Presented Without Comment: Experience
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
-
Econophile03/21/2010 - 12:33
-
Leo Kolivakis03/21/2010 - 09:53
-
asiablues03/20/2010 - 19:47
Search
The Zero Hedge Debate Society
Latest News From The Fly On The Wall
03-21 14:28:
Nortel Networks announces management changes
03-21 14:24:
The Medicines Co. provides update on PTO litigation
03-21 14:15:
DayStar reports Q4 EPS (14c) vs. consensus of (17c)
03-21 12:44:
Consumer sentiment released on March 26 at 9:55am
Latest News From RAN Squawk
Poll
Whom Do You Trust More: Steve Liesman Or Rick Santelli?
Rick
90%
Steve
10%
Total votes: 6153
The Zero Hedge Team
Tyler Durden - Founder
Marla Singer - Foil
Travis - Author
Cornelius - Author
Sacrilege - Senior Researcher
tips [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Our Reader Tips Mailbox
Make sure to read our "How To [Read/Tip Off] Zero Hedge Without Attracting The Interest Of [Human Resources/The Treasury/Black Helicopters]" Guide
ads [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Advertising Inquiries.
abuse [ at ] zerohedge [ dot ] com - Abuse / Infringement Issues
It would be very wise of you to study our disclaimer, our privacy policy and our (non)policy on conflicts / full disclosure.
Zero Hedge Offices:
United States:
888.qui.zero (888.784.9376)
Zurich:
+41 43 501 6717
London:
+44 20 3318 4753
copyright ©2009 zero hedge - limited reproduction (with attribution) permitted by request
zero hedge's redundancy powered by:
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 16:59
#142663
Chains you can believe in. Just axe Gary.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 20:28
#142813
Using Climategate as a point of reference, who is adding in "real" experience to the time series?
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:48
#142894
How come Nixon do so swell?
Unless by 'private sector' they mean 'navel gazing'.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:04
#142664
.... almost as if Armstrong's Private-Public pendulum might have some cred to it, huh?
Then again, what could the man behind The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and the premise for the cult film Pi, really know. lol ... disbanded in '99, the MTA is reopening the Foundation ... just in time for the next leg lower.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:10
#142677
I'm listening.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:55
#142767
I was recently introduced to Armstrong's writings and have found his recent work to be a treasure trove. I haven't read anyone with a deeper understanding of markets and history which are the foundations of real economics. Not that bull Bernanke and his crony banker friends are spreading.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:06
#142667
What is the take away here?
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:58
#142862
Learn to think on your own...
Don't let this blog think for you.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:08
#142672
RACIST!
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:09
#142675
Speaks volumes. The children are in charge.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 20:14
#142804
Well, it's not like the adults of the last 8 years had done any better.
(btw, this is not a political statement, but I'm just wondering whether this graph is of any value)
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 13:54
#143266
You don't need a whole lot of private sector experience to screw people over.
The biggest difference here is that this Admin staff will spread the screwing over as broad as possible, assuming the KY effect won't be as painful.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:11
#142678
Equality through poverty.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:16
#142686
Or GS's "Prosperity through inequality".
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 20:01
#142796
There will be always inequality. If everyone was smart then everybody would have their own business and be rich. The people that whine the most are the people that leech off those people that provided jobs.
This isn't a perfect world, deal with it.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 20:25
#142812
ok- you're a dumb ass-
how is GS representative of any small business- unless of course the USG is backstopping their fuck ups and covering their ass- making sure they regain profitability?
many people are whining- not because they ARE leeching- but because some folks have the USG's ear and have been made whole when they should be out of business-
a 4th grader- given the same information GS was privy to and with the inside contacts GS has- could of had a banner year-
so WTF are you talking about?
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:14
#142679
Like being skinned with a fillet knife, Marla. One does not know they are on the menu until it is too late.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:27
#142687
http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0608/bhoImage1.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WudBfRa0ETw
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:13
#142683
Marla, How about "administration officials with WS experience/connection"? That would be more telling. Timmy G does qualify for "private sector experience".
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:49
#142717
Hardly - and I sure as hell wouldn't geel any better if Jamie Dimon was the Secretary of the Treasury, would you?
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:02
#142720
Correction: I meant Timmy G doesn NOT qualify for private sector experience.
Jamie D wouldn't last six month in DC with this storm raging, he doesn't have the skills.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:14
#142684
Deleted - random, mysterious, double post. NSA intercept?
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:20
#142693
I am not sure was this says about the current administration's ability to deal with the mess they inherited from that so experienced GWB administration....
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:27
#142696
I'll guess your age at < 30. Man, I hope I'm right.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 08:41
#143038
No quite... 37 actually :o/
I guess my point was merely that private experience is not necessarily what is needed to run a successful government - good people will do.
I do recognise however that Obama's team is a bit on the light side. But does this really matter? There are numerous example of private corporations digging themselves into the ground (say US car industry), and plenty of example of successful public policies, e.g. education in Scandinavian countries is recognised as being pretty good. On a larger scale, the reconstruction of Europe after WWII (praise and respect to our US cousins who fought and fell on our land) was clearly a success, but as far as I know the allocation of capital under the Marshall Plan was not left to market forces.... simply because the job was way too important for that.
Also, I am yet to see a country with a decent infrastructure (roads, rails, water, electricity, etc) as a result of a free market policies...
Happy thanksgiving
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:37
#142755
Experienced at evil is still experience.
And from where I stand 8 years of rule by greedy, professionally evil non-wall-streeters is looking better than not even a year of rule by greedy, amaterishly evil wall street cronies.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 19:04
#142771
What does that even mean?
Bush's experienced team created the original bubble, Obama is just trying, at worst, to re-inflate it. As far as I can tell there is no difference.
As to that "you are under 30" comment dude -- so? If you are over 30 it was your lazy, selfish generation of baby boomers that brought us here. The people buying McMansions were over 30, ditto the geniuses who invaded Iraq, who supported free trade with the Red Chinese, who worshiped at the altar of Greenspan and the glorious Indo-Chino-Eastern European PhD guys' excel formulas 'proving' that assets and AAA CDS's can only go up.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 23:13
#142910
Boy, someone has a chip on their shoulder!
Greenspan and the banksters created the bubbles with unparalleled support from both parties. The repeal of Glass-Stegall by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was quite bipartisan and quite disastrous, and it all occurred under Clinton's reign and potential veto.
By the way, Gen X is now over 30 and largely had nothing to do with all the sins that you correctly identify with the Baby Boomers.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 14:41
#143324
Actually, when I look at the charts, the exponential growth of asset values started in about 1990 under GHW Bush. It continued under Clinton. The main peak of the asset bubble was in 2000-2002. Ever since then, W and Obama and their respective congresses, Fannies, Freddies, Ginnies, FHA's and Fed chairs have been frantically trying to reinflate the bubble that started popping in 2000. Each time the bubble gets blown up again makes the ultimate popping worse.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:30
#142702
I think the most telling fact is that this number has almost never been more than 50%.
Think about that.
Half of the people in charge of helping the POUSA run the country have never actually worked for a living.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:30
#142752
Ummm.... 60%?
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:39
#142709
'Where did it go Rahm?'
Right in the old lumberyard sir.'
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:53
#142721
Well using TA you can see a disctint trendline downward other than that little Jab from GWB... Next president wont be ANY folks with Private Sector Experience. Wonder if you should short the market long term then? :P
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:03
#142865
Portends the idea that we will all be working for Uncle Sam soon.
Representative govt indeed.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 17:59
#142726
Was this a pick your poison question?
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:07
#142734
Took 7 months to pick a dog--and then got it from Ted Kennedy--nuff said.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:08
#142736
Says it all really.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:25
#142747
A crop of brand-new orators we grew,
and foolish, paltry lads who thought they knew."
Gnaeus Naevius ca. 264-201 BC
There is historical precedent
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 19:04
#142772
I like that...
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 18:57
#142768
Private sector experience didn't mean shit for the last 100 years when the mothersquid (Rothschilds) began to take over the world. They've appointed or successfully "convinced" 99% of the key cabinet positions.
James Forrestal R.I.P.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 19:36
#142787
Chicago Pol in charge
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 20:22
#142809
Now, just overlay monetary crises and recessions, and see what the private sector brings to governance.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 20:46
#142827
To each according to need (banksters are a needy bunch) and from each according to ability (they need you able to crawl behind a bush and die).
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:17
#142843
When Obama got elected, I gave him a 1 in 10 chance at fixing the economy... Looks I slightly overestimated him.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:05
#142867
You were far more optimistic than I.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 07:41
#143022
I gave him 50% - but only if he brought Glass-Steagall back and put half of Wall Street behind bars. For life. With no possibility of parole. Now, the inmates are running the asylum.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 08:21
#143035
who appointed the crooks?
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 17:54
#143480
Well, the U.S. citizens elect the President, as well as Congress...
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:24
#142846
Hmm.. they might not have a lot of experience - but the f*ing we are getting sure feels like its coming from someone with a LOT of experience.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:25
#142847
I take two things from this chart. First, Obama has the fewest and Eisenhower had the most. Second, the 50s were less corrupt than the first decade of this millenium. GWB had a higher percentage but included such wonders as Hank Paulson.
It does not appear to me at all obvious that previous private sector experience indicates a more highly developed sense of ethics or morality or, for that matter, competence.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 07:21
#143016
The 50s "less corrupt"? What about the McCarthy hearings and that young Senate page, Bobby Baker. A cesspool of conflicts and a sleepy corrupt press--sort of like now!
"""""Baker took a job as a page in the United States Senate when he was fourteen years old for Senator Burnet Maybank. Baker quickly became friends with then Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Johnson, and several other high-ranking Democrats. In the Senate, Baker eventually rose to serve as Secretary to the Majority (which at the time was the Democrats); this was his highest official position, as well as the position he would resign from. At the height of his political career, Baker's power as a Washington insider and Senate deal-broker was so great that he was often referred to as the "101st Senator". When Johnson was elected as Vice President under John F. Kennedy in 1960, Baker remained a close political adviser to Johnson, while continuing his larger role in the Democratic Party.
Baker frequently mixed politics with personal business, as was common practice among most politicians at the time. In 1962, Baker established the Serve-U-Corporation with his friend, Fred Black. The company was designed to provide vending machines for companies working on federally granted programs. Though a part of numerous other deals involving both politics and private financial affairs, this particular business venture would cause the uproar and scandal that would cause Baker to resign a year later.
The Serve-U-Corporation deal became the centerpiece of allegations of conflict of interest and corruption after a disgruntled former government contractor sued Baker and Black in civil court. This lawsuit eventually generated a great deal of press and a Republican investigation into Baker's business and political activities. Under increasing pressure, Baker resigned his job as Secretary to the Majority on October 7, 1963."""
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 14:49
#143338
I didn't say without corruption. There always has been and always will be corruption in a free society. What I don't see in the 1950s (unlike today) is Wall Street buying Washington DC and securing for themselves public payment for their bad bets. Baker may have been a scandal, but he never threatened to take down the world economic system and enslave the American people.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 16:10
#143407
Exhibit A--Eisenhower's last inaugural address on the military- industrial complex
The actual takeover was completed shortly therafter.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=old&doc=90&page=transcript
Reading history is a necessity not a hobby.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:30
#142849
Dinner tonight with relatives who are big fish hedge fund managers: me: "the dollar has to stop going down at some point, right?" them, simultaneously: "No, not at all."
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:38
#142854
Given the current level of corporate fraud out there, does it really make a fucking difference?
While Obama has undoubtedly had to sell out to the banks, would Kea.... I mean... would McCain have done any different?
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 07:23
#143018
Hell no--bipartisan control of the Treasury and Fed is an objective that is seldom if ever not met.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 14:00
#143274
Probably not, pheased.
McCain, though, likely would have been unpredicatable... capable of making even more political enemies. The Chinese would have sabotaged AF One going out of Bejing.
Otherwise, Obama/McCain are one of the same.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 15:13
#143353
Thanks for seeing that...
Seriously, I don't care who's in office, but I can say that I prefer we spend 1trillion on healthcare than another war in afghanistan.
All the banks want is for us to be in DEBT.
90% of the bozos who are bitching about higher taxes are also enjoying the cause of the higher taxes... BAILING OUT THE BANKS.
$1 trillion pales in comparison.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:43
#142856
Aw c'mon, who needs experience when you have hope and change?
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 21:53
#142860
To put this in perspective, it's either T^3 or former GS CEO and famed Bazooka Boy Paulson.
Just sayin'
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:03
#142864
Don't be afraid to comment...why is everyone so afraid to say something about Obama? Is it the race card? Is it bashing the icon for hope/change?
He is just another politician, who happens to be a great campaigner/speaker/networker/organizer, but he is JUST ANOTHER LYING, SELF-SERVING, POLITICIAN...and no, I am not a republican or a democrat...just a frustrated citizen sick of the lies.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:04
#142866
And speaking of which.........
Let's look at the twats who have the most corporate experience.
Taft/Wilson - WWI
Truman - WWII
Eisenhower - North Korea
Nixon - Vietnam
Reagan - Iran/Contra
Bush I - Desert Storm
Bushie II - Iraq
Notice any fucking patterns? :)
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:20
#142874
Vietnam was a kennedy/johnson combo platter. Nixon got in in 69-- Johnson had it escalated by then. Not a Nixon fan, but facts are facts. Was in Vietnam 67-68 USMC
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 01:47
#142963
I was wondering whether to add LBJ to that... thanks, so it was LBJ/Nixon...
still goes to prove the point, but thank you for pointing that out and thank you for that service.
Bosnia, 1st Cav here.
<oh and I should add that aint shit compared to what you and what many of ours are going through right now>
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 08:44
#143040
wondering? please, read a history book. Your attempt of correlation is, well, selective? Ever heard of outliers? Assignable cause variation? (ie, by design, on purpose, assignable). Marla's chart is saying we're in uncharted (!) waters here. And this doesn't even include the real kingpins- unvetted czars. Carter, Clinton, Kennedy- left of center realists -relatively. This guy- Koolaid drinker- off the charts.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 15:07
#143348
I wasn't attempting any correlation wackyquacker, I was pointing out that corporate experience doesn't necessarily correlate to better outcomes. Corporate experience shows flat out a higher war preference. If you're using corporate experience as a measure of competence, how the fuck do you explain Bush II?
Errr Duh.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 16:55
#143451
Whether corp experience is a + or - cannot be gleaned from the chart and I don't think that's Marla's point. We only have what is, not what was or what we hope; history will explain Bush ii. You're assuming alot with your assertion.
on Fri, 11/27/2009 - 00:21
#143651
You're right, I am.
I don't think it was Marla's point, I think her point was the discussion itself has merit, regardless of her own viewpoint. But, as you say, I am assuming a lot with my opinion.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 15:45
#143388
Oh, I should mention.... read a history book? So I guessed the other presidents because I obviously didn't read a history book about which puppet caused which war.
And if you've ever read any of my fucking posts, you'll realize I've read way more history books than most, except I concentrate on what matters.... the banks.
Koolaid drinker? lol, you're drinking vodka if you're so numb to the blunt reality of who's being called Mr. President is really just a puppet.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 21:06
#143552
s/f and happy thanksgiving
ned
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 21:29
#143560
Nooo.... Truman June 1950 with an April Gillespie (sp?) moment where Sec State (Acheson?) didn't "include" South Korea under the umbrella of US protection. Let's see...
Wilson "too proud to fight" because it would be hurting his progressive agenda, but then, well, was forced to declare war. Geee, Taft not in policy arena.
Truman was a Pendergast (sp?) machine pol in KC when WW2 started. Senator. War profiteering hawk as a populist. (Harry S. Truman--S is his middle name).
Ike got elected because he was willing to end the conflict in a blinding instant.1
Bobby Kennedy and JFK -- Vietnam
Nixon with Realpolitik unf***ed the bad JFK/LBJ situation, my brothers weap, but best of a bad situation at the time.
Reagan--Berlin wall, and I/C--let's see, no war there.
GHWB didn't go all wobbly and achieved his (Powell and Cheney advised) ends.
W-well, you'll miss him on your dieing grave.
O--"dithering" sticks so well.
so the pattern I see is obfuscation and other revisionism. Problem is, there are those of us who'se toughest times were not in the financial or other industries.
My best wishes to you,
Ned
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:08
#142869
Many coming to Obumblers aid, have you all lost your mind.
Sure he caught a bad economy from Bush and the Democratic houses of congress. I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton as the NASDAQ dropped 80%.
And what exactly has Obumbler done for the economy besides threaten Nationalized Health Care, Cap & Tax and Union Card Check. Thankfully I sold all my businesses years ago. I wouldn't be hiring ether with these massive Government policies coming down the pike.
Oh yeah. lets not forget the Trillion dollar stimulus, why aren't you hacks defending that?
Face it unless he changes, which I highly doubt, his only term will be a zerO. He can read a TelePrompter and apologize to a bunch of cleptocrats and two bit thugs for his perceived American short comings. Other then that he is a loser who except for being elected to public office never accomplished one damn thing.
The TOTUS is a nothing, his latest polls are proving many now get it and we all will have to pay for it, including those yet born.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 03:48
#142983
+1 Bernankillion (infinity)
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 07:46
#143024
Bush not blaming Clinton? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Re-read the Wall Street Journal op-ed pages of that time, please. Obama nationalized everything? Well, it's a toss between Obama "cash for clunkers" and "nationalized health care" and GWB/Cheney support for Halliburton, Blackwater and others. Pick your poison. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss and all that.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 15:09
#143350
THANK YOU!
I still don't understand how people are falling into populist comparisons of the "elected" (please read bought and paid for) leaders.
Attack the problem, not the figureheads which are placed to pin the proverbial tail on the donkey.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:28
#142878
Obama presidency=Epic FAIL.
Totally worthless.When Larry and Timmy boy were named I suspected the doom was total.Sometimes, it really sucks to be right.It must really, really suck to be one of those poor dolts who thought he was going to be something special.Which is ultimately very sad for something as salutatory as being the first President of color in our nations history.And he is just nothing...a puppet who dances on the orders of wall st and their pals.Of course, things will get worse.And what will history say of President Obama?That he was welcomed , and showed so much promise....and then systematically betrayed the people who elected him and sealed the doom of the USA.What a nightmare.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 22:53
#142896
General comment. Too many graphics and charts disappear under the Zero Hedge right side bar. This is a constant situation.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 04:02
#142987
I second that. Can some house keeping be done to fix
this. It is pretty annoying in an otherwise excellent
site.
on Wed, 11/25/2009 - 23:34
#142922
WTF
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 00:14
#142936
If only we could go back to the Bush years, we wouldn't have to worry about the economy....sigh
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 01:24
#142956
I think the plot of the Presidents 'actual experience' would look even more dramatic. With Obama at 180 days of national service (does not include campaigning). This is pathetic.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 07:05
#143013
Personally ... if you haven't had the pleasure of meeting payroll out of your own pocket you can't possibly be ready to be president or one of his advisors.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 07:50
#143025
What's next? Giving the right to vote only to people who have created their own company? That's not a "democracy" anymore, it's an oligarchy. Or, even worse, a plutocracy. Is that really what you want?
Think long and hard about that last question.
(I know, thinking long and hard is probably difficult for you, but do give it a try)
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 10:52
#143101
No, dummy, focus. The graph and all this discussion isn't about the right to vote. It's about who to vote for. This is not a democracy; it's a republic. Try to come to some understanding posting a graph that reflects the importance of the difference.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 15:11
#143351
Yes... we should all bow to the magnificence of the corporate structure which promote secret alliances, price fixing, corporate espionage, middle management inefficiency.... Do I really need to go on?
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 16:10
#143409
Only Obama has taken bows lately.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 09:35
#143054
So, since you didn't comment on the graph, you think it is meaningless? Well, I'd say you are right.
on Thu, 11/26/2009 - 11:32
#143142
Limousine liberals saving the world on your credit card.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 10:54
#147657
You haven't any idea where these numbers come from, you're just regurgitating a cute little graph.
Clinton: Previously in private practice, the infamous Rose Law Firm.
Geithner: Previously employed by Kissinger Associates, a private consulting firm.
Gates: Served on corporate boards but little private experience (FYI: Appointed by Bush)
Holder: Private practice with Covington and Burling.
Salazar: In private law practice from 1981 to 1999.
That's just the first five cabinet members on the list. There are only 21 Cabinet or Cabinet level positions in the White House so I'm done.
If I was this much of a moron I'd present it without comment too I suppose.
on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 10:57
#147662
You haven't any idea where these numbers come from, you're just regurgitating a cute little graph.
Clinton: Previously in private practice, the infamous Rose Law Firm.
Geithner: Previously employed by Kissinger Associates, a private consulting firm.
Gates: Served on corporate boards but little private experience (FYI: Appointed by Bush)
Holder: Private practice with Covington and Burling.
Salazar: In private law practice from 1981 to 1999.
That's just the first five cabinet members on the list. There are only 21 Cabinet or Cabinet level positions in the White House so I'm done.
If I was this much of a moron I'd present it without comment too I suppose.