I'll cheer and champion an enlightened capitalism, that sees human capital as far more interesting and valuable than naked greed. But what (aside from books, education, regulation, history, and everything else we had at our disposal before this latest financial crisis) will protect us from the very smart people that want to make a lot of money, at our expense?

How do we, the market, protect ourselves from individuals that want to take advantage of people playing the game? How do we encourage the "best and the brightest" to play nice when not playing nice makes so much more short-term wealth? There is a fundamental issue with the persuasive power of greed. We idolize it.

My apologies to the atheists out there, but America worships at the altar of success. That's our cult devotion. In business and to regulators it seems success is sacred. To save or worse, fail, is to sin. If we don't live in this world, I would love for someone to disabuse me of that belief. Thanks.

As soon as one of the hedge fund defenders explains why the distressed debt funds, the hedge funds that Andrew is referring to, are entitled to never lose at gambling I'll roll over and play dead for Wall street. The bankruptcy court already decided against the funds, and it seems like the bigger funds thought it was a gamble, and decided to take the loss.

This is not the class warfare that hedge fund defenders want it to be. This is a nation asking financiers to prove they're worth what they claim to be. Andrew this series on Chrysler has been very informative. From their reactions I glean the vulture fundies don't like it when they're not worth the paper they wrote their latest derivative on.

That personal opinion aside I would like to make a different observation. I wonder if current (non-distressed debt, non-real estate) hedge fund employees have contacted any moderate Islamic groups to discuss how to avoid being tarred with unfair descriptions?

Spin a little more, because you spun so fast you completely missed my point.

In my point, I separated the bondholders into two classes: the distressed debt hedge funds of the like that AL referred to in the first link, and other investors.

I then noted that these are DISTRESSED debt hedge funds, the vultures that swoop in on companies in trouble. They pay cut rate prices for the debt, and then do everything in their power to get more than they paid for the debt. They're gambling (with other people's money) that they will make more than they paid.

Their gamble did not pay off, so they blame the government. Their gamble did not pay off, so they launch a PR campaign. Their gamble did not pay off in court, so they turn to the court of public opinion with their honeyed words to snare some erstwhile "Business" man into trumpeting the cause of Free Market Capitalism (NOW WITH EXTRA-PATRIOTISM!!!). I don't blame them for doing so, I'd expect nothing less in high profile cases.

Despite your UAW herring, this isn't a discussion about unions. And despite Republican attempts to paint it that way, I am not of the mind that Chrysler failing, GM failing, or Ford's troubles has anything to do with unions, other than they are another cost center to executives. I am not talking about the hedge funds that got in ahead of things.

So, if your attempt to paint this as "Agillious hates money" so he must be a "whacko/lefitst/union organizer" makes you feel better about greed, use it.

In the end, you have vultures whining because the ambulance arrived to save the patient.

Firstly, how is it that I seem to miss every poll? I would have loved to participated, and had my voice heard.

But I am embarrassed that, by now, Salon and its reporters would have a disclaimer with every "poll" story they report on: "Warning, Polls can say anything the pollster wants them to. The specific question asked, and the context it is asked in affect people's response to the question!"

That aside, Salon, what was the question asked?

I guess the judge did not read it the same as the bond holders. Imagine that?

And that becomes "total disregard for the rule of law"? Really? I fail to see how these "bondholders", if they are the ones that purchased distressed debt can be arguing from anything other than a point to acquire more profit. The only justice they see is they get more money. To say nothing of the "product" they chose to purchase.

All I see is the attempt at defending naked greed. I reject the defense.

There will be studies, there will be academic papers, there will probably be movies.

"Fall of the House of Pachyderm."

I watch the GOP tear itself in different directions unsure of which way to go. All of their old sayings, slogans, and jack-boots just aren't as effective once America realizes that John Kennedy was right, we only need to fear 'fear'. One half of the party isn't conservative enough, and the other half wants to break for the center. Either way there is a great deal of confusion because the status quo isn't cutting it anymore.

There are problems, and the people want them solved. The party of "STAY THE COURSE" and "DON'T CHANGE HORSIES MID-STREAM" is not the attractive side of the equation. The party of change and hope is WAY more attractive when people don't like their circumstances. I am not saying that change is always the answer, but I think America woke up sometime in 2004/2005 and decided that the status quo wasn't what was good for the country, and the GOP has been reeling ever since.

Heh. So yeah, all you Pachyderms! Go all gung-ho conservative, you defend your castle from all the darkies coming to our shores to steal our jobs, and women, and posies. You defend all your old-boy networks and backroom deals, your nepotism, and gamesmanship.