Michael Lewis Article on Goldman and Serge Aleynikov

[CalVolibrator]

Fair point actually. I tend to agree with you, that is why I did not say its fair and just but I said I do not mind it happens to convicted felons. Does he deserve 8 years? Most likely not. 1 year and community service? That would probably not be enough. Something in the middle. What gets me is those who suddenly take into question the jury system or legal system...the same people that call onto such institution for their own protection. It is the same people who look around where they can burn their lips to sue companies for millions of dollars. Those tend to be the ones who now come out of the closet and scream UNFAIR. Ironically, they would have never noticed if the same story appeared in the Wall Street Journal, not only because they are too cheap to afford a subscription but also because Vanity Fair is just right up their alley.

ML is an opportunist nothing more. He knows when to jump in to write up a hot story that resounds well with the retail community (anything anti Goldman works for that matter) in order to keep his name on mom and pop traders' minds for his next book publication.

Who is without fault in this business? Who is without own selfish motivations? Nobody is. The ex Goldman programmer stole, he violated his employment contract, he approached other parties to gain advantage from the stolen code. Those are all facts. Do I care whether he gets 3 or 8 years? Not really to be honest, in the same way that I do not think its fair Madoff got 150 years but I do not mind he got 20 or 150...call it unfair and unjust...It is ridiculous how the retail crowd screams how the Wall Street type of guys reap a fortune while the High Street guys get creamed. That programmer was part of Wall Street crowd (or how do you imagine how he paid himself or made someone take the risk to shoulder his bail in the amount of almost 800k USD). But as soon as someone twists the truth and portrays the programmer as the victim the same lemmings and lambs make a 180 and cheer for him. That is true crowd psychology at its best...enough said...

Quote from justrading:

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

I'm afraid I'm a bit old fashioned, but I was not aware making a point was considered as being fair or just.

 

[zdreg]

Quote from CalVolibrator:

Fair point actually. I tend to agree with you, that is why I did not say its fair and just but I said I do not mind it happens to convicted felons. Does he deserve 8 years? Most likely not. 1 year and community service? That would probably not be enough. Something in the middle. What gets me is those who suddenly take into question the jury system or legal system...the same people that call onto such institution for their own protection. It is the same people who look around where they can burn their lips to sue companies for millions of dollars. Those tend to be the ones who now come out of the closet and scream UNFAIR. Ironically, they would have never noticed if the same story appeared in the Wall Street Journal, not only because they are too cheap to afford a subscription but also because Vanity Fair is just right up their alley.

ML is an opportunist nothing more. He knows when to jump in to write up a hot story that resounds well with the retail community (anything anti Goldman works for that matter) in order to keep his name on mom and pop traders' minds for his next book publication.

Who is without fault in this business? Who is without own selfish motivations? Nobody is. The ex Goldman programmer stole, he violated his employment contract, he approached other parties to gain advantage from the stolen code. Those are all facts. Do I care whether he gets 3 or 8 years? Not really to be honest, in the same way that I do not think its fair Madoff got 150 years but I do not mind he got 20 or 150...call it unfair and unjust...It is ridiculous how the retail crowd screams how the Wall Street type of guys reap a fortune while the High Street guys get creamed. That programmer was part of Wall Street crowd (or how do you imagine how he paid himself or made someone take the risk to shoulder his bail in the amount of almost 800k USD). But as soon as someone twists the truth and portrays the programmer as the victim the same lemmings and lambs make a 180 and cheer for him. That is true crowd psychology at its best...enough said...

no matter which way you put it goldman sachs are thieves in white shoes with tentacles in the highest level of government.

by the way do you need to reread adam smith and ayn rand to understand why selfish motivation results in the best outcome for society?

 

[nitro]

Quote from zdreg:

no matter which way you put it goldman sachs are thieves in white shoes with tentacles in the highest level of government.

by the way do you need to reread adam smith and ayn rand to understand why selfish motivation results in the best outcome for society?

Great Goldman Sachs quotes:

“The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”

- journalist Matt Taibbi, profiling the bank for Rolling Stone magazine in 2009

________________________________________

"Doing God’s work"

- Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein, explains his banking career in a 2009 interview

________________________________________

“No one ever got fired for hiring Goldman Sachs”

- a so-called market mantra

________________________________________

“More and more leverage in the system. The whole building is about to collapse anytime now ... Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab ... standing in the middle of all these complex, highly leveraged, exotic trades he created without necessarily understanding all of the implication of those monstruosities [sic]!!!”

- Fabrice Tourre, the Goldman Sachs trader accused of securities fraud, shares his feelings on the US housing market in a 2007 email

________________________________________

“Tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity for all”

- Lord Griffiths, the vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, defends bankers’ compensation in 2009

________________________________________

“Long-term greedy”

- how Sidney Weinberg, Goldman Sachs’s legendary managing partner from the 1930s to the 1960s, summed up the bank’s overarching strategy.

________________________________________

"I don’t know. No one really knows how much holiday you get because nobody ever takes it all"

- a senior Goldman Sachs employee when asked how many weeks off she gets a year

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

Quote from CalVolibrator:

I don't mind having a convicted drug dealer get 25 years to scare e rest of the bunch and nor do I care to have a convicted corporate thief get 8 to make a point. The American legal system allows for such sentencing on the basis of not only the case at hand but to also make a point to warn potential copycats.

This implies that you don't pay attention to proportionality, rehabilitation, or justice. Remember there is a cost to incarceration, both for the state, the individual, and the friends & family of the individual, plus society from the loss of the felon's future contribution to society after release. Also, a criminal is only criminal to the extent of their crime - punishing them beyond this is (morally) criminal in itself, and in some cases can be worse than the original offense.

For example, what moral harm does a marijuana 'dealer' who sells a join to a friend do? And how does that harm compare to the harm inflicted by a 25 year sentence? There are many cases of people doing foolish acts, often in their youth, this does not mean they deserve, or that society benefits from, locking them up until they are old men. It is clear to me that you and the judge (or politican making the law, in the case of lack of sentencing discretion) are the criminal here, not the dealer.

Any deterrence element of a sentence should be no more than is necessary to deter, and should not become so long as to be clearly unjust, disproportionate, or destructive.

For example, using your logic, we could have capital punishment for littering, justified as a deterrent. Assuming you are not so stupid as to support that, you must give reasons. Presumably, the complete imbalance between harm caused by the crime, and harm caused by the punishment, is what would restrain you and make you recommend a more lenient sentence. So, ask yourself upon what principles you would base your recommended sentence. Then apply those to small-time marijuana users/'dealers' and see if you can still justify sentences greater than the average sentence for rape, child abuse, massacres of foreign civilians, 2nd degree murder etc. Obviously you can't.

To ignore this is to demonstrate dangerously low levels of empathy, compassion, and forgiveness (or to just have no logical reasoning ability, which I doubt is the case here). This makes for dishonourable, despicable, and dangerous men and women, who have no business being anywhere near law making or other areas of responsibility. A hanging judge is worse than the majority of criminals he puts away.

 

[dandxg]

If you really want an objective look watch " How to make money selling drugs " it's not what you think. It look at all of the angles and reasons. Great movie.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

After reading the article, I feel sad that many of the people involved seem to have cared mostly about their narrow perceived self-interest and nothing about their duty to act in a humane way and to uphold principles of justice or fairness. In fact, I'm not sure I can even hold them responsible for this, they just seem genuinely blind to any sense of a greater cosmic whole or wider humanity. Without knowing more, I'm not sure whether this is a lack of education, the poor state of US or world society, or just intrinsic flaws in their own character. However other people in far more straitened circumstances and life background have shown much greater virtues so I don't really see that as an excuse.

Unfortunately the sad reality is that most people are scumbags at least in part. At least the writer, and the defendant's lawyer seem to retain some common decency. And it's nice to see that the 'felon' seems to have gained some great wisdom from this. In fact it would not surprise me if at some point in the future he does something significant, and more worthwhile than helping to engorge the vampire squid's blood funnel.

If I were in charge of Goldman Sachs I'd start seriously planning for the future survival of the firm. A bad reputation cannot be endured indefinitely without serious financial and legal consequences. There also serious flaws in the US legal system which come to light here.

Overall this is just one in a stream of news over recent years that makes quite clear progress, civilisation and enlightenment have a very long way to go, and there is a heck of a lot of work that needs to be done on it.

 

[Ghost of Cutten]

Quote from dandxg:

If you really want an objective look watch " How to make money selling drugs " it's not what you think. It look at all of the angles and reasons. Great movie.

I'm sure there are many scumbags who sell drugs, who deserve to be punished. I was simply critiquing the morally blind hang em high attitude that the previous poster, who in other respects might seem a reasonable person, displayed. A simple thought experiment will tell us that he would not be quite so blase about such astronomical sentences for trivial victimless crimes if himself, his family, or friends were the victims of such prosecutorial overreach. It is easy to judge people from afar, not quite so easy to be on the receiving end.

Anyway thanks for the film recommendation, drugs policy is fucked up almost everywhere except maybe Switzerland and is another area in urgent need of reform.

 

[dandxg]

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

I'm sure there are many scumbags who sell drugs, who deserve to be punished. I was simply critiquing the morally blind hang em high attitude that the previous poster, who in other respects might seem a reasonable person, displayed. A simple thought experiment will tell us that he would not be quite so blase about such astronomical sentences for trivial victimless crimes if himself, his family, or friends were the victims of such prosecutorial overreach. It is easy to judge people from afar, not quite so easy to be on the receiving end.

Anyway thanks for the film recommendation, drugs policy is fucked up almost everywhere except maybe Switzerland and is another area in urgent need of reform.

You may be thinking Portugal it's policy is covered in the movie. Some said it once to me rather succinctly. When you build an industry you have to continue to justify it's existence, and the Prison industry is big business in this country. If we let all the MJ dealer and offenders out we don't need as many prisons or guards someone is going to take a hit.

I get enraged when I am reminded that child molesters get less time than drug dealers on mandatory minimums. What does that say about the US, pretty fucked up IMO.

 

[vanv0029]

To get this thread back on track. I think there is more to the Aleynikov
story than people know, and I do not think that Lewis understands what is
going on either.

I ran into this fast trading hardware PR:

edacafe.com/nbc/articles/1/1209492/NVG-Associates-Inc.-Deploys-World-Fastest-Trading-Engine

I do not think this sub 1 micro second trading engine would help a non global
bank prime dealer institution much.

Maybe the key to Aleynikov's skill was the Erlang computer language. I think
the exchanges side uses Erlang so maybe Aleynikov knew some magic value
conventions extractable with Erlang coded in the data streams (I obviously
suffer from paranoia).

There must be some reason Aleynikov was targeted for basically a system
programming dispute.

 

[ElCubano]

Quote from Ghost of Cutten:

This implies that you don't pay attention to proportionality, rehabilitation, or justice. Remember there is a cost to incarceration, both for the state, the individual, and the friends & family of the individual, plus society from the loss of the felon's future contribution to society after release. Also, a criminal is only criminal to the extent of their crime - punishing them beyond this is (morally) criminal in itself, and in some cases can be worse than the original offense.

For example, what moral harm does a marijuana 'dealer' who sells a join to a friend do? And how does that harm compare to the harm inflicted by a 25 year sentence? There are many cases of people doing foolish acts, often in their youth, this does not mean they deserve, or that society benefits from, locking them up until they are old men. It is clear to me that you and the judge (or politican making the law, in the case of lack of sentencing discretion) are the criminal here, not the dealer.

Any deterrence element of a sentence should be no more than is necessary to deter, and should not become so long as to be clearly unjust, disproportionate, or destructive.

For example, using your logic, we could have capital punishment for littering, justified as a deterrent. Assuming you are not so stupid as to support that, you must give reasons. Presumably, the complete imbalance between harm caused by the crime, and harm caused by the punishment, is what would restrain you and make you recommend a more lenient sentence. So, ask yourself upon what principles you would base your recommended sentence. Then apply those to small-time marijuana users/'dealers' and see if you can still justify sentences greater than the average sentence for rape, child abuse, massacres of foreign civilians, 2nd degree murder etc. Obviously you can't.

To ignore this is to demonstrate dangerously low levels of empathy, compassion, and forgiveness (or to just have no logical reasoning ability, which I doubt is the case here). This makes for dishonourable, despicable, and dangerous men and women, who have no business being anywhere near law making or other areas of responsibility. A hanging judge is worse than the majority of criminals he puts away.

I have a brother who is on his 22 yr of a 29 yr sentence (habitual offender). The judge got back at him because my brother committed the same crime while out on furlough. The judge was in an election year for a higher position, don't remember exactly which one. The story came out in the newspaper and the judge got back at my brother for this, he did not honor the plea agreement which is a CONTRACT. He was a crack addict and stole less than $300.00. We took it all the way up to 3DCA( in a motion 3.80) after lower courts judge said he was leaning towards my brother. He apparently didn't want to step on the state attorneys toes and sighted with them. Even though the State attorneys office did not show up to court 3 times...the judge rescheduled it 3 times. The state attorneys office had nothing and the judge still rules against my brother. The 3DCA didn't even bother to read the opinion and ruled in the states favor.

there is a lot more to this than I wrote. It would take me a book to write exactly.. this is the gist of it.