question assumes the defendant has an argument (which may not be the case in this instance).

Beause corporate entities would not want to incur the expenses of discovery. You do realize that discovery costs have increased exponentially in the past 2 decades, right? For the largest of entities, it can cost tens of millions of dollars to properly conduct discovery.

Add to that the fact that judges are rarely willing to dismiss an entire lawsuit (even weak ones) at the motion to dismiss/summary judgment level. This means that weak claims are still going to go to a jury - where there is a massive amount of uncertainty.

Corporate entities don't want multi-million or multi-billion dollar claims to get to that point. Those claims are bullshit, but jurys are filled with people even more retarded than the idiots who post here.

[DarkReign]

Beause corporate entities would not want to incur the expenses of discovery. You do realize that discovery costs have increased exponentially in the past 2 decades, right?

No, I didnt.


For the largest of entities, it can cost tens of millions of dollars to properly conduct discovery.

Add to that the fact that judges are rarely willing to dismiss an entire lawsuit (even weak ones) at the motion to dismiss/summary judgment level. This means that weak claims are still going to go to a jury - where there is a massive amount of uncertainty.

Corporate entities don't want multi-million or multi-billion dollar claims to get to that point. Those claims are bullshit, but jurys are filled with people even more retarded than the idiots who post here.

Thanks for the answer.

[coyotes_geek]

Lord knows that if I'm Bank of America, or any financial institution for that matter, the last thing in the world I would want to see right now is a jury comprised of normal citizens pissed off about the financial crisis.

[ElNono]

Lord knows that if I'm Bank of America, or any financial institution for that matter, the last thing in the world I would want to see right now is a jury comprised of normal citizens pissed off about the financial crisis.

Not only that, but a jury of regular people looking through all their turd mortgages...

[vy65]

Lord knows that if I'm Bank of America, or any financial institution for that matter, the last thing in the world I would want to see right now is a jury comprised of normal citizens pissed off about the financial crisis.

That's why the jury system is fucked.

[coyotes_geek]

That's why the jury system is fucked.

Kind of a tangent here, but what are your thoughts on "loser pays"? Does that help?

[coyotes_geek]

Not only that, but a jury of regular people looking through all their turd mortgages...

Yep. I doubt you could assemble a 12 person jury where half of them aren't unemployed, have been foreclosed on, are upside down on their mortgage or closely related to someone who is.

[Winehole23]

nm

[vy65]

Kind of a tangent here, but what are your thoughts on "loser pays"? Does that help?

I think it's pretty sweet from my standpoint. If we win, we get paid.

I haven't seen much in terms of numbers, but I'd imagine that it's going to deter some people from filing suit; I'd be scared if I had to pay the other sides costs/fees if I lost. But then again, you can recover your attorney's fees for breach of contract causes of action in Texas, so it might not make that much of an impact.

[RandomGuy]

That's why the jury system is fucked.

I don't see it that way.

At some point, we have to trust the average person, for good or ill, and if the large banks and overpaid executives are generally regarded as culpable, they have only themselves to blame for taking record bonuses while the rest of the country is mired in unemployment.

[RandomGuy]

Kind of a tangent here, but what are your thoughts on "loser pays"? Does that help?

It helps those who have the resources to afford to stall forever.

I see it as a blank check to companies so they can be even less responsible.

I have, in the course of my job, seen firsthand some *very* mercenary written conversations between the CEO, the board, and the attorneys regarding litigation. The only thing that mattered was settling the cases for as little money as possible, and at no point was the fact that settling or not for any given amount of money was an ethical or unethical thing to do.

For all the abuse of the current system, and it is not as widespread or costly as some would like us to believe, the fact exists that a "loser pays" system would very heavily favor those with money.

I couldn't think of anything more corrosive to the public good.

[vy65]

I don't see it that way.

At some point, we have to trust the average person, for good or ill, and if the large banks and overpaid executives are generally regarded as culpable, they have only themselves to blame for taking record bonuses while the rest of the country is mired in unemployment.

Why?

[vy65]

It helps those who have the resources to afford to stall forever.

I see it as a blank check to companies so they can be even less responsible.

I have, in the course of my job, seen firsthand some *very* mercenary written conversations between the CEO, the board, and the attorneys regarding litigation. The only thing that mattered was settling the cases for as little money as possible, and at no point was the fact that settling or not for any given amount of money was an ethical or unethical thing to do.

For all the abuse of the current system, and it is not as widespread or costly as some would like us to believe, the fact exists that a "loser pays" system would very heavily favor those with money.

I couldn't think of anything more corrosive to the public good.

Were these cases tort or breach of contract matters? You do realize that prevailing parties already recover their fees in most breach of contract cases, right? How does that heavily favor the rich?

[DarkReign]

Why?

What is the alternative to a jury system?

A panel of elected judges? Corruptible.
A panel of appointed judges? Already corrupted with party politics.
Arbitration?

[vy65]

What is the alternative to a jury system?

A panel of elected judges? Corruptible.
A panel of appointed judges? Already corrupted with party politics.
Arbitration?

I'd say some combination of easier-to-meet motion to dismiss/summary judgment standards with appointed judges and a more institutionalized system of arbitration.

I'm curious why you think that appointed judges become "corrupted" by party politics? Do you think judge's are capable of not having biases? Do you think any bias they have rises to the level of corruption?

[RandomGuy]

Why [do we have to trust the average person on a jury]?

That is one of the cornerstones of Democracy.

That said, I don't mind substituting specialized courts with expert jurists for some more complex cases.

[MannyIsGod]

I'd say its a cornerstone for criminal cases but I'm not so sure that holds true for civil matters which is what VY65 is discussing. I think there is some merit to the idea that a jury of "peers" would be out of their depth in corporate lawsuits.

[RandomGuy]

I'd say some combination of easier-to-meet motion to dismiss/summary judgment standards with appointed judges and a more institutionalized system of arbitration.

I'm curious why you think that appointed judges become "corrupted" by party politics? Do you think judge's are capable of not having biases? Do you think any bias they have rises to the level of corruption?

I would note that judges are very often elected officials, and yes, I think getting re-elected and concerns about the way a ruling will play in an election affects the process.

One has only to listen to Fox "news" and tea party blathering about "activist" judges to get the impression there is a good chunk of the electorate that cares more about political litmus tests than legal ones.

As for outright corruption, I would say it happens, yes. If you wish, I can probably find one or two cases at the least. I seem to remember seeing a case in Texas recently.

When I think about elected judges, I am mindful of the small town in East Texas mentioned in this story, and wonder about that area's judges.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack

[RandomGuy]

Were these cases tort or breach of contract matters? You do realize that prevailing parties already recover their fees in most breach of contract cases, right? How does that heavily favor the rich?

They were insurance companies involved in lawsuits that were in trials to determine ultimate liability under their contracted policies. Sorry I can't be much more specific.

I would expect a company to attemp to limit its ultimate culpability as the executives had a duty to their stockholders, and that was evidenced.

What I did not see was any mention as to whether that duty might conflict with greater ethical concerns. Therein lies the difference between what is legal and what is ethical.

I do not imagine discussions are altogether different between company executives and their counsel in other cases. The nature of the duty is similar.

[ElNono]

I think it's important to put cases in layman's terms. I think the average person being part of the jury forces the involved parties to do just that.

[vy65]

I would note that judges are very often elected officials, and yes, I think getting re-elected and concerns about the way a ruling will play in an election affects the process.

One has only to listen to Fox "news" and tea party blathering about "activist" judges to get the impression there is a good chunk of the electorate that cares more about political litmus tests than legal ones.

As for outright corruption, I would say it happens, yes. If you wish, I can probably find one or two cases at the least. I seem to remember seeing a case in Texas recently.

When I think about elected judges, I am mindful of the small town in East Texas mentioned in this story, and wonder about that area's judges.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack

The only elected judges I know of are Texas-state judges. And I agree with you more than you can possibly imagine that they are fucking awful. I've appeared before some and pre-emptively lost because the judge's ruling would appeal more to his partisans -- he didn't care to hear about what the law of the matter was.

That being said, the federal judiciary is completely different. They're all appointed for life and really don't care about what political constituents think - i.e. - whether they're activist, strict constructionist, historicist, or any other -ist you can come up with.

You don't really explain which (federal or state; appointed or elected) type of judge you have in mind when you're talking about corruption. What makes me question your grasp on the situation is your suggestion that the corporate presence in the Eastern District of Texas makes the federal judges there corrupt. Not only are those judges life-appointments and not elected, but are really good at what they do. My firm appears before them a bunch, and I almost clerked for one. They're not corrupt.

[vy65]

I think it's important to put cases in layman's terms. I think the average person being part of the jury forces the involved parties to do just that.

Why? Economies are complicated, transactions in these economies are complicated, and necessarily litigation over those transactions is complicated. Why pander to the least-common denominator?

[vy65]

They were insurance companies involved in lawsuits that were in trials to determine ultimate liability under their contracted policies. Sorry I can't be much more specific.

I would expect a company to attemp to limit its ultimate culpability as the executives had a duty to their stockholders, and that was evidenced.

What I did not see was any mention as to whether that duty might conflict with greater ethical concerns. Therein lies the difference between what is legal and what is ethical.

I do not imagine discussions are altogether different between company executives and their counsel in other cases. The nature of the duty is similar.

So accepting your characterization, attorney's fees would already be awarded to the prevailing party in those disputes. If anything that would mean that insurance companies were being forced to pay out on policies AND also the insured's attorney's fees. How's that crush the little guy again?

As for the other stuff, sure, I guess in the abstract you can hypothesize that a corporation's duty to its shareholder's could conflict with some larger social responsibility to the community. I got some issues with that - namely - why does a corporation owe society anything (I'm not saying that it doesn't) and what are the contours of said responsibility? Why does that have to rise to the level of a legal obligation. etc... etc...

[vy65]

Oh and one other thing RG - what does all of that have to do with loser pays again?

[coyotes_geek]

I remember hearing somewhere that the average education level of someone who gets selected to serve on a jury in Texas is the 6th grade. I can't vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but I don't find it completely unbelievable. Would making it a requirement that in order to serve on a jury you have to have a high school diploma or GED help any?

[MannyIsGod]

I remember hearing somewhere that the average education level of someone who gets selected to serve on a jury in Texas is the 6th grade. I can't vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but I don't find it completely unbelievable. Would making it a requirement that in order to serve on a jury you have to have a high school diploma or GED help any?

Unconstitutional.

[Agloco]

Aren't juries supposed to be comprised of "peers"? Or is that language superfluous?

Who's a peer in a corporate suit? In a civil suit? :wtf

[vy65]

I remember hearing somewhere that the average education level of someone who gets selected to serve on a jury in Texas is the 6th grade. I can't vouch for the accuracy of that statement, but I don't find it completely unbelievable. Would making it a requirement that in order to serve on a jury you have to have a high school diploma or GED help any?

You might have some Equal Protection problems.

[vy65]

Aren't juries supposed to be comprised of "peers"? Or is that language superfluous?

Who's a peer in a corporate suit? In a civil suit? :wtf

I don't think that language appears in the constitution (for what that's worth). Plus the right to a jury in a civil case is elective. If the "peer" issue is such a problem, corporations probably would want to opt out of a jury anyway.

[coyotes_geek]

Unconstitutional.


You might have some Equal Protection problems.

Well, that would be a deal killer. :)

It just seems like the jury system would be better for it if everyone who served on a jury had a fighting chance to comprehend the legal issues being put before them.

[Agloco]

I don't think that language appears in the constitution (for what that's worth). Plus the right to a jury in a civil case is elective. If the "peer" issue is such a problem, corporations probably would want to opt out of a jury anyway.

:tu

Thanks for the clarification. I'm in no way acquainted with Constitutional Law.

From the drift of this discussion, I won't want to be either. :lol

You echoed my thoughts though. I don't see corps wanting any part of a laypersons panel in a suit. FWIW I do agree that juries should be composed of "appropriate" persons who are equipped to digest all of the mumbo-jumbo being thrown about in the courtroom.

The sticky part is who decides who is "apropriate"? That's a path I don't care to venture on to.

[ElNono]

Why? Economies are complicated, transactions in these economies are complicated, and necessarily litigation over those transactions is complicated. Why pander to the least-common denominator?

Because 'experts' in whatever the domain is might have both a bias or an interest in a certain outcome of a case? That's why you try to put together a jury of different backgrounds, as diverse as possible, then each side brings the expert testimony when needed.

[vy65]

Because 'experts' in whatever the domain is might have both a bias or an interest in a certain outcome of a case? That's why you try to put together a jury of different backgrounds, as diverse as possible, then each side brings the expert testimony when needed.

The problem with that alternative is that typical juries are either biased, ignorant, don't care/don't want to be there, or some amalgamation of all three.

Plus juries aren't diverse as possible. Lawyers conduct voir dire/exercise their peremptory strikes to come up with 12 people as favorable to their client as possible. Juries aren't the objective cross-sampling of the community that passes judgment on the plaintiff/defendant.

Plus I think it's better to get the best people (meaning the most informed) together to decide on the merits of a case. The fact is most jurors don't care/don't want to be there. Sure, you might have a bias with a more professional arbiter (a judge, a mediator, whatever). But I'd rather have that bias than someone who just doesn't give a fuck.

[ElNono]

The problem with that alternative is that typical juries are either biased, ignorant, don't care/don't want to be there, or some amalgamation of all three.

But that's exactly what diversity is.


Plus juries aren't diverse as possible. Lawyers conduct voir dire/exercise their peremptory strikes to come up with 12 people as favorable to their client as possible. Juries aren't the objective cross-sampling of the community that passes judgment on the plaintiff/defendant.

Sure, and you have both sides having the same chances to veto or approve jury participants. It also removes the lawyer's excuse that 'jury was stupid/biased' if they don't win the case, seeing they were integral part of the selection process.


Plus I think it's better to get the best people (meaning the most informed) together to decide on the merits of a case. The fact is most jurors don't care/don't want to be there. Sure, you might have a bias with a more professional arbiter (a judge, a mediator, whatever). But I'd rather have that bias than someone who just doesn't give a fuck.

I don't agree with that at all. Laws apply to everyone the same. There's no reason to say that a common person can't walk in, be instructed about a law, be presented evidence and be able to vote.

[vy65]

But that's exactly what diversity is.

I'm confused. You were initially claimed that the problem with "experts" was their bias. But now you're admitting that jurors, who are just as biased, are not problematic because that's "exactly what diversity is." Why is an experts bias bad but a jurors bias not?




Sure, and you have both sides having the same chances to veto or approve jury participants. It also removes the lawyer's excuse that 'jury was stupid/biased' if they don't win the case, seeing they were integral part of the selection process.

Which is why there is no such thing as diversity in the court room. I agree that it removes, to some extent, the excuse you describe. What I don't see is how this practice gets you to a point where you can say a diverse cross-section of the community is hearing cases?



I don't agree with that at all. Laws apply to everyone the same. There's no reason to say that a common person can't walk in, be instructed about a law, be presented evidence and be able to vote.


I don't see what the equal application of laws to everyone has to do with the capabilities of a juror. Why would the use of an expert arbiter result in disparate application of the law compared to use of a jury? And if such were to happen, why wouldn't the court system be able to correct said misapplication of the laws (which is the system we have currently).

And there are plenty of reasons to say a common person can't be instructed about the law. For one, they don't care to be there/aren't invested in the case at all. Two, they typically think the subject matter is boring and tune out. Three, lawsuits are complicated - lawyers spend years developing the nuances of a case - nuances that are lost on a jury that hears a 3 week long case. Four, facts are complicated - I don't know how, for example, you can explain synidcating a credit facility to a person who didn't go to college. And five, laws are complicated.

[RandomGuy]

The only elected judges I know of are Texas-state judges. And I agree with you more than you can possibly imagine that they are fucking awful. I've appeared before some and pre-emptively lost because the judge's ruling would appeal more to his partisans -- he didn't care to hear about what the law of the matter was.

That being said, the federal judiciary is completely different. They're all appointed for life and really don't care about what political constituents think - i.e. - whether they're activist, strict constructionist, historicist, or any other -ist you can come up with.

You don't really explain which (federal or state; appointed or elected) type of judge you have in mind when you're talking about corruption. What makes me question your grasp on the situation is your suggestion that the corporate presence in the Eastern District of Texas makes the federal judges there corrupt. Not only are those judges life-appointments and not elected, but are really good at what they do. My firm appears before them a bunch, and I almost clerked for one. They're not corrupt.

My bad, I was a bit less than clear: When I was talking about corruption, I meant, but did not specify, that I was talking about elected judges only.

Federally appointed judges are much, much less likely to be corrupted by the political process, outside of their initial appointment, as you rightly noted.

[RandomGuy]

So accepting your characterization, attorney's fees would already be awarded to the prevailing party in those disputes. If anything that would mean that insurance companies were being forced to pay out on policies AND also the insured's attorney's fees. How's that crush the little guy again?

As for the other stuff, sure, I guess in the abstract you can hypothesize that a corporation's duty to its shareholder's could conflict with some larger social responsibility to the community. I got some issues with that - namely - why does a corporation owe society anything (I'm not saying that it doesn't) and what are the contours of said responsibility? Why does that have to rise to the level of a legal obligation. etc... etc...

It doesn't crush the little guy.

That was my point.

If you force every losing side in a lawsuit to pay for all the legal expenses of the other party, then you have a very chilling effect on the ability of people to seek redress, when you have a marked asymetry of resources.

Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, define/explain what a "loser pays" system is. I know coyote brought it up, but you would have a better grasp on the subject than I do, and could outline it a bit more quickly than I could re-research it.

My memory of what I read is a bit dim, but I do remember being somewhat appalled by what I did read. There is a good possibility we are talking past each other a bit, and I would like to make sure that is not happening.

[boutons_deux]

"when you have a marked asymetry of resources."

like when an isolated Human-American litigates against a Corporate-American, because the service contract forbids class action litigation in favor only of the Corporate-American's corrupted "arbitrator"?

[RandomGuy]

The problem with that alternative is that typical juries are either biased, ignorant, don't care/don't want to be there, or some amalgamation of all three.

Plus juries aren't diverse as possible. Lawyers conduct voir dire/exercise their peremptory strikes to come up with 12 people as favorable to their client as possible. Juries aren't the objective cross-sampling of the community that passes judgment on the plaintiff/defendant.

Plus I think it's better to get the best people (meaning the most informed) together to decide on the merits of a case. The fact is most jurors don't care/don't want to be there. Sure, you might have a bias with a more professional arbiter (a judge, a mediator, whatever). But I'd rather have that bias than someone who just doesn't give a fuck.

I would agree for the most part.

The question I have, is where does one draw the line between what is appropriate for a specialized, expert jurist, and what can be tried by a regular jury of registered voters?

[ElNono]

I'm confused. You were initially claimed that the problem with "experts" was their bias. But now you're admitting that jurors, who are just as biased, are not problematic because that's "exactly what diversity is." Why is an experts bias bad but a jurors bias not?

My problem is with bias in the subject matter on the case, which is where this 'expert jury' would come into play. I could be a patent holder with experience in defending patent cases in court, and that could conceivably make me an expert in patent cases, but also could make me severely biased since I have a direct interest in patents being withheld.

If a Johnny from the street has a bias towards latinos or asians, then that's a bias too, but arguably irrelevant to a patent case.

Hopefully you're not confused about my argument anymore (even if not convinced).


Which is why there is no such thing as diversity in the court room. I agree that it removes, to some extent, the excuse you describe. What I don't see is how this practice gets you to a point where you can say a diverse cross-section of the community is hearing cases?

Why not? My understanding is that while lawyers veto candidates, they don't get to choose the pool where candidates are drawn from. It might not objectively represent everyone in society, but it's as transparent a process as it can be, IMO.


I don't see what the equal application of laws to everyone has to do with the capabilities of a juror. Why would the use of an expert arbiter result in disparate application of the law compared to use of a jury? And if such were to happen, why wouldn't the court system be able to correct said misapplication of the laws (which is the system we have currently).

I never said that arbitration wouldn't work. I understand that arbitration saves time and money, but I'm not in the opinion that it's a superior option to a jury trial. My understanding of what we're discussing here also is not arbitration vs jury trial, but 'non-expert' jury vs 'expert-only' jury.


And there are plenty of reasons to say a common person can't be instructed about the law. For one, they don't care to be there/aren't invested in the case at all. Two, they typically think the subject matter is boring and tune out. Three, lawsuits are complicated - lawyers spend years developing the nuances of a case - nuances that are lost on a jury that hears a 3 week long case. Four, facts are complicated - I don't know how, for example, you can explain synidcating a credit facility to a person who didn't go to college. And five, laws are complicated.

That's fine and dandy, but the laws apply the same to everyone, and as such, everyone should understand them. If you're telling me that preparing instruction for a case is hard, then I agree. Then again, that's why you guys get paid the big bucks.

If them being careless/bored is the big issue, a tentative solution to this would be to make jury duty optional, much like voting. I'm sure some people will still show up.

[RandomGuy]

"when you have a marked asymetry of resources."

like when an isolated Human-American litigates against a Corporate-American, because the service contract forbids class action litigation in favor only of the Corporate-American's corrupted "arbitrator"?

That is a very good point.

There is a marked conflict of interest, to my understanding, in that arbitrators tend to be paid by the companies they are hearing issues about.

Arbitration clauses: a rights giveaway (http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/advice/20041117a1.asp)


Binding arbitration, a little noticed clause in many agreements and contracts, strips consumers of their fundamental rights, including the right to sue individually or join a class-action suit if they have a problem with a company.

Under binding arbitration, a consumer can be forced to pay thousands of dollars upfront to pursue a complaint, travel thousands of miles to a location of the company's choosing for the hearing, argue their case before an arbitrator who depends on the company for future business and surrender such basic legal weapons as the right to discovery and the right to appeal a decision.

In some cases, the clause allows the company to sue the consumer while denying the consumer the right to sue the company.

Labeled by the National Consumer Law Center as "astonishingly unfair and undemocratic," these clauses affect millions of consumers across the country. Corporations insert them into employment and home building contracts, in agreements for credit cards, computer software and hardware purchases, and many types of loans.

I am *very* leery of anything that might tend to play into that kind of resource disparity. It is bad enough as it is for individuals in tort cases, without making it worse.

[vy65]

It doesn't crush the little guy.

That was my point.

I got a little confused when you were talking about those with reasources vs. those without earlier in the thread.


If you force every losing side in a lawsuit to pay for all the legal expenses of the other party, then you have a very chilling effect on the ability of people to seek redress, when you have a marked asymetry of resources.

Not really. People can still file suit in court and seek redress in the form of settlement. If the thought of paying the other side's fees enters the discussion when deciding to file suit, chances are you don't have the greatest of claims to begin with.


Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, define/explain what a "loser pays" system is. I know coyote brought it up, but you would have a better grasp on the subject than I do, and could outline it a bit more quickly than I could re-research it.

My memory of what I read is a bit dim, but I do remember being somewhat appalled by what I did read. There is a good possibility we are talking past each other a bit, and I would like to make sure that is not happening.

It's tort reform legislation Perry recently signed into law. It does two things. First, it modernizes Texas' motion to practice to make motions to dismiss available. Second, it requires the loser to pay the prevailing party's fees in tort cases. The business and commerce code already has a similiar provision for breach of contract cases. That's why I'd be surprised at someone being appalled by the reform.

[vy65]

My problem is with bias in the subject matter on the case, which is where this 'expert jury' would come into play. I could be a patent holder with experience in defending patent cases in court, and that could conceivably make me an expert in patent cases, but also could make me severely biased since I have a direct interest in patents being withheld.

If a Johnny from the street has a bias towards latinos or asians, then that's a bias too, but arguably irrelevant to a patent case.

This doesn't make any sense. If someone has an interest in the litigation - like the patent situation you've described - they'd have to recuse themselves from hearing the matter.

What I'm talking about is a panel of experts like what we have in the Eastern District of Texas or the Federal Circuit - judges who pretty much exclusively hear patent cases, are way more informed on both the law and technical issues, and who don't have a direct interest in the litigation itself. Maybe I'm being unclear, but you can have "experts" who hear the subject matter of the lawsuit but who are not conflicted out. To me, that's way more preferable than racist Johnny who's also pretty ignorant about IP law.


Why not? My understanding is that while lawyers veto candidates, they don't get to choose the pool where candidates are drawn from. It might not objectively represent everyone in society, but it's as transparent a process as it can be, IMO.

Because 12 people cannot represent a cross section of huge cities like Houston or Dallas. Especially after voir dire and peremptories. The whole process is not to get some represntative sampling of the community. It's to get a group of 12 people lawyers think will like their client. That's why juror-consultants like Dr. Phil make millions of dollars. It's not the rosy picture of diversity and community building that you're making it out to be.




I never said that arbitration wouldn't work. I understand that arbitration saves time and money, but I'm not in the opinion that it's a superior option to a jury trial. My understanding of what we're discussing here also is not arbitration vs jury trial, but 'non-expert' jury vs 'expert-only' jury.

I never took you as saying arbitration wouldn't work. And I spoke haphazardly when I said arbiter. I meant someone (whether judge, arbiter, panel of subject matter experts, whatever) who was more invested in the trial process than your average juror and who knew way more about the subject matter than your average juror. Given everything we've discussed, I don't know how you can honestly claim that's a worse alternative than the current system.




That's fine and dandy, but the laws apply the same to everyone, and as such, everyone should understand them. If you're telling me that preparing instruction for a case is hard, then I agree. Then again, that's why you guys get paid the big bucks.

If them being careless/bored is the big issue, a tentative solution to this would be to make jury duty optional, much like voting. I'm sure some people will still show up.

You can't just gloss over those reasons and say "that's fine and dandy" or "people should understand them." What I've described is reality. And those reasons show that juries have outlived their usefulness and really don't fulfill the function you think they do.

We don't live in Colonial America anymore. We're not in danger of English prejudice against Americans tainting our judicial system. We live in a complicated world. Sadly, the average Joe cannot grasp some of the business transactions that lay at the foundation of most litigation today. Saying that he should is nothing other than burying your head in the sand. He can't and he won't understand. People don't give a shit or care to understand shit. And nothing is going to fix that system.

Lol making jury duty optional - no one would show up.

[vy65]

I would agree for the most part.

The question I have, is where does one draw the line between what is appropriate for a specialized, expert jurist, and what can be tried by a regular jury of registered voters?

One idea would be to base it off of the amount in controvery. Another would be to have some type of third party expert make recomendations on whether to use the "regular" jury vs. a specialized one.

[vy65]

I am *very* leery of anything that might tend to play into that kind of resource disparity. It is bad enough as it is for individuals in tort cases, without making it worse.

If your claim is viable, then those travel costs should be re-imbursed.

[RandomGuy]

I got a little confused when you were talking about those with reasources vs. those without earlier in the thread.

Not really. People can still file suit in court and seek redress in the form of settlement. If the thought of paying the other side's fees enters the discussion when deciding to file suit, chances are you don't have the greatest of claims to begin with.

It's tort reform legislation Perry recently signed into law. It does two things. First, it modernizes Texas' motion to practice to make motions to dismiss available. Second, it requires the loser to pay the prevailing party's fees in tort cases. The business and commerce code already has a similiar provision for breach of contract cases. That's why I'd be surprised at someone being appalled by the reform.

"chances are you don't have the greatest of claims to begin with."

Bullshit.

I think this is one of those laws, intended to help "small businesses", with some rather enormous unintended consequences.

I could definitely see a large corporation deliberately running up a lot of expenses, and dragging a lawsuit out for the sole purpose of convincing a claimant with a perfectly legitimate claim that it is no longer in their interest to pursue it.

"Well, gee you think you have a case, but we can delay and delay and delay, and if you actually lose, you will be stuck with *our* legal bills, why don't you just shut the fuck up now, and go away?"


Sorry, that is appalling to me. I don't think this will really do what the authors claim it will, and the potential costs to legitimate claims seems all too real.

I guess we will get to see.

[RandomGuy]

FWIW, here is the link to the actual bill:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=HB274

Look up the "enrolled" version.

Anyhoo, I have to get going. Oddly enough, I am reviewing contracts today, heh. Those reviews and analysis won't write themselves.

[vy65]

"chances are you don't have the greatest of claims to begin with."

Bullshit.

I think this is one of those laws, intended to help "small businesses", with some rather enormous unintended consequences.

I could definitely see a large corporation deliberately running up a lot of expenses, and dragging a lawsuit out for the sole purpose of convincing a claimant with a perfectly legitimate claim that it is no longer in their interest to pursue it.

"Well, gee you think you have a case, but we can delay and delay and delay, and if you actually lose, you will be stuck with *our* legal bills, why don't you just shut the fuck up now, and go away?"


Sorry, that is appalling to me. I don't think this will really do what the authors claim it will, and the potential costs to legitimate claims seems all too real.

I guess we will get to see.

Why's that bullshit. If you have a viable claim, then you're worried about convincing the trier that you're right. The thought of fees doesn't really enter the picture at that point - at least not to the point of deterring you from filing.

And the scenario you described couldn't happen. You have to pay the prevailing party's reasonable fees/costs - if they just ran up the tab to fuck with you, that's not reasonable and you wouldn't have to pay.

[CosmicCowboy]

You obviously have never been in a lawsuit.

[xrayzebra]

You obviously have never been in a lawsuit.


Or been on a jury involving a lawsuit.:(

[boutons_deux]

"The thought of fees doesn't really enter the picture at that point"

I gurantee you, it's in your lawyers picture. Many want money down.

btw, some beautiful, awe-inspiring greed by the capitalists:

they offer to finance your legal fees for a HUGE cut of the winnings. After the capitalists and lawyers take their cut, you get way less than 50%.

That's as shitty as companies taking out life insurance policies on their employees, with the companies as beneficiaries.

[ElNono]

This doesn't make any sense. If someone has an interest in the litigation - like the patent situation you've described - they'd have to recuse themselves from hearing the matter.

Jurors don't have the ability to recuse themselves, AFAIK, per Title 28, Section 455. Unless they disclose on jury-selection and are vetoed, then can't just walk away.


What I'm talking about is a panel of experts like what we have in the Eastern District of Texas or the Federal Circuit - judges who pretty much exclusively hear patent cases, are way more informed on both the law and technical issues, and who don't have a direct interest in the litigation itself. Maybe I'm being unclear, but you can have "experts" who hear the subject matter of the lawsuit but who are not conflicted out. To me, that's way more preferable than racist Johnny who's also pretty ignorant about IP law.

Hopefully you're not confused about my argument anymore (even if not convinced).

If you're talking about a panel of expert judges, then we're certainly talking about different things.

I'm talking about jurors. My contention is that there's no reason why racist Johnny would be unable to understand IP law. Especially after lawyers on both sides cleared him. If racist Johnny can't understand IP law by the time the trial needs to be decided, then it really isn't racist Johnny fault, is it?


Because 12 people cannot represent a cross section of huge cities like Houston or Dallas. Especially after voir dire and peremptories. The whole process is not to get some represntative sampling of the community. It's to get a group of 12 people lawyers think will like their client. That's why juror-consultants like Dr. Phil make millions of dollars. It's not the rosy picture of diversity and community building that you're making it out to be.

I'm not making it to be anything rosy, tbh. It's simply undeniable that's transparent though. People from a random pool walk in, and both sides veto or clear until they have a jury both sides think can understand and try the case. The pool might not be representative, but it's diverse. It came from a pool that neither side controlled.


I never took you as saying arbitration wouldn't work. And I spoke haphazardly when I said arbiter. I meant someone (whether judge, arbiter, panel of subject matter experts, whatever) who was more invested in the trial process than your average juror and who knew way more about the subject matter than your average juror. Given everything we've discussed, I don't know how you can honestly claim that's a worse alternative than the current system.

But I do. For example, it's not like it isn't well known by lawyers that certain venues are more beneficial or detrimental to certain legal matters. If you have a patent violation case, you really want to file on Judge Ward's court in Eastern District of Texas. His 'expertise' in patent litigation isn't what's making you file there. It's his above average rate of siding with the patent holder that does, and his expediency in these cases.
You could claim he's an expert, but you can't claim there isn't some sort of bias (unintentional or otherwise) there either.


You can't just gloss over those reasons and say "that's fine and dandy" or "people should understand them." What I've described is reality. And those reasons show that juries have outlived their usefulness and really don't fulfill the function you think they do.

Sure I can. I don't think the jury system is 'perfect', but I find dubious that 'expert-only' are better, if better, either.


We don't live in Colonial America anymore. We're not in danger of English prejudice against Americans tainting our judicial system. We live in a complicated world. Sadly, the average Joe cannot grasp some of the business transactions that lay at the foundation of most litigation today. Saying that he should is nothing other than burying your head in the sand. He can't and he won't understand. People don't give a shit or care to understand shit. And nothing is going to fix that system.

Well, there's nothing stopping people or companies from requiring arbitration and even stipulating venue when creating a contract. I think the system has changed in that regard, and that's substantially more common now than it used to be. I don't know that jury trials are going to disappear though.

Ultimately it's both side's fault to get to the jury trial point. They could work out a settlement at any time if they feel they're getting screwed by the jury system.


Lol making jury duty optional - no one would show up.

:lol I knew you were going to say that.

The only thing I can say about that is that while growing up, I lived in a place where it was mandatory to vote. And during discussions as to wether make it optional, people said exactly the same thing you're saying. Then I came over here, and I see people getting involved. It's not all, but some people do care.
I think the publicity of cases like the OJ trial or Casey Anthony actually promote that.

[ElNono]

If you have a viable claim, then you're worried about convincing the trier that you're right. The thought of fees doesn't really enter the picture at that point - at least not to the point of deterring you from filing.

Uh? I could have a viable claim for $4K... Lawyer fees would certainly deter me from filing.

[coyotes_geek]

Uh? I could have a viable claim for $4K... Lawyer fees would certainly deter me from filing.

???

Isn't that what small claims court is for?

[ElNono]

???

Isn't that what small claims court is for?

In NJ, small claims demands top off at $3K ($5K if it's for the return of a security deposit). Anything over, and you can't use them.

EDIT: I should say, you can use them, but you can't complain if the award is topped off at those limits.

[coyotes_geek]

Gotcha. Thought the cutoff was higher.

[ElNono]

There's a 'Special Civil Part' that has a $15K top, but I don't know that it works as small claims, where you don't really need representation.

[vy65]

Jurors don't have the ability to recuse themselves, AFAIK, per Title 28, Section 455. Unless they disclose on jury-selection and are vetoed, then can't just walk away.



If you're talking about a panel of expert judges, then we're certainly talking about different things.

I'm talking about jurors. My contention is that there's no reason why racist Johnny would be unable to understand IP law. Especially after lawyers on both sides cleared him. If racist Johnny can't understand IP law by the time the trial needs to be decided, then it really isn't racist Johnny fault, is it?.

I thought we were talking about the person/entity who ultimately tries the case. Your patent example suggested that someone might have an interest in the case and still be in a position to decide it (i.e. a judge). Those are cases where recusal is proper.

Your right that racist Johnny's racism doesn't impede his ability to understand patent law. But my point is that Johnny is unable to understand patent law because he's a layman. Surely you're not arguing that Johnny is as proficient in patent law as someone like Judge Ward or Judge Schneider, no?




I'm not making it to be anything rosy, tbh. It's simply undeniable that's transparent though. People from a random pool walk in, and both sides veto or clear until they have a jury both sides think can understand and try the case. The pool might not be representative, but it's diverse. It came from a pool that neither side controlled.

Well first, you're wrong if you think that those who are selected are picked becuase they can understand the case. They're picked because the lawyers think they're sympathetic to their client.

Regardless of that though, what's the point of transparency? You're conceeding that its not representative of the community - so you can't make the democratic participation argument for juries.

Sure, the process of selecting a jury might be "open" (whatever that means). But if you have a transparent selection of 12 idiots, I wouldn't say you have much.




But I do. For example, it's not like it isn't well known by lawyers that certain venues are more beneficial or detrimental to certain legal matters. If you have a patent violation case, you really want to file on Judge Ward's court in Eastern District of Texas. His 'expertise' in patent litigation isn't what's making you file there. It's his above average rate of siding with the patent holder that does, and his expediency in these cases.
You could claim he's an expert, but you can't claim there isn't some sort of bias (unintentional or otherwise) there either.

I've consistently admitted that judges are also biased. But that bias doesn't preclude the plaintiff and defendant from putting on their best case and having a knowledgeable person decide. I'd rather take that situation than the shit show of having 12 idiots who aren't paying attention decide whether I have to pay millions of dollars.




Sure I can. I don't think the jury system is 'perfect', but I find dubious that 'expert-only' are better, if better, either.

But you're not backing up your claim with good justifications.

Is your claim that juries are better because their transparent? If so, why is that transparency better than having another entity with more subject-matter knowledge decide the dispute? Why are the alternatives any less transparent?

Is your claim that juries are just as capable as judges or arbiters when it comes to deciding complicated litigation? If so, I'd love to hear your reasons why.

Do you have any other reasons? What are they?




Well, there's nothing stopping people or companies from requiring arbitration and even stipulating venue when creating a contract. I think the system has changed in that regard, and that's substantially more common now than it used to be. I don't know that jury trials are going to disappear though.

Ultimately it's both side's fault to get to the jury trial point. They could work out a settlement at any time if they feel they're getting screwed by the jury system.

And there's nothing requiring you or anyone else to sign those contracts. If you don't like an arbitration or choice-of-venue clause, don't sign the contract.

I agree with the rest of your points here. But I don't see how that's relevant to the argument that the jury system is outdated?



The only thing I can say about that is that while growing up, I lived in a place where it was mandatory to vote. And during discussions as to wether make it optional, people said exactly the same thing you're saying. Then I came over here, and I see people getting involved. It's not all, but some people do care.
I think the publicity of cases like the OJ trial or Casey Anthony actually promote that.

I'd guess that the % of voter participation here is way below the % from where you grew up.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who would actually want to do their jury duty. At least I am.

[vy65]

I'm talking about jurors. My contention is that there's no reason why racist Johnny would be unable to understand IP law. Especially after lawyers on both sides cleared him. If racist Johnny can't understand IP law by the time the trial needs to be decided, then it really isn't racist Johnny fault, is it?

This is the last thing I'll take issue with. I don't think that its the lawyers fault if an average juror can't understand the intricacies of a patent infringement case. Do you fault a rocket scientist or neurosurgeon for being unable to explain the intricacies of thier fields to a layman? Or do you say rocket science and neurosurgery are really complicated?

A lot of litigation today involves really complicated transactions. Lawyers live with these cases for years, review millions of pages of documents, read hundreds of cases and statutes, and talk about this shit every day. It's impossible for Johnny to understand all of that in the course of a 3 week, 9-5 stint on a jury.

[Winehole23]

impossible?

[Winehole23]

hmmm...

[xrayzebra]

"The thought of fees doesn't really enter the picture at that point"

I gurantee you, it's in your lawyers picture. Many want money down.

btw, some beautiful, awe-inspiring greed by the capitalists:

they offer to finance your legal fees for a HUGE cut of the winnings. After the capitalists and lawyers take their cut, you get way less than 50%.

That's as shitty as companies taking out life insurance policies on their employees, with the companies as beneficiaries.

And most of these lawyers give Hugh chunks of money to the
Democrats to keep the scheme going. Don't they? They are referred
to as "trial lawyers".

[Agloco]

This is the last thing I'll take issue with. I don't think that its the lawyers fault if an average juror can't understand the intricacies of a patent infringement case. Do you fault a rocket scientist or neurosurgeon for being unable to explain the intricacies of thier fields to a layman? Or do you say rocket science and neurosurgery are really complicated?

I'd definitely fault the rocket scientist and neurosurgeon.

Having said that, I'm not offering any explanations about physics on this board again. :lol

[ElNono]

I thought we were talking about the person/entity who ultimately tries the case. Your patent example suggested that someone might have an interest in the case and still be in a position to decide it (i.e. a judge). Those are cases where recusal is proper.

Well, there's certainly a disconnect there. I thought we were talking about a juror panel made off 'only experts'. Since that's not that you're arguing, I'll step away from it.


Your right that racist Johnny's racism doesn't impede his ability to understand patent law. But my point is that Johnny is unable to understand patent law because he's a layman. Surely you're not arguing that Johnny is as proficient in patent law as someone like Judge Ward or Judge Schneider, no?

Oh no, I wouldn't make that claim at all.

I also don't agree that Johnny is unable to understand patent law (to the extent he needs to understand it to determine a case) because he's a layman.

But you're well aware that in civil cases a bench trial is the standard unless one of the parties (or both) actively requests a jury. So, again, you get to Johnny instead of the Judge because at least one of the parties requested to get there.


Well first, you're wrong if you think that those who are selected are picked becuase they can understand the case. They're picked because the lawyers think they're sympathetic to their client.

Yes, but because both sides think they're sympathetic to their clients at whatever capacity, it's implicit that they understand what they're going to be trying.


Regardless of that though, what's the point of transparency? You're conceeding that its not representative of the community - so you can't make the democratic participation argument for juries.

I never made a 'democratic participation' argument, I actually mentioned it wouldn't be representative. I made a 'diversity' argument and 'transparency' argument based on the fact that neither side, nor arguably the state, can tailor the base pool where jurors are picked from.
Now if you want to reduce this pool to just 'experts', and then you want sides to determine who or what qualifies as an 'expert', then you're certainly reducing both diversity and transparency.


Sure, the process of selecting a jury might be "open" (whatever that means). But if you have a transparent selection of 12 idiots, I wouldn't say you have much.

But you don't know that you have 12 idiots every time. You could have 6 lawyers too. Obviously, I understand the need as a lawyer to try to have as much control as possible from a risk management perspective. I just don't know that is a good enough excuse to do away entirely with the jury trial system.

Ultimately, IIRC, only about 1% of federal civil cases end up in a jury trial, a sharp decline for the past 30 years. You could argue that's a reflection of an outdated system, and I can argue that's a reflection of risk management. Whatever it is, there's no question that jury trials can be avoided and are actively avoided. 99% of the time.


I've consistently admitted that judges are also biased. But that bias doesn't preclude the plaintiff and defendant from putting on their best case and having a knowledgeable person decide. I'd rather take that situation than the shit show of having 12 idiots who aren't paying attention decide whether I have to pay millions of dollars.

The presence of a jury shouldn't preclude the plaintiff and defendant from putting on their best case. Perhaps you're simply underestimating the '12 idiots'.


But you're not backing up your claim with good justifications.

What is there to back up? I think Americans are largely happy with their justice system. There are aspects that are normally open to critique, like cost, but I don't recall the jury trial system being questioned as a non-working entity. If anything, the one having to back up the claim that abolishing the status quo is the superior option is you, not me.


Is your claim that juries are better because their transparent? If so, why is that transparency better than having another entity with more subject-matter knowledge decide the dispute? Why are the alternatives any less transparent?

I already answered to this. Maybe not to your satisfaction, but I certainly did (when I mentioned the conflict of interest on non-magistrates). Expanded on the transparency and diversity argument above.


Is your claim that juries are just as capable as judges or arbiters when it comes to deciding complicated litigation? If so, I'd love to hear your reasons why.

Not my claim. But your claim is that jurors are never competent enough to try a case. I don't know you've backed up that contention.


Do you have any other reasons? What are they?

No other reasons.


And there's nothing requiring you or anyone else to sign those contracts. If you don't like an arbitration or choice-of-venue clause, don't sign the contract. I agree with the rest of your points here. But I don't see how that's relevant to the argument that the jury system is outdated?

And there's nothing forcing you to put up with a jury trial unless the other party is actually requesting for it. My point is that I don't think the jury trial system is outdated, but I also think it's the last resort. It's where you fall if you didn't agree with any of the other options you have on the table at any given time. It isn't perfect, but you certainly had options not to get there.



I'd guess that the % of voter participation here is way below the % from where you grew up.

You'd be hard pressed to find someone who would actually want to do their jury duty. At least I am.

It's a lot smaller. But still substantially larger than 'nobody'.

[ElNono]

This is the last thing I'll take issue with. I don't think that its the lawyers fault if an average juror can't understand the intricacies of a patent infringement case. Do you fault a rocket scientist or neurosurgeon for being unable to explain the intricacies of thier fields to a layman? Or do you say rocket science and neurosurgery are really complicated?

A lot of litigation today involves really complicated transactions. Lawyers live with these cases for years, review millions of pages of documents, read hundreds of cases and statutes, and talk about this shit every day. It's impossible for Johnny to understand all of that in the course of a 3 week, 9-5 stint on a jury.

But Johnny doesn't need to understand all that all the time. You're arguing that the problem is volume, not necessarily complexity. What's Johnny deciding is if A is true or false. I'm not saying there's no complexity involved, but your job in front of a jury isn't to go through the entire financial law or system. It's to isolate A, make your best case why it should be true, and your opponent will make their best case of why it should be false.

Is there a certain amount of waste of time (and thus, money) involved in bringing Johnny up to date? No doubt. Will Johnny ever be as good as a judge or expert on the matter? Probably not. Is it impossible for Johnny to know *enough* of what's being tried to make a decision? I don't know that it is.

[LnGrrrR]

If jury duty paid more than 5$ a day, I'm pretty sure people wouldn't mind it as much.

[MannyIsGod]

I'd definitely fault the rocket scientist and neurosurgeon.

Having said that, I'm not offering any explanations about physics on this board again. :lol

:(