Was cocaine use by bankers a cause of the financial crisis?

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh, I've already posted about that, but the smell of copy-pasta ITT is overwhelming. Don't you agree?

[Symmetry]

Oh, I've already posted about that, but the smell of copy-pasta ITT is overwhelming. Don't you agree?

What did you drink tonight?

[comic boy]

Sym
To my certain knowledge , Coke use in the City of London has been widespread for the last 30 years. I see no reason to suppose that it peaked around the time of the financial crisis or that it was a major contributory factor.

[Symmetry]

Sym
To my certain knowledge , Coke use in the City of London has been widespread for the last 30 years. I see no reason to suppose that it peaked around the time of the financial crisis or that it was a major contributory factor.

Thanks for the reply. I'm not suggesting it peaked, merely that a corporate culture of illegal drug use caused risk taking to peak, among other things.

[thegreekdog]

Fair enough, anyway, what's your take on the topic?

I voted "no, but maybe in certain cases."

I suspect that drug or alcohol abuse of any kind is a cause, albeit a minor one, of various things, financial crises included.

What's your take? I was the third person who voted so I couldn't tell.

[Symmetry]

Fair enough, anyway, what's your take on the topic?

I voted "no, but maybe in certain cases."

I suspect that drug or alcohol abuse of any kind is a cause, albeit a minor one, of various things, financial crises included.

What's your take? I was the third person who voted so I couldn't tell.

I didn't vote, but I've found the matter concerning. I've argued before that mandatory drug tests for those in receipt of welfare pale before the need for drug testing of those in receipt of million dollar loans.

[thegreekdog]

Fair enough, anyway, what's your take on the topic?

I voted "no, but maybe in certain cases."

I suspect that drug or alcohol abuse of any kind is a cause, albeit a minor one, of various things, financial crises included.

What's your take? I was the third person who voted so I couldn't tell.

I didn't vote, but I've found the matter concerning. I've argued before that mandatory drug tests for those in receipt of welfare pale before the need for drug testing of those in receipt of million dollar loans.

Is your opinion based on the receipt of welfare (for lack of a better term) by financial institutions? In other words, would your opinion change if the financial institutions did not receive government dollars?

[Symmetry]

Fair enough, anyway, what's your take on the topic?

I voted "no, but maybe in certain cases."

I suspect that drug or alcohol abuse of any kind is a cause, albeit a minor one, of various things, financial crises included.

What's your take? I was the third person who voted so I couldn't tell.

I didn't vote, but I've found the matter concerning. I've argued before that mandatory drug tests for those in receipt of welfare pale before the need for drug testing of those in receipt of million dollar loans.

Is your opinion based on the receipt of welfare (for lack of a better term) by financial institutions? In other words, would your opinion change if the financial institutions did not receive government dollars?

I would generally like to see a greater degree of regulation when it comes to those who drive economies. Having them use gov't money to fund their illegal activities, well, that's just the icing on the mirror.

[thegreekdog]

If a financial institution takes government money, the personnel of such financial institution should be subject to random drug testing (assuming we're being consistent with less-wealthy welfare recipients).

If a financial institution does not take government money, I don't think the government can and should mandate drug testing. But since financial institutions take government money, that should be a moot point.

What is your opinion on drug testing the employees of automobile companies, including unionized employees. Should they also be drug tested? Should all employees of any companies that "drive economies" be drug tested? Should government employees be drug tested? How do you define "drive economies?"

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to figure out where your drug testing decisions begin and end. Mine begin and end with directly taking federal funds (just to be clear).

[Symmetry]

If a financial institution takes government money, the personnel of such financial institution should be subject to random drug testing (assuming we're being consistent with less-wealthy welfare recipients).

If a financial institution does not take government money, I don't think the government can and should mandate drug testing. But since financial institutions take government money, that should be a moot point.

What is your opinion on drug testing the employees of automobile companies, including unionized employees. Should they also be drug tested? Should all employees of any companies that "drive economies" be drug tested? Should government employees be drug tested? How do you define "drive economies?"

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to figure out where your drug testing decisions begin and end. Mine begin and end with directly taking federal funds (just to be clear).

Pretty easy, I'm not really bothered by the rank and file. Anyone in charge of sufficiently large amounts of money while high.

[thegreekdog]

If a financial institution takes government money, the personnel of such financial institution should be subject to random drug testing (assuming we're being consistent with less-wealthy welfare recipients).

If a financial institution does not take government money, I don't think the government can and should mandate drug testing. But since financial institutions take government money, that should be a moot point.

What is your opinion on drug testing the employees of automobile companies, including unionized employees. Should they also be drug tested? Should all employees of any companies that "drive economies" be drug tested? Should government employees be drug tested? How do you define "drive economies?"

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to figure out where your drug testing decisions begin and end. Mine begin and end with directly taking federal funds (just to be clear).

Pretty easy, I'm not really bothered by the rank and file. Anyone in charge of sufficiently large amounts of money while high.

What is a sufficiently large amount of money? The head of the UAW union is in charge of a large amount of money. Should he be drug tested?

[Symmetry]

If a financial institution takes government money, the personnel of such financial institution should be subject to random drug testing (assuming we're being consistent with less-wealthy welfare recipients).

If a financial institution does not take government money, I don't think the government can and should mandate drug testing. But since financial institutions take government money, that should be a moot point.

What is your opinion on drug testing the employees of automobile companies, including unionized employees. Should they also be drug tested? Should all employees of any companies that "drive economies" be drug tested? Should government employees be drug tested? How do you define "drive economies?"

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to figure out where your drug testing decisions begin and end. Mine begin and end with directly taking federal funds (just to be clear).

Pretty easy, I'm not really bothered by the rank and file. Anyone in charge of sufficiently large amounts of money while high.

What is a sufficiently large amount of money? The head of the UAW union is in charge of a large amount of money. Should he be drug tested?

Thought you might ask that. As you seem conciliatory and I've answered your questions, where would you draw the line?

[thegreekdog]

If a financial institution takes government money, the personnel of such financial institution should be subject to random drug testing (assuming we're being consistent with less-wealthy welfare recipients).

If a financial institution does not take government money, I don't think the government can and should mandate drug testing. But since financial institutions take government money, that should be a moot point.

What is your opinion on drug testing the employees of automobile companies, including unionized employees. Should they also be drug tested? Should all employees of any companies that "drive economies" be drug tested? Should government employees be drug tested? How do you define "drive economies?"

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to figure out where your drug testing decisions begin and end. Mine begin and end with directly taking federal funds (just to be clear).

Pretty easy, I'm not really bothered by the rank and file. Anyone in charge of sufficiently large amounts of money while high.

What is a sufficiently large amount of money? The head of the UAW union is in charge of a large amount of money. Should he be drug tested?

Thought you might ask that. As you seem conciliatory and I've answered your questions, where would you draw the line?

As I indicated above, I would draw the line at companies that receive money from the government (assuming that we're going to drug test welfare recipients). In the context of our current discussion regarding the bailouts, that would include financial institutions and the auto companies that received bailouts (to the benefit of the UAW). As far as I'm concerned, the UAW, the auto companies, and the financial institutions that received bailout funds are welfare recipients and thus should be tested. Ultimately, I'm concerned about the use of tax dollars in the pursuit of their businesses or the potential receipt of tax dollars upon the failure of their businesses (the failure of which may be due partially to drug use).

It appears, at least initially, that you seem more concerned with financial institutions generally and are not limited by the "received funds from the federal government" proviso that I've indicated. The stated reason is that they handle sufficiently large amounts of money. What is a sufficiently large amount of money? I do not think that employees for a financial institution that handles large amounts of money should have mandatory drug testing, unless that financial institution received government funds. It appears that you do think that employees for a financial institution that handles large amounts of money should have mandatory drug testing, regardless of whether the financial institution has received government funds. Why do you not make a distinction? Further, if you do make a distinction between a financial institution and, let's say, an automobile manufacturer or the head of a union, why do you make that distinction? Another question - why do you care whether someone who handles sufficiently large amounts of money is on drugs or not if it's not your money?

[Symmetry]

If a financial institution takes government money, the personnel of such financial institution should be subject to random drug testing (assuming we're being consistent with less-wealthy welfare recipients).

If a financial institution does not take government money, I don't think the government can and should mandate drug testing. But since financial institutions take government money, that should be a moot point.

What is your opinion on drug testing the employees of automobile companies, including unionized employees. Should they also be drug tested? Should all employees of any companies that "drive economies" be drug tested? Should government employees be drug tested? How do you define "drive economies?"

Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to figure out where your drug testing decisions begin and end. Mine begin and end with directly taking federal funds (just to be clear).

Pretty easy, I'm not really bothered by the rank and file. Anyone in charge of sufficiently large amounts of money while high.

What is a sufficiently large amount of money? The head of the UAW union is in charge of a large amount of money. Should he be drug tested?

Thought you might ask that. As you seem conciliatory and I've answered your questions, where would you draw the line?

As I indicated above, I would draw the line at companies that receive money from the government (assuming that we're going to drug test welfare recipients). In the context of our current discussion regarding the bailouts, that would include financial institutions and the auto companies that received bailouts (to the benefit of the UAW). As far as I'm concerned, the UAW, the auto companies, and the financial institutions that received bailout funds are welfare recipients and thus should be tested. Ultimately, I'm concerned about the use of tax dollars in the pursuit of their businesses or the potential receipt of tax dollars upon the failure of their businesses (the failure of which may be due partially to drug use).

It appears, at least initially, that you seem more concerned with financial institutions generally and are not limited by the "received funds from the federal government" proviso that I've indicated. The stated reason is that they handle sufficiently large amounts of money. What is a sufficiently large amount of money? I do not think that employees for a financial institution that handles large amounts of money should have mandatory drug testing, unless that financial institution received government funds. It appears that you do think that employees for a financial institution that handles large amounts of money should have mandatory drug testing, regardless of whether the financial institution has received government funds. Why do you not make a distinction? Further, if you do make a distinction between a financial institution and, let's say, an automobile manufacturer or the head of a union, why do you make that distinction? Another question - why do you care whether someone who handles sufficiently large amounts of money is on drugs or not if it's not your money?

My point was the "too big to fail" companies. I of course don't see why employees not in charge of millions should be tested.

[thegreekdog]

My point was the "too big to fail" companies. I of course don't see why employees not in charge of millions should be tested.

"Too big to fail" is a synonym for companies that recieved bailouts so it appears, after an agonizing number of posts, we are in agreement.

[Symmetry]

My point was the "too big to fail" companies. I of course don't see why employees not in charge of millions should be tested.

"Too big to fail" is a synonym for companies that recieved bailouts so it appears, after an agonizing number of posts, we are in agreement.

Done

[BigBallinStalin]

My point was the "too big to fail" companies. I of course don't see why employees not in charge of millions should be tested.

"Too big to fail" is a synonym for companies that recieved bailouts so it appears, after an agonizing number of posts, we are in agreement.

Werent Ford, GM, and Chrysler bailed out?

[2dimes]

Werent Ford, GM, and Chrysler bailed out?

Yes.

[thegreekdog]

My point was the "too big to fail" companies. I of course don't see why employees not in charge of millions should be tested.

"Too big to fail" is a synonym for companies that recieved bailouts so it appears, after an agonizing number of posts, we are in agreement.

Werent Ford, GM, and Chrysler bailed out?

Yes, with the exception of Ford, which means that Symmetry and I agree that the people at those companies and associated with those companies who are receiving bailout funds should be subject to drug tests, including, but not limited to CEOs, CFOs, and UAW bigwigs.

[BigBallinStalin]

(Just wondering why I vaguely recall Ford being part of the bailouts).

Bailout proponents like to point out that Ford was also a recipient of federal loans ($9 billion line of credit, $5 billion from the Energy Department) in 2009 as GM and Chrysler were entering into government-managed bankruptcies. Which is true -- but unlike GM and Chrysler, Ford was not required to file for bankruptcy as a condition for receiving federal money.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jack-colem ... to-bailout


They just didn't have to file for bankruptcy, so I guess that's more of a subsidy then.