Profile

Cover photo
Eric S. Johansson
118 followers|214,333 views
AboutPostsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
Two businessmen have been accused of perpetrating the biggest fraud in state history, throwing investors’ immigration status into doubt and leaving a hole in the ground.
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
"The only problem is what happens when the music ends. Debt-to-capital ratios for investment banking functions rose from 12:1 to 30:1. Options on derivatives on other derivatives increased that leverage "

"Remarkably, today the derivatives positions held by the large banks approach 10 times those of 2007-2008. In four banks alone, they exceed the GDP of the entire world. This is the interesting consequence when unchecked risk management rests in bankers’ hands."

Holy fuck! Time to put bankers in stocks. Yup, the wooden kind.
The potential for a depression looms on the horizon. The Vermont senator is the only candidate who can stop banks from spiraling out of control again
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
Probably not far from the truth.
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
nice version
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
2
Add a comment...
Have him in circles
118 people
Audiokult's profile photo
ungandsonor's profile photo
Cecile Menard's profile photo
Joe Barrera III's profile photo
Thomas Z Lukoma's profile photo
mohammad zarafshan's profile photo
Cindy G's profile photo
Fearghas Mckay's profile photo
Andrew Shipley's profile photo

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
more proof that the moose always wins
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
It's important to remember that no matter what vehicle you are in, the Moose always wins.
1
Eric S. Johansson's profile photoGreg Roelofs's profile photo
3 comments
 
No, I'm in the recovery helicopter nearby. Mmmm, moose barbecue...I win. ;-)
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
yea, what he said.
 
It's a hopeful sign that ever more folks appear to be reading or referring to Adam Smith, who today would be a democrat.  Smith knew inherited wealth led to cheating, feudalism and especially "rent-seeking" in which lords and moguls "invest" not in productive, job-making industry but in jiggering the rules so that they get even richer by parasitism. It is the exact opposite of what we were promised from Supply Side "economics" but it is what Smith and nearly all economists predicted would happen with gigantic, budget busting tax gifts to the rich.  (No wonder Fox wages war on economics, and science and every other knowledge profession.)

Now the proof - an analysis shows that 74% of billionaire wealth in America was acquired not through competitive goods and services but by Rent Seeking and rigging the economy.  And, as Smith predicted, this harms the wealth creating middle class.

In that 26% who earned great wealth are the tech moguls.  And guess what?  Some of them are libertarians.  Most are democrats! Very few are republicans.  Because these are the folks who know they owe everything to the middle class that most of them came from, to the middle class engineers they work with, and to the civilization and nation that made it all possible.
40 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
clever and obvious once you see how it is done
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
the link points to an op-ed on the nyt. The op-ed is from one of the sisters in a Catholic hospital currently in conflict with the US government over the birth control mandate. Her suggestion, quoted below has some interesting implications.

"The obvious alternative to forcing us to offer these services is for the government to allow our employees to access them through its own health care exchanges. This would both protect our religious freedom and better meet the government’s own goal of providing contraception coverage to women — those in protected religious plans and the millions of American women in exempted secular plans."

Taken at face value, it looks like she is suggesting that if an organization has objections to any of the federal requirements, then the company should not be required to provide health insurance but instead employees could get coverage, complete with the religiously objectionable coverage, off of the exchanges.

This solution highlights how we pay for health insurance is incredibly unfair. It also highlights the kind of logical pretzel we twist ourselves into trying to justify why purchasing health insurance one way versus another is somehow better.

Assuming we divorced healthcare from employment and that employers pay employees more through some magical accounting trick to pay for individually purchased health insurance. Would this accounting trick satisfy the religious objection raised in this article? What's the difference between an organization purchasing health insurance for employees directly versus indirectly when it comes to religious philosophy?



To save articles or get newsletters, alerts or recommendations – all free. Don't have an account yet? Create an account ». Subscribed through iTunes and need an NYTimes.com account? Learn more ». Need to connect your Home Delivery subscription to NYTimes.com? Link your subscription » ...
1
Add a comment...

Eric S. Johansson

Shared publicly  - 
 
not an earworm
1
Add a comment...
People
Have him in circles
118 people
Audiokult's profile photo
ungandsonor's profile photo
Cecile Menard's profile photo
Joe Barrera III's profile photo
Thomas Z Lukoma's profile photo
mohammad zarafshan's profile photo
Cindy G's profile photo
Fearghas Mckay's profile photo
Andrew Shipley's profile photo
Basic Information
Gender
Male
Links