Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
September 20th, 2011 at 7:02:08 PM permalink
Quote: weaselman

You can't sue the DA (or any other participant in a court case) for libel or slander, all the work product is privileged.



I'm not a lawyer and I'm ignorant of precise legal terms. But doesn't privileged refer to information or communications protected by law from outside scrutiny? Such as doctor-patient privilege, or attorney-client privilege?

Anyway, I don't suppose a DA can be liable for slander for the questions she asks or the statements she makes in court. What happens outside of court, though, when talking to the media or releasing statements to the press, should be another matter.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
cclub79
cclub79
Joined: Dec 16, 2009
  • Threads: 35
  • Posts: 1147
September 20th, 2011 at 7:04:23 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Aren't all banks just a Ponzi Scheme? Remember the scene
in Its A Wonderful Life when the depositors tried to take out
all their money at once, and Jimmy Stewart explained to them
the money wasn't there, it had all been loaned out to home
buyers. Thats what all Savings and Loans and banks do, use
our money to make money by loaning it out.



When I took Economics, I think we were told that the RR (Ready Reserve) that banks must have is 10% of all deposits.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
  • Threads: 1210
  • Posts: 20171
September 20th, 2011 at 7:08:56 PM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Yet with both banks and Ponzi's, if the investors/depositors all
demand their money at once, its not there. Feels the like the
same thing to them. Thats why banks failed in the Depression,
no FDIC, no Fed money to back up the deposits.



At least with banks the assets still exist. The depositors would have to wait as the borrowers repaid their loans to get their money. With a Ponzi scheme depositors will have nothing in the event of a run on the bank.
It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
EvenBob
EvenBob
Joined: Jul 18, 2010
  • Threads: 421
  • Posts: 23052
September 20th, 2011 at 7:16:51 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

At least with banks the assets still exist. The depositors would have to wait as the borrowers repaid their loans to get their money.



The problem in the Depression was the properties the
bank made loans on was almost worthless. We have
the same problem now, except the Fed's back the banks
up now.
"It's not enough to succeed, your friends must fail." Gore Vidal
ncfatcat
ncfatcat
Joined: Jun 25, 2011
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 361
September 20th, 2011 at 7:23:51 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

At least with banks the assets still exist. The depositors would have to wait as the borrowers repaid their loans to get their money. With a Ponzi scheme depositors will have nothing in the event of a run on the bank.


According to thestreet.com 380 banks in the US have failed since 2008.
Gambling is a metaphor for life. Hang around long enough and it's all gone.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 158
  • Posts: 8932
September 20th, 2011 at 7:46:38 PM permalink
Binions was shut down a few years back for not having the required reserves. By shut down, I mean literally federal agents showed up and ran everyone out. (well they walked out, but still)
Quasimodo? Does that name ring a bell?
fremont4ever
fremont4ever
Joined: Nov 24, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 138
September 20th, 2011 at 9:07:03 PM permalink
Quote: ncfatcat

I won't play online poker. How do you know 2 or more players at the table aren't texting IMing or talking to each other on skype and colluding against the rest of the table?



I played online poker back in the Precambrian era (2004-5). The better sites had defenses against this even then. Most powerful was (is) the hand history - anyone can see the history of every hand they've played, and without too much effort, they can get access to hands that others played. The guys that run the sites, of course, can get access to all hands at all times. Over thousands of hands collusion is likely to show, someone is likely to complain, and the cheaters will find themselves kicked out.

The truest test is the ability to win without colluding. I never colluded, and I still won (overall) in both cash games and tournaments. This was for low stakes, where I doubt there was much collusion because it wouldn't have been worth it.
buzzpaff
buzzpaff
Joined: Mar 8, 2011
  • Threads: 112
  • Posts: 5328
September 20th, 2011 at 9:09:26 PM permalink
If you have not been cheated playing online, then you have not played online !
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
September 20th, 2011 at 9:46:34 PM permalink
Quote: cclub79

When I took Economics, I think we were told that the RR (Ready Reserve) that banks must have is 10% of all deposits.



The percentage varies and is set by the Federal Reserve. It is an easy way to control the money supply without actually issuing more currency or failing to replace currency that is destroyed. It is also much quicker since in the event of a scare people hold onto their $100 bills.

Many of the bank loans are bad, so in the event of them having to theoretically pay back all of their investors most of them could not do it. You could argue that paying salaries and executive bonuses is similar to what Full Tilt was doing.

But banks are not Ponzi schemes, and neither is Full Tilt. Full Tilt may have been playing a risky game, and it is quite possible the federal rules were not very specific. But by calling it a Ponzi scheme in the press, the government is guilty of causing a run on the company, which absolutely guarantees that a situation will arise.

A Ponzi scheme specifically pays the first investors a large sum of money with the promise that the next level of investors will be paid entirely out of future earnings. There is absolutely no creation of wealth involved.

To some extent nearly every company or government program (like social security) is dependent on future earnings. But the phrase should not be applied to everything you see. It should be reserved for true Ponzi schemes. Otherwise you are making a situation worse than it needs to be.
FleaStiff
FleaStiff
Joined: Oct 19, 2009
  • Threads: 261
  • Posts: 13696
September 21st, 2011 at 2:29:57 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin


But banks are not Ponzi schemes, and neither is Full Tilt. Full Tilt may have been playing a risky game, and it is quite possible the federal rules were not very specific. But by calling it a Ponzi scheme in the press, the government is guilty of causing a run on the company, which absolutely guarantees that a situation will arise.

Otherwise you are making a situation worse than it needs to be.


Agree. It was government actions that caused the Run on the Bank atmosphere that caused Full Tilt to give in to temptation on dipping into player's balances.

Making the situation worse in the headlines, is a favorite prosecutorial ploy.

In the really old days, Binions used to keep so much cash on hand that he often made money on overnight loans to other casinos. A downtown joint was often keeping Caesars afloat and saving Caesars from getting bank loans or letters of credit to comply with gaming board regs.

  • Jump to: