REVEALED: Only ONE member of failed SVB's board had a career in investment banking - and the rest were Obama, Clinton mega-donors

[LeftofLeft]

Well, it depends what you mean by "more opportunity"

In the US large companies are making it harder and harder to be an independent business person. Small businesses are disappearing.

Why is Small Business in America Dying?

A lot of people are saying small business is dying in America. An article on Brookings charted data from the U.S. census of the bureau, which tells us: 1978 had a ~14% firm entrance rate and a ~11% firm exit rate 2011 had an ~8% firm entrance rate and a ~9.5% firm exit rate In […]

thecapitalist.com

"In short, the U.S. is now losing more businesses than its creating. This trend developed slowly over three to four decades."

Why?

"Big companies are taking up the market"

Simply said, large companies are bribing the government to give them preferential treatment, this is making them uber competitive and small businesses are suffering.
Companies like Walmart, Starbucks, Amazon are literally KILLING small businesses.

And these large business literally control government.

The article talks about a rise and expansion in the “gig economy” which is a small business. if small business payrolls have declined over the past three decades yet solo engagements have risen, that is a shift or transfer; not a decline. Small businesses are not disappearing.

if US income inequality were so bad, you would see a rapid decline in the US as the top destination for immigrants. Immigrants come here because this nation offers the best opportunity. Income inequality “exposure” is a tactic by anti-capitalists to stimulate class warfare to shift to the false promises of alternative economies.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

A huge path of corruption seems to follow leftist everywhere they go.

Only ONE member of failed SVB's board had experience in banking

Tom King, 63, was the only member of Silicon Valley's board of directors with experience in the financial industry, while the others include a former Obama employee and a major Hillary Clinton donor.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Here is another bank that failed.

Signature Bank becomes next casualty of banking turmoil after ...​

Reuters
https://www.reuters.com › business › finance › new-york...



4 days ago — State regulators closed New York-based Signature Bank on Sunday, the third largest failure in U.S. banking history, two days after ...

How a Small Bank Became a Go-To Lender to the Trump Family​

The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com › signature-bank-trump-kushner



Jul 23, 2018 — And Ivanka Trump sat on Signature's board of directors while the bank was lending to her father and her husband, Mr. Kushner.

Everything the Trump's touch, turns to shit.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The article talks about a rise and expansion in the “gig economy” which is a small business. if small business payrolls have declined over the past three decades yet solo engagements have risen, that is a shift or transfer; not a decline. Small businesses are not disappearing.

if US income inequality were so bad, you would see a rapid decline in the US as the top destination for immigrants. Immigrants come here because this nation offers the best opportunity. Income inequality “exposure” is a tactic by anti-capitalists to stimulate class warfare to shift to the false promises of alternative economies.

The "gig economy" and small businesses are different. The "gig economy" is often less secure and makes big businesses lots of money.
Immigrants go to the US because the countries to the south are super poor.

 

[LeftofLeft]

The "gig economy" and small businesses are different. The "gig economy" is often less secure and makes big businesses lots of money.
Immigrants go to the US because the countries to the south are super poor.

“Less secure”? Compared to what? Amazon? Microsoft? Have you checked layoff numbers lately? What job is secure? Immigrants are only coming from the South to the US? Have you checked immigration numbers from Asia to the US? What country on the globe is beating US In immigration as a destination?

Back to gig…. Gig economy speaks to my Opportunity argument. Compare US to gig opportunities in China, Russia, or Europe for that matter?

Your measurement of US is an economy where there is no income inequality and no risk. Where does that economy exist and how does it compare to US?

 

[frigidweirdo]

“Less secure”? Compared to what? Amazon? Microsoft? Have you checked layoff numbers lately? What job is secure? Immigrants are only coming from the South to the US? Have you checked immigration numbers from Asia to the US? What country on the globe is beating US In immigration as a destination?

Back to gig…. Gig economy speaks to my Opportunity argument. Compare US to gig opportunities in China, Russia, or Europe for that matter?

Your measurement of US is an economy where there is no income inequality and no risk. Where does that economy exist and how does it compare to US?

Less secure with... the thing we were talking about which is a person owning their own business.

Gig work is big in China, I can tell you that. The Chinese version of Uber has loads of people doing gig work, China has so little protection for workers it's amazing.

As for your last comment, I'm not really sure why you're even asking it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope, I'm not connected with any political party at all.

Would you work with this framework or suggest another:

A Council of people either advocates or media contacts in 5 different grouping:
A. Green and environmental / energy representation of people with either problems or solutions to address by democratic process, direct representation by district and issue, and consensus decision and policy statement by inclusive conflict resolution (including agreements to separate jurisdiction to settle conflicts by mutual consent,)
B. Libertarian interests in separating individual, local, state and federal jurisdiction including systems for financial credit and reimbursement for unconstitutional taxation and policy to settle complaints of govt and corporate abuse, including political party and media abusing govt to discriminate by creed, and to transfer responsibility back to the people by state districts or party precincts on issues outside govt authority
C. Democratic party responsibility for reforming prisons to ensure ethical medical diagnosis treatment management and or cure of criminal illness in order to reduce waste and cost of crime and prisons and invest resources into preventative universal health care through sustainable sites providing safe campus jobs, education and housing that reduces and saves taxes instead of raising them. By democratizing health care and defunding the death penalty as a result of crime prevention by early intervention

D. Republican party responsibility for VA reform and issues of law enforcement national security and limits on federal govt

E. All other and independent citizens and groups not represented by the other 4 to address and represent their policy issues to mediate conflicts, solve problems or objections, complaints of abuse, and solutions that are then presented to the respective levels or offices of govt to implement.

This body will act similar to media and political parties by allowing people to represent their own issues complaints and solutions outside govt as individuals, then consult and facilitate with assistance with the actual govt process.

 

[emilynghiem]

I'll fight you tooth and nail.

ONE man, ONE vote.

For the existing govt offices.

But for ongoing facilitation of political redress of grievances, I would want each person to have multiple avenues for addressing environmental problems and solutions separately from crime and security or defense policy, and mental health, education and medical benefits.

We dont need the same officials biased by party to decide all these things

By setting up representation on a district and precinct level, organized by party, then we can manage conflict resolution and diversity of beliefs to settle disputes, complaints, and objections by agreed solutions.

BEFORE presenting these policy and position statements and findings to govt offices and officials to implement for the public.

You still only vote for one person to get each job. But you have the offices split into multiple jobs, separating internal from external policy, including military defense that is a separate federal jurisdiction uniform for the whole nation from health care and education that are domestic social programs which are relative individual choices and need to be decided democratically to accommodate diverse interests and beliefs to prevent discrimination and disparagement by overly broad policies.

 

[emilynghiem]

The board had extensive financial and venture capital experience. One is the current CEO of Rite Aide.

It should also be pointed out that the only 2 member out of 10 on the board for Exxon have any gas or oil experience.

Exxon and oil and gas have established records for economic resilience where plenty of investors want to invest there.

For the board with a bank spending and lending more money than it can cover, for investors to seek to invest there may require a lot more incentive and credibility/track records of the operation and people in charge.

How many other entities are at the level of Exxon to compete with to attract investors?

That company name came up in a discussion I heard yesterday first on the list of hiring workers at higher pay than other places. Not a lot of competition since Exxon is already well established at the top of the industry. They can clearly afford to pay more and not risk instability.

How many other banks are competing for investors and customers to whom they need to establish absolute faith in financial security?

That standard and reputation for security is much higher than "oil and gas" especially with a big name like Exxon.

If you compare a big name like Morgan Chase with a local bank like Amegy or a Credit Union, most people will trust the big name and take it for granted and not care or bother to research the background of board members unless an issue came up.

Similar went wrong with Enron, because people took for granted it was stable. Not until something went wrong did they get full public scrutiny.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Would you work with this framework or suggest another:

A Council of people either advocates or media contacts in 5 different grouping:
A. Green and environmental / energy representation of people with either problems or solutions to address by democratic process, direct representation by district and issue, and consensus decision and policy statement by inclusive conflict resolution (including agreements to separate jurisdiction to settle conflicts by mutual consent,)
B. Libertarian interests in separating individual, local, state and federal jurisdiction including systems for financial credit and reimbursement for unconstitutional taxation and policy to settle complaints of govt and corporate abuse, including political party and media abusing govt to discriminate by creed, and to transfer responsibility back to the people by state districts or party precincts on issues outside govt authority
C. Democratic party responsibility for reforming prisons to ensure ethical medical diagnosis treatment management and or cure of criminal illness in order to reduce waste and cost of crime and prisons and invest resources into preventative universal health care through sustainable sites providing safe campus jobs, education and housing that reduces and saves taxes instead of raising them. By democratizing health care and defunding the death penalty as a result of crime prevention by early intervention

D. Republican party responsibility for VA reform and issues of law enforcement national security and limits on federal govt

E. All other and independent citizens and groups not represented by the other 4 to address and represent their policy issues to mediate conflicts, solve problems or objections, complaints of abuse, and solutions that are then presented to the respective levels or offices of govt to implement.

This body will act similar to media and political parties by allowing people to represent their own issues complaints and solutions outside govt as individuals, then consult and facilitate with assistance with the actual govt process.

No

The reality is that political groupings need to come naturally.
In Germany they had the Traditional right, traditional left, the center right, the green left and the further left. Then the further right turned up and did well.

If you limit who can and who cannot be there, then it will cause problems.

PR works.

 

[j-mac]

Would you work with this framework or suggest another:

A Council of people either advocates or media contacts in 5 different grouping:
A. Green and environmental / energy representation of people with either problems or solutions to address by democratic process, direct representation by district and issue, and consensus decision and policy statement by inclusive conflict resolution (including agreements to separate jurisdiction to settle conflicts by mutual consent,)
B. Libertarian interests in separating individual, local, state and federal jurisdiction including systems for financial credit and reimbursement for unconstitutional taxation and policy to settle complaints of govt and corporate abuse, including political party and media abusing govt to discriminate by creed, and to transfer responsibility back to the people by state districts or party precincts on issues outside govt authority
C. Democratic party responsibility for reforming prisons to ensure ethical medical diagnosis treatment management and or cure of criminal illness in order to reduce waste and cost of crime and prisons and invest resources into preventative universal health care through sustainable sites providing safe campus jobs, education and housing that reduces and saves taxes instead of raising them. By democratizing health care and defunding the death penalty as a result of crime prevention by early intervention

D. Republican party responsibility for VA reform and issues of law enforcement national security and limits on federal govt

E. All other and independent citizens and groups not represented by the other 4 to address and represent their policy issues to mediate conflicts, solve problems or objections, complaints of abuse, and solutions that are then presented to the respective levels or offices of govt to implement.

This body will act similar to media and political parties by allowing people to represent their own issues complaints and solutions outside govt as individuals, then consult and facilitate with assistance with the actual govt process.

Or we could follow the Constitution....How about that?

 

[emilynghiem]

Or we could follow the Constitution....How about that?

Yes that is how I would help more people to do that: by shifting all the party beliefs out of govt that isn't Constitutional (because not everyone believes the same things). Mediating outside govt so people have individual free speech and ability to petition to redress grievances without obstruction to due process. And then once solutions and policies are agreed on by consensus, those position statements and points of agreement or disagreement can be brought to the offices and officials in govt to implement policies and reforms which are fully constitutional because the people have already agreed in advance that these meet all requirements and do not violate any beliefs process or principles.

Here are the standards I recommend all citizens agree on for public education and enforcement : www.ethics-commission.net

 

[j-mac]

Yes that is how I would help more people to do that: by shifting all the party beliefs out of govt that isn't Constitutional (because not everyone believes the same things). Mediating outside govt so people have individual free speech and ability to petition to redress grievances without obstruction to due process. And then once solutions and policies are agreed on by consensus, those position statements and points of agreement or disagreement can be brought to the offices and officials in govt to implement policies and reforms which are fully constitutional because the people have already agreed in advance that these meet all requirements and do not violate any beliefs process or principles.

Here are the standards I recommend all citizens agree on for public education and enforcement : www.ethics-commission.net

So, Centralized Government? Um no.

 

[emilynghiem]

So, Centralized Government? Um no.

Only where people agree on uniform policy general enough to apply to all people without conflict. Very limited govt!

 

[j-mac]

Only where people agree on uniform policy general enough to apply to all people without conflict. Very limited govt!

We have representatives for that.

 

[emilynghiem]

We have representatives for that.

But these are divided by party and keep voting based on those political interests and agenda . If they don't resolve conflicts they object to each other's bills. This prevents writing better policy if all we get are two groups voting yes/no on policies full of flaws and pork, just to get the majority vote in a limited time.

Voting on a health care bill that is either "prolife or prochoice" yields either "Yes/No" votes but doesn't solve or prevent the issue of abortion that would protect BOTH sides beliefs from violation.

If we separate funding by group beliefs similar to religions, then we don't have one belief trying to outnumber the other to get voted into policy. All groups could manage their own terms for paying and providing for medical service.

The reps in Congress (and state legislatures) would still function as govt to take the policies of the people and implement them through the official public process


But before govt can "represent" the people, the people need to agree what plans reforms or policies for govt to implement and enforce

If we don't agree in advance, that's like expecting contractors to build the house you want without giving them the plans.
They can vote among themselves and you'd be lucky to get something that serves you not them. That's the problem with govt representation. There's no check on it because parties, media and corporate interests have their own agenda that competes with the people and Taxpayers. There's no direct accountability because the bureaucracy is too big, there's no transparency, and the minute taxpayer money is already in the hands of govt there is no way to control if that represents the taxpayers anymore.

 

[j-mac]

But these are divided by party and keep voting based on those political interests and agenda . If they don't resolve conflicts they object to each other's bills. This prevents writing better policy if all we get are two groups voting yes/no on policies full of flaws and pork, just to get the majority vote in a limited time.

Voting on a health care bill that is either "prolife or prochoice" yields either "Yes/No" votes but doesn't solve or prevent the issue of abortion that would protect BOTH sides beliefs from violation.

If we separate funding by group beliefs similar to religions, then we don't have one belief trying to outnumber the other to get voted into policy. All groups could manage their own terms for paying and providing for medical service.

The reps in Congress (and state legislatures) would still function as govt to take the policies of the people and implement them through the official public process


But before govt can "represent" the people, the people need to agree what plans reforms or policies for govt to implement and enforce

If we don't agree in advance, that's like expecting contractors to build the house you want without giving them the plans.
They can vote among themselves and you'd be lucky to get something that serves you not them. That's the problem with govt representation. There's no check on it because parties, media and corporate interests have their own agenda that competes with the people and Taxpayers. There's no direct accountability because the bureaucracy is too big, there's no transparency, and the minute taxpayer money is already in the hands of govt there is no way to control if that represents the taxpayers anymore.

You’d have to rewrite the Constitution….

 

[Billiejeens]

Just another Rat Patrol conspiracy theory.



The story is false?
They are all credentialed Financial experts?

 

[j-mac]

But these are divided by party and keep voting based on those political interests and agenda . If they don't resolve conflicts they object to each other's bills. This prevents writing better policy if all we get are two groups voting yes/no on policies full of flaws and pork, just to get the majority vote in a limited time.

I agree with you on the "flaws, and pork"... One of the problems with this is the approach of loading bills with every wish list item, causing these bills to top 2000 pages, much of which has NOTHING to do with what the bill is supposed to address...My approach would be incremental. First order of business is to limit bills to single issues....Cutting the size and scope of bills would ensure that both sides in our government have to work together to achieve passage...And, we would no longer have to choose between the evils of agenda driven bs, because they would have to put that in separate bills....

Voting on a health care bill that is either "prolife or prochoice" yields either "Yes/No" votes but doesn't solve or prevent the issue of abortion that would protect BOTH sides beliefs from violation.

If an issue like abortion is on the table, but not spelled out in the Constitution, then there is a process already. It's called an amendment to the Constitution...

If we separate funding by group beliefs similar to religions, then we don't have one belief trying to outnumber the other to get voted into policy. All groups could manage their own terms for paying and providing for medical service.

So, you seem to be arguing against division in one moment, then turn to embrace the divisions, by lending credence to individual groups. American's would like to know that we are a united nation, NOT a conglomerate of separate groups all vying for their own agendas...That I think would be a mess.....

The reps in Congress (and state legislatures) would still function as govt to take the policies of the people and implement them through the official public process

Direct Democracy never works...

"Why is direct democracy not possible in modern societies? There are several reasons. Direct democracy comes with high costs and high risks, it may lead to conflicts and be emotional.

As direct democracy often requires nationwide votes and assemblies, its economic, social and political costs will be considerable. It may particularly give rise to an over-politicisation of society, resulting in the dominance of politics over everything else.

Direct democracy is indeed a zero-sum game, an instrument that aggravates social conflicts, it splits a society between majorities and minorities, and the minorities will find their positions, interests and rights suppressed.

Therefore, direct democracy tends to bring about unrest, intolerance and injustice."

‘Direct democracy isn’t feasible in modern societies’

As we all know, today even Greece has given up the direct democracy its ancestors invented. In fact the ancient Athens’ Ecclesia-style democracy can’t be found anywhere in the world. Switzerland, despite being applauded as a role model of direct democracy in a modern society, actually applies an...

www.swissinfo.ch

But before govt can "represent" the people, the people need to agree what plans reforms or policies for govt to implement and enforce

This is why we have primaries, and general elections...The people hear the candidates pitch, choose which one they want to run in the general, then vote for the person that represents their values...

If we don't agree in advance, that's like expecting contractors to build the house you want without giving them the plans.
They can vote among themselves and you'd be lucky to get something that serves you not them. That's the problem with govt representation. There's no check on it because parties, media and corporate interests have their own agenda that competes with the people and Taxpayers. There's no direct accountability because the bureaucracy is too big, there's no transparency, and the minute taxpayer money is already in the hands of govt there is no way to control if that represents the taxpayers anymore.

The "check" or "accountability" of politician's is the responsibility of the voter...If an elected official is violating his/her trust with the electorate, then the electorate needs to vote them out...Otherwise, through their failure to do so, is implicit agreement with their actions in office...

Like I said, Direct Democracy will not work in America...

 

[g5000]

A huge path of corruption seems to follow leftist everywhere they go.

Only ONE member of failed SVB's board had experience in banking

Tom King, 63, was the only member of Silicon Valley's board of directors with experience in the financial industry, while the others include a former Obama employee and a major Hillary Clinton donor.

www.dailymail.co.uk

If you look at the board of just about any company, you will find almost none of them have experience in the field for which that company is known.

Surprise!

 

[j-mac]

If you look at the board of just about any company, you will find almost none of them have experience in the field for which that company is known.

Surprise!

"Engaged board members bring their experience and expertise to the discussion and are often more intent on a meaningful dialogue than on concurring with the CEO or family members. The difference leads to longer board meetings with informed discussion rather than quick approval of a motion based on family or management presentations."

The Top 10 Best Practices From Boards of Public Companies

Learn the 10 best practices from boards of public companies and help to improve financial results, grow the business, spark innovation and minimize risks.

www.familybusinessmagazine.com

I'd like to see where you get your information on this....Plus, if I were looking to become and investor of a company, and found out that the Board of Directors had virtually NO experience in what the business of the company was, I would not invest....Would you?