Warren lied about being Native American to benefit from affirmative action. Her credibility is shot.
As to Warren's letter, she has spent her entire career in academics and has never worked as a lawyer. She does not know the amount of resources required to participate in a lawsuit and trial. As lawyers, we are constantly encouraged to settle cases to resolve issues rather than spend the time and expense going to trial. We should not be encouraging the government to sue people and take them to trial when they are willing to settle. To take a case to a show trial in order to make an public example of the defendant is bad policy more fitting of a dictatorship.
>As to Warren's letter, she has spent her entire career in academics and has never worked as a lawyer. She does not know the amount of resources required to participate in a lawsuit and trial.
The fact that she has spent her entire career in academics does not mean she is unaware of the costs and benefits of going to trial. But, even if your invalid premise was correct, that's the entire point of the letter. She is asking for an analysis of the costs and benefits of going to trial.
> As lawyers, we are constantly encouraged to settle cases to resolve issues rather than spend the time and expense going to trial. We should not be encouraging the government to sue people and take them to trial when they are willing to settle.
This blanket statement is ridiculous. We're talking about stakes that are higher than you (or anyone) can count. If banks do not have the proper incentives they could easily wreak havoc on the world economy. A few billion dollar settlement does not provide the proper incentives for organizations worth 100s of billions of dollars.
>To take a case to a show trial in order to make an public example of the defendant is bad policy more fitting of a dictatorship.
Warren is a member of the legislative branch not the executive branch, which balances the power of the executive branch. Moreover, she is not trying to subvert any sort of due process. She is merely asking questions. This is contrary to the very nature of a dictatorship.
Right. So taking HSBC to trial for rampant, repeated money-laundering for drug cartels would have been more fitting of a dictatorship? Instead we let a criminal conspiracy go unpenalized except for a lame monetary settlement.
Warren's dead right. The finance guys all know they'll almost never get prosecuted.
They paid a $1.92-billion fine after laundering $881-million of drug money. Also, dont forget that they helped finance terrorists.  No one at HSBC went to jail. If you get caught with an ounce or two of cannabis, you're going to prison for 10 years. That's messed up.
But there is a lot more nuance to the story than your simple one liner. For example, it doesn't look like anyone at Harvard knew about her claimed NA heritage before giving her tenure. If you have heard different then please share.
From the article, she admits being listed "as a minority in a directory of law professors" from "1985 to 1996". Then she "was granted tenure in 1995 – [the employer] touted the Democrat’s Native American background as part of an effort to boost its diversity hiring record".
So, she publicized herself as a minority. Gets tenure with the employer touting her minority status. Then, she stops calling herself a minority. I think that's pretty convincing she used her false minority status in order to get the job, ie affirmative action.
I don't see anything about affirmative action in that article. In fact, other articles posted in this thread suggest that she didn't benefit from it at all. Regardless your premise is flawed. The fact that she declared she was Native American on some forms is not germane to the topic at hand. Regarding your critique, you're treading the line of of a fallacious argument. Also, have you considered that maybe we should take the banks to court because it's symbolic?
a good way to look at a situation like this is go read the letter without having the author in mind. If the SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LETTER she wrote seems wrong and accusatory, you should disqualify it. Otherwise, you're just mudslinging. P.S. I'm not claiming to be for or against EW. I'm not even from USA, but it seems neglecting subject matter of an issue to dig up personal history as the FIRST REACTION is a way of doing politics, it is not a way of being objective and analytical.
A law not universally and consistently enforced is not a law.
As for the financial penalties, the directly culpable individuals do not pay them. Nor, in the long run for such "too big to fail" institutions, do the shareholders.
The customers pay them. Especially when you have companies in an oligarchical, if not monopolistic, position. Penalties become a cost of business that gets passed on.
In several of these penalties of very large institutions, people have "crunched the numbers" and found that, at most, the penalty represents a quarter or two's profit.
Measure that against the years of outsized profit gained during and often in good part due to the abuse being penalized, and "cost of doing business" is all the further put in context.
As an individual, when you go to jail, it doesn't as much matter what your assets are. While you're in jail, you don't get to enjoy them. (This is not entirely true, and we also have now the example of Skilling (Enron) essentially spending his way out of prison. But, he still suffered some direct, personal hardship.)
As a corporation, such costs are spread over a large institution and number of people, and individuals may face little or no hardship. Even those senior executives who "resign", "take the fall", or are booted out often continue to receive millions in compensation, on top of what they've already squirreled away.
(Lower level members can and are screwed over -- "sacrifices" to the good of the institution that has chosen to excise them.)
I think respect for such senior executives among the larger population these days is really largely a matter of envy. An envy often driven in turn by one's fear for one's own increasingly precarious financial and physical circumstances. Respect for such people as "leaders" continues to decline.
Look at the bottom basement approval ratings for members of Congress. People have figured out that those people do not play by the same rules -- do not exist in the same legal and financial world, as the normal population does.
We in the U.S. expostulate that we are a "nation founded on laws". When the application of those laws becomes selective and overtly subject to finance -- justice, or its absence, "for sale" -- you weaken that very foundation.
(As a complementary point, arguments can be made that efforts to define and apply the law more universally have strengthened the country. For example, the suffrage and civil rights movements.)
P.S. I'll add that Warren, and Sheila Baer, and a few others are actually responsible for forcing through some of the few real and at least somewhat effective consumer (i.e. "normal person") protections in the mess of activity that constitute's the U.S.'s "financial bailout" efforts.
Finally, as to the politics, that whole "Native American" thing is a red herring -- emblematic of much bigger liars (as compared to their claims rather than facts) who make strident declamations to divert attention from their own atrocious behavior.
Her claims of ancestry that she does not have in her family tree which she used to get educational placement makes anything she does a loss for me. She has shown she cares quite a bit more about her own interest than at least parts of the public.
It was my understanding that she was told as a child she was part Native American. Reguardless, it sounds like you live in a black and white world. People are good or bad. I'm here to tell you that is simply not so. You're dismissing this letter and her ideas because of past, unrelated indiscretions. You're making a pretty big accusation saying that she isn't looking out for her constituents, whom may I remind you voted her into office with the knowledge regarding her family heritage. Oh, look at that. You've derailed the conversation. How convenient.
I'm dismissing it because she has shown herself to be of poor character and not corrected her past mistakes and taken advantage where she had no right. It is black and white claiming ancestry, if your family is listed with a tribe - all good - otherwise no. No apology, no public donation to http://www.collegefund.org/ to correct the error, the no reason to trust future motives. Who lost out because she claimed something?
Subjectivity doesn't mean it's bullshit, we might just be measuring the wrong thing. Genetics + a oral chemistry test might be a far better predictor of what wines you'll enjoy than an expert's opinion.
I've been thinking about the general business plan problem for years. Not only because it's a very real problem, but also because as I'm walking through a swap meet or a grocery store I'm perpetually curious about margins and return on capital for the many tiny to medium businesses for which almost no intelligence exists. If I could figure out a way to bootstrap a crowd sourced resource for these I'd be working on it right now...but alas.
In your case, if you haven't done so already, I'd suggest attempting to buy advertising from a site similar to the one you'd like the build. Maybe even invest some dollars advertising your own product (non-profits are interesting guinea pigs too) to get some idea of the volume of traffic they enjoy and the prevailing rate that advertisers are willing to pay for access to their audience. Once you have data you can start building some models and establishing ranges inside which the business makes sense to pursue. I've done this kind of research myself and for clients on multiple occasions, it's not bulletproof but it's a valuable start.
There is no guarantee that any item will be worth any amount of another item. You can make claims about the relative likelihood that some item will be exchangeable for some quantity of another item, but you cannot claim that in every future scenario your item will be exchangeable for any amount of another item.
Just because a transaction looks more like barter than commercial doesn't magically convert the ideas underpinning fundamental economics. At this level of understanding economics is more a study of sociological systems and less about banking, fiat currencies, and all the other modern mumbo-jumbo we go on about these days.
This is really key when discussing some utopian reality where we've untethered ourselves from any form of currency--an exchange of value is tied to the very earliest societal systems. Unless society shrinks back into nomadic wandering tribes some form of value exchange (aka: currency) will exist.
TDD done correctly should allow the validation of "speed of thought" changes. It happens to me often that ideas spawned between my ears break functionality in the actual application if the application is complex. It doesn't mean that the idea was invalid, tests simply illuminate what else needs to be changed if you'd like to go forward with the change.