Though Iksil reveals little to other traders about his own positions, they say they’ve taken the opposite side of transactions and that his orders are the biggest they’ve encountered. Two hedge-fund traders said they have seen unusually large price swings when they were told by dealers that Iksil was in the market. At least some traders refer to Iksil as “the London whale,” according to one person in the business.
The Journal follows in today’s paper, reporting this:
One person familiar with the matter said the bank has run tests that show Mr. Iksil’s positions likely will be profitable in any economic or market downturn.
Yeah, right.
It seems Bloomberg is a bit miffed that the Journal didn’t credit it with the scoop (emphasis mine):
Iksil has earned about $100 million a year for the chief investment office in recent years, the Wall Street Journal said in an article following Bloomberg News’s initial report, citing people familiar with the matter.
And the neat thing about Paul Ryan's budget is that it gives back 5 trillionish through income tax cuts to the wealthy, at a time when tax rates are pretty much flat:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/rich-arent-so-different-you-and-me-after-all
"Did you know that the richest 1% of Americans pay 21% of all taxes? That's a lot! But do you know why they pay 21% of all taxes? It's because they make 21% of all the income.
Suddenly that doesn't seem all that unfair, does it? In fact, the rich are doing mighty well for themselves if we basically have a flat tax in America. And as it turns out, they are, and we do: the federal tax system is modestly progressive, but state and local taxes are modestly regressive. Add 'em all up and you end up with a pretty flat tax system. Here are the numbers for 2011 from Citizens for Tax Justice...
All told, Americans pay about 28% of their income in taxes.1 The poor and working class pay a bit less, but the entire top half of the income spectrum, from middle class to super rich, pays almost exactly the same rate, around 29-30% of their income. Not a bad deal for the wealthy."
Of course the real question you have to ask (which I haven't seen asked much) is, given the trajectory of corporate taxes, what's his plans for them?
#1 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Apr 2012 at 10:50 PM
Page 61 has the details:
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Pathtoprosperity2013.pdf
And the corporate cut from 39% to 25% equates to less than the real effective tax rate currently collected:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42043.pdf
"The statutory corporate tax rate in 2010 was 39.2%, which includes federal and state corporate taxes. However, several studies estimate the effective corporate tax rate is between 22.2% and 27.1%. After subtracting out the state corporate tax rate from the highest estimate, it is assumed that the effective corporate tax rate is 24.2%."
And that's assuming he's serious about eliminating corporate loopholes when the only thing he seems to bring up when it comes to corporate welfare is eliminating Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
Nope, I don't like it.
#2 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 6 Apr 2012 at 11:34 PM
http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/does_fact-checking_work_false.php#comment-59276
"What needs to be recognized is that the mainstream liberal culture isn't liberal, it's moderate centrist and it goes right by default.
Why?
Because the moderates need to work with these radicals who won't negotiate. They want to be able to say to the public "Hey, we're reasonable. We gave the right practically everything and they still won't deal with us. We're moderate centrists. We don't let our beliefs get in the way of getting things done."...
There's got to be a Limbaugh, Beck, and Breitbart of the left somewhere who are somehow just as awful and yet tolerated so that both sides are proportionate, so that place in the middle somehow means something real.
If you are in the middle after the last 30 years, you are wrong. You are part of the problem. You support wholesale damage to America's once enlightened society just to get something done with those radicals on the right."
Krugman with the rhetorical 12 gauge:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/09/opinion/krugman-the-gullible-center.html
"Well, ask yourself the following: What does it mean to be a centrist, anyway?
It could mean supporting politicians who actually are relatively nonideological, who are willing, for example, to seek Democratic support for health reforms originally devised by Republicans, to support deficit-reduction plans that rely on both spending cuts and revenue increases. And by that standard, centrists should be lavishing praise on the leading politician who best fits that description — a fellow named Barack Obama.
But the “centrists” who weigh in on policy debates are playing a different game. Their self-image, and to a large extent their professional selling point, depends on posing as high-minded types standing between the partisan extremes, bringing together reasonable people from both parties — even if these reasonable people don’t actually exist. And this leaves them unable either to admit how moderate Mr. Obama is or to acknowledge the more or less universal extremism of his opponents on the right.
Enter Mr. Ryan, an ordinary G.O.P. extremist, but a mild-mannered one. The “centrists” needed to pretend that there are reasonable Republicans, so they nominated him for the role, crediting him with virtues he has never shown any sign of possessing. Indeed, back in 2010 Mr. Ryan, who has never once produced a credible deficit-reduction plan, received an award for fiscal responsibility from a committee representing several prominent centrist organizations.
So you can see the problem these commentators face. To admit that the president’s critique is right would be to admit that they were snookered by Mr. Ryan, who is the same as he ever was. More than that, it would call into question their whole centrist shtick — for the moral of my story is that Mr. Ryan isn’t the only emperor who turns out, on closer examination, to be naked."
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 12:05 PM
Apparently the rich didn't get enough tax cuts over the past 30 years and that is what is preventing them from investing in businesses that hire Americans.
That's really all you need to know about Ryan and that's all he's about.
It would be nice to see some honest reporting about this.
#4 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 04:46 PM
This is all you've got on the left side of the political fence?
A President whose budget couldn't garner a single vote in the House and the tiring "Politifact is phoney baloney" meme?
Sour grapes? That's it?
For real?
Fellas... We have a fifteen TRILLION dollar debt, entitlement spending that is out of hand and soon will bankrupt this country, and a horrible economy.
And the best you guys can do is pick apart the opposition? WHERE is the leftie plan? HUH?
WHERE is an example of one of you "watchdogs" jumping down your Obamessiah's throat demanding that he deal with these problems?
#5 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Mon 9 Apr 2012 at 08:34 PM
"Fellas... We have a fifteen TRILLION dollar debt"
I know how to solve this! Tax cuts!
"entitlement spending that is out of hand"
I know how to solve this! Tax cuts!
and a horrible economy.
Omg! I know how to solve this! Tax Cuts! Tax Cuts! Tax Cuts for the wealthy!
Being a thoughtful conservative is easy work, if you can get it.
Ps. I've been posting criticisms of Obama's stuff here since, what, 2009? Krugman been critical since 2007. And this affects the crappiness of Paul Ryan crappy plan how?
Pps. the plan.
(I got the captcha text message again, so hopefully this won't post twice)
#6 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 10 Apr 2012 at 01:24 AM