« Thursday Blogwrap Weekend Events »

November 6, 2009

Friday Links

Bloomberg Asks for Patience on M.T.A. Plan [NY Times]
Reyna Breaks With a Formidable Patron [NY Times]
It's Plaza Sweet on Schermerhorn Street [NY Post]
Artists Transform Fort Greene Laundromat [NY Daily News]
Arby's Opening Soon in Fulton Mall [NY Daily News]
Sustainable Living Structure for Flatbush Building? [Brooklyn Paper]
Guerilla Marketing Campaign for 23rd Street Project [Brooklyn Eagle]
"Pokey" Award for Slowest Bus Presented [Gothamist]
Photo by

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/12100

Comments

Unfortunately I've never seen the Gage & Tollner space. The pics look magnificent.

Since it's in Fulton Mall, I never will. :(

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 8:35 AM

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_SWINE_FLU_BUSINESSES?SITE=CAVEN&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

"NEW YORK (AP) -- Some of New York's biggest companies, including Wall Street giants Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, received doses of swine flu vaccine for at-risk employees, drawing criticism that the hard-to-find vaccine is going first to the privileged."

"Wall Street banks have already taken so much from us. They've taken trillions of our tax dollars. They've taken away people's homes who are struggling to pay the bills," union official John VanDeventer wrote on the Web site of the 2 million-member Service Employees International Union. "But they should not be allowed to take away our health and well-being."

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 8:48 AM

"Nov. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The unemployment rate in the U.S. soared to a 26-year high of 10.2 percent in October and employers cut more jobs than forecast, underscoring why Federal Reserve policy makers say interest rates will remain low until the labor market recovers."

While the rest of the country burns, wall street bankers laugh all the way to the banks with their fat bonuses (coming out of tax payers' pocket).

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 8:55 AM

Good morning stevie. I seee you're on the conspiracy wagon very early today. :)

Most corporations requested vaccines. These are being apportioned by the State of NY, as well as every other state. I'm sure IBM and all the others got vaccines as well. All of them got a very small fraction of what they asked for.

But the media only wants to focus on GS getting some.

PS My most recent short at HK$82.50 is 1211 HK. We bought it at $13.50 and rode it to $60.00, leaving another $25.00 on the table and shorted it last week. Stock is now $71.05 probably headed to $50.00.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:01 AM

While the rest of the country burns, wall street bankers laugh all the way to the banks with their fat bonuses (coming out of tax payers' pocket).

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 8:55 AM

Actually the bonuses come out of operating profits. rewards for jobs well done.

Remember, the top 5% pay 60% of all taxes.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:03 AM

>>Actually the bonuses come out of operating profits. rewards for jobs well done.

ROTFLMFAO! $3Bill of bonuses at Merrill Lynch for $30Bill of losses was a reward for jobs well done indeed!

>>Remember, the top 5% pay 60% of all taxes.

Except when they steal money from the other 95%

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 9:10 AM

GS has been making money trading on the volatility they helped create. Their investment banking profits are actually way down.

They would have been toast without the AIG bailout. They got caught counting on the AIG collateral in all those trades with the company. The public has every right to be angry at individuals making 7 figure salaries "trading" while their small businesses go down the toilet. Not calling for pitchforks or anything like that, but it is still complete BS.

Agree with you that their bonuses are not being paid by the bailout funds, but you have to also agree that these bonuses would not exist without them.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 6, 2009 9:14 AM

">>Remember, the top 5% pay 60% of all taxes.

Except when they steal money from the other 95%"

?? How can that be an exception Stevieb?

Posted by: dittoburg at November 6, 2009 9:15 AM

We're talking about 2009 bonuses now, not 2008 bonuses. There may be some reasons to argue the Merrill 2008 bonuses but that's ancient history now.

Focus on the present and the future. Focusing on the past is why so many missed one of the largest stock market moves in recent history.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:16 AM

After the fact, it appeared that GS did not need any of the bailout money afterall.

I'm not arguing against pay restrictions on top management of companies that still have TARP money but pay restrictions on the "producers" in the trenches is a different story.

Pay 'em or lose 'em. That's why Citi sold Phibro.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:23 AM

Can I have a bonus?

Posted by: dirty_hipster at November 6, 2009 9:25 AM

2009 as well. Their 3Q IB #'s were not good either....all driven by trading. You know as well as anyone else, volatility is good for trading if you know what you're doing. Its not good for 401k's.

Risk drives capitalism, and it is a good thing, but risk taken in the form of derivatives and other complex financial instruments has proven over and over again that it is net destructive. When the fallout comes, the individuals involved have mostly made their money. Middle class workers get crushed.

We really need financial industry regulation. Major regulation. Akin to what insurance companies have. The financial industry can serve our economy well when properly policed. When it is not properly policed, it goes out of control.

As an aside - I work in the financial industry.

Hopefully my arguments will not destroy the good will generated by offers of free tequila!

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 6, 2009 9:26 AM

GS needed AIG's bailout money.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 6, 2009 9:28 AM

Brokedeveloper...free drinks makes for strange bedfellows. I'm sure even steie and I will have fun over a few margaritas.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:29 AM

Dave, I can't believe you still try to reason with imbeciles. I commend you for that but come on! Don't you have something else to waste your time on???

StevieB, as they say..."If you can't beat em, join em". I say start applying to GS and Citi and just ride the gravy train.

Posted by: Kensingtonian at November 6, 2009 9:32 AM

Broke, if you supplying free booze for the Brownstoner party, you can pretty much say ANYTHING you like here and we'll still love you. You had me rolling past couple of days (song renditions and all). You planning on showing up?

Posted by: Kensingtonian at November 6, 2009 9:35 AM

"Nomura, Barclays Lure Hundreds of Bankers as Rivals Cut Jobs, Cap Bonuses"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGY5f6XsWveE&pos=4

Essentially moving the profitability of these bankers to offshore companies...one of the things you liberal Democrats are constantly complaining about!!!!!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:35 AM

"Real estate experts say fast food has replaced fine dining on Fulton St. because merchants need a steady flow of customers all day to pay the expensive rents."

Fulton Street retail space is more expensive than it is on Smith or Fifth Ave., meaning profit potential is greater on Fulton. Interesting in light of the respective types of retail, and the attitude some on this blog have about the Fulton Mall.

Posted by: East New York at November 6, 2009 9:38 AM

>>Essentially moving the profitability of these bankers to offshore companies...one of the things you liberal Democrats are constantly complaining about!!!!!!!!

Great! Let them move overseas and blow up the foreign banks with their derivatives schemes. Let them foreign governments then bail them out with their on tax payers' money.

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 9:39 AM

I have a work dinner that night, so if I do it will be later.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 6, 2009 9:42 AM

>>StevieB, as they say..."If you can't beat em, join em". I say start applying to GS and Citi and just ride the gravy train.

Nah, i say join Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 9:42 AM

Yea StevieB great idea, and lets then lose 60% of federal income taxes. Are you running for mayor next time around?

Posted by: dittoburg at November 6, 2009 9:43 AM

Gold just broke $1,100.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:45 AM

>>Yea StevieB great idea, and lets then lose 60% of federal income taxes. Are you running for mayor next time around?

Wall street bankers dont pay 60% of federal income taxes. They get obscene bonuses, but not THAT much.

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 9:46 AM

im with brokedeveloper on this one.

[begin rant]

Let’s see if I get this right. Virtually all banks reported strong trading profits. Trading profits should be a zero sum game, at least in a flat interest rate environment like today, right? One side wins at someone else’s expense. But all the banks seem to be making profits on “trading” and (for the most part) continue making losses on their lending/IB business. So banks are “solving” their capital base problem via collectively trading profitably in what should be a zero sum game.

What is going on? Banks are not making fresh loans, but they are borrowing money cheaply (free?) from the Fed and allocating it to traders. Is this that simple that the vaunted traders are making money hand over fist by investing dollars borrowed from the Fed in bonds issued by the Treasury? Call it the Mother of All Carry Trades underwritten by US taxpayers via TARP initially and free borrowing subsequently. Clever traders take their Treasury notes to the Fed desk and convert them to more cash to invest in more Treasury notes. This is a previously unseen version of the multiplier effect. Private sector leverage that brought down Bear then Lehman is replaced by public leverage brought to you by the US government. Voila, brilliant. And, to add insult to injury, these traders must be reimbursed for their clever strategies else the banks will lose their ability to grow out of their capital hole.

But at least let’s be honest and call it back-door nationalism. What is wrong with this picture?

It does look like Freddie and Fannie in the sense that the losses are backstopped by the US government and the profits (while they last) accrete to the shareholders. We saw how that turned out.

[end rant]

Posted by: antidope at November 6, 2009 9:47 AM

SteveieB - top 5% of income earners in the US pay 60% of federal income taxes. Fact, an IRS fact.
As opposed to waffle and bluster.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 6, 2009 9:49 AM

Lending and lending profits come from a different part of a "bank" then do "trading profits." The two are not connected and have no bearing on each other.

The repeal of Glass Steagall allowed for this combination for which interestingly, John Reed today apologized for merging Citi with Travelers group!!!!!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:51 AM

>>SteveieB - top 5% of income earners in the US pay 60% of federal income taxes. Fact, an IRS fact.

Top 5% of income earners are not all wall street bankers.

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 9:53 AM

but income created via the MOACT supports the replenishment of the capital base of the bank, which is necessary to get the zombies lending again

Posted by: antidope at November 6, 2009 9:56 AM

Steveib - thank you for finally enagaging us on this actual fact instead of ignoring it.

So when you talk about wall st. stealing from taxpayers your're worried about wall street stealing from the remaining in thr 5% - the entertainment types, lawyers and doctors right?

Posted by: dittoburg at November 6, 2009 9:57 AM

Top 5% of income earners are not all wall street bankers.

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 9:53 AM

Tell us who they actually are.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 9:58 AM

>>Pay 'em or lose 'em

I say you let all these incompetent banks fail. This is American, not the Soviet Union. There should not be bailing out of the incompetent and rewarding of the reckless. If you screw up, you bear the consequences. There should not be socializing of losses while profits are privatized.

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 9:59 AM

>>Tell us who they actually are.

lets start with bill gates, warren buffet, stevie cohen, steve balmer, the list goes on

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 10:01 AM

>>Tell us who they actually are.

lets start with bill gates, warren buffet, stevie cohen, steve balmer, the list goes on

Posted by: stevieb at November 6, 2009 10:01 AM

You are agaian confusing balance sheets with income statements. These are among the richest men in the world in terms of assets. I believe Warren Buffet pays himself $100,000 a year. BRK does not pay a dividend.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 10:05 AM

Oh dear Stevie, don't you realize that if they let AIG fail, US would have been in the shitter. Gov't made a conscious decision with that. BTW, I am all for free market economics, supply/demand, all that (was my thesis in grad school after all).

Posted by: Kensingtonian at November 6, 2009 10:05 AM

Stevieb - I'm sure Bill Gates and Warren Buffet would politely tell you where to go with your brilliant plan of sending Wall St overseas.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 6, 2009 10:06 AM

The party wall is settling! The party wall is settling! (see photo by...).

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 6, 2009 10:09 AM

"GS needed AIG's bailout money."

Bull's Eye. Dead Center. Hankie Pauley infiltration.

***Bid half off peak comps***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at November 6, 2009 10:10 AM

Dave, I can't believe you still try to reason with imbeciles. I commend you for that but come on! Don't you have something else to waste your time on???

Posted by: Kensingtonian at November 6, 2009 9:32 AM

LOL

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 10:11 AM

assets earn income that is taxable. i'm quite certain BG and WB have sizable tax bills.

on aig, K: did the government have to make good on 100% of the counterparty risk? i dont think a collapse would've occurred if it went with an 80/20 risk share. otoh, things were moving so fast at this point that the authorities prob didnt have time to think this one thru.

Posted by: antidope at November 6, 2009 10:11 AM

The top 5% may pay 60%+ of the taxes, but the guy making $40,000 in Kansas who pays $8,000 in taxes still has a right to be pissed off.

Posted by: Brokedeveloper at November 6, 2009 10:20 AM

assets aren't taxable until they are sold, antidope. Some earn income, some don't. BRK does not. WB does not get dividends from his stock.

Still, neither you nor stevie can tell me who the top EARNERS in the country are and that they are not "Wall Streeters."

BTW, if Warren Buffet isn't a "Wall Streeter" then i don't know who is!!!!!!!

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 10:22 AM

Sure, its America - everyone has the right to be outraged about everything. Its in the constitution.

Posted by: dittoburg at November 6, 2009 10:25 AM

HEY STEVIE...QUESTION:

I think Derek Jeter is overpaid. Can we cap his salary while we're at it?????

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 10:30 AM

I love sagging wooden buildings in late sunlight!

Posted by: Brenda from Flatbush at November 6, 2009 10:33 AM

really dibs, did the us taxpayer bail out the yankees? how so? by allowing mlb to operate as a monopoly, maybe. but as far as i know it is state taxpayers that pay to keep teams/stadia around. same for factories/companies.

i think jeter will be paying enough in taxes once obama's done raising rates. of course i wish he'd also pay city taxes like the rest of us schmos.

Posted by: antidope at November 6, 2009 10:43 AM

Federal or State, Taxpayer money is taxpayer money, antidope.

Posted by: daveinbedstuy at November 6, 2009 10:45 AM

wholeheartedly disagree. among states it's competition to attract business, not a bailout. i thought u were in favor of competition.

Q: how are hedge fund returns stacking up on the trading front next to the us underwritten MOACT profits at the banks?

A: ??? i don't have data, but i'd wager on the side of "not as well" bc their cost of capital is much higher.

Posted by: antidope at November 6, 2009 10:53 AM

Top 5% is anyone making over $170,000 a year.

Posted by: bedstuy11216 at November 6, 2009 10:54 AM

Wow, 15 of the above 37 posts (or %40) belong to daveinbedstuy. Get a life beyond your computer, loser!

Posted by: Big Jugs at November 6, 2009 6:13 PM

are the buildings in this pic landmarked?

Posted by: Petebklyn at November 7, 2009 10:38 AM

« Thursday Blogwrap Weekend Events »

November 6, 2009

Friday Links

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions