Comments on: Appropriate surname for a government regulator employee

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 14:46:27 +0000

Cardinal Sin was a good man. Cardinals (unlike Popes, beware a Pope calls himself “Innocent”)do not get to choose their name.

Although, as a priest is there (in part) to help people (including fellow priests) combat their desire to sin, perhaps “Cardinal Sin” is not a bad name.

By: Jason

Jason — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:47:03 +0000

Forgive me for wandering off topic slightly, but for nominative determinism the all-time gold medallist must be the former archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Sin.

Although these chaps must come in a close second:

http://1.usa.gov/Tr4rSh

By: Sam Duncan

Sam Duncan — Sun, 10 Feb 2013 01:18:07 +0000

Simon: Ah. Oh, well. I said I wasn’t sure. Don’t know where I must have picked that up from.

By: Jordan

Jordan — Sat, 09 Feb 2013 02:55:08 +0000

When a company fails it goes bankrupt, when a government backed agency fails (as the SEC has done – on a vast scale) it is not shut down.

Indeed. When a government agency fails, not only will it not suffer any consequences, it will likely acquire more power and more money.

By: monster

monster — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:47:02 +0000

Bernie’s name was pretty appropriate too, considering he Madoff with everyones money!

By: Simon Jester

Simon Jester — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 16:22:44 +0000

@Sam Duncan: See this wikipedia article on Grimsby for the old Norse etymology of Grim.

By: Alisa

Alisa — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 13:09:25 +0000

Paul: so who threw Madoff under the bus after all?

By: Sam Duncan

Sam Duncan — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 12:14:52 +0000

I've an inkling that the word “grim” comes from the old Norse for “devil” (but don't hold me to it). So yes, highly appropriate.

By: Paul Marks

Paul Marks — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 11:54:53 +0000

When a company fails it goes bankrupt, when a government backed agency fails (as the SEC has done – on a vast scale) it is not shut down. That is an important difference.

And it is, by the way, why the big banks can no longer be considered part of the free enterprise system – because they are not allowed to go bankrupt (i.e. really bankrupt – close their doors, not reopen them, depositors LOSE THEIR MONEY and so on).

There is no substitue for “buyer beware”.

If government comes along and says “have no fear our regulations will protect you” or (even worse) “we have insured your deposites-investments” then we have left the market place.

As Ludwig Von Mises pointed out – running a train set in your attic is not the same thing as running a railway company.

And “the financial sector” that now operates has got nothing to do with a free market.

It is not a “distorted market” (we are not talking about a little fall from protection), it is a system where everything depends on relations with government (and “aristocracy of pull” as Ayn Rand put it) with its regulators and its Central Bank.

As for this specific case…..

Mr Madoff did not twist his investments a bit on the side – he did even make any investments with the part of the business that he looted.

It would have taken five minutes to check that this part of his business was not making real investments (that it was a pyramid scheme).

The SEC may be idiots – but they are not so stupid that they could not notice this (especially as they were repeatedly told).

Mr Madoff got away with it for so long – because of his politcal connections to the Democrat party.

Ditto Fannie Mae – where the head of the organisation was acutally in bed (litteraly) with Barney Frank the Chairman of the House of Representatives Banking committee.

This is the system.

And the “mainstream” media do not even report it.

Still want to do business in the United States?