This one deserves more attention than it currently gets, I'd say:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11447805/Eurozone-faces-first-regional-bankruptcy-as-debt-debacle-stalks-Austrias-Carinthia.html

Short version: Austrian bank ignores due diligence, does shitload of risky business in Balkans/Eastern Europe, business goes sour, trouble gets magnified by several events, bad bank is created, bad bank is now insolvent, new bail-in rules apply -- murder and mayhem everywhere.

The bank itself has a rather fascinating history of corruption within both Austria and Germany. In fact, it was taken over by a public bank from Bavaria under extremely dubious circumstances, and separated again a few years back under equally dubious circumstances. A whole lot of money laundering for our conservative party went through that bank, I can tell you that much.

Good source of entertainment, that one.

me thinks "Risky Business".

From another youtube clip of this video:
"Say Anything/Dirty Dancing/Ghostbusters/Weird Science/Ghost/Sixteen Candles/ Pee Wee Herman/Karate Kid/ET/Fatal Attraction/Star wars/When Harry Met Sally/ Poltergeist/Top Gun/Splash/Teen Wolf/Back to the Future/Risky Business/Indiana Jones/Ferris Bueler's Day Off/The Shining/Weekend at Bernie's/ Fast Times at Ridgemont High/Predator/Big/Cocktail/Sem­i-Pro?/Flashdance/Nightmare on Elm Street/Freddy vs Jason/Twins/Caddyshack/Termina­tor/???/Little Shop of Horrors Blues Brothers/Breakfast Club"

The guy they show after Terminator is actually the actor that played Kyle Reese in T1...

I worshipped this man when I was a kid. It actually breaks my heart who he's become. He took his growing up way too fucking seriously.

It started with his proclamation in a song that he doesn't like girl on girl action. For that, he can shove his sexually repressive christian fucking values up his fucking ass.

And now this, and scientology bullshit??????

Man it's really risky business idolizing these celebrities. It's left a really bad, disappointing taste in my mouth.

I'll be OK though, thanks.

[redacted]

Then someone explain "Risky Business" and "Legend"...

Tom plays a dope...a pretty good dope...

strange? this is exactly what i expect all japanese men do when they are home alone.

like a cross between Tom Cruise in Risky Business and Buffalo Bill in Silence of the Lambs.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Love that she keeps on slipping and sliding after she's put her friend on the mat. Way to learn from your mistakes.

I think they put something on the floor to make it extra-slippery.

Thanks dude!

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
*quality!

Risky business is risky.

Anyone who goes on someone else's property to wrong them has got to know it's risky business. This guy took his chances and lost. Too bad, so sad.

I think one of the modern success stories of free markets and interesting self regulatory bodies that emerge are the labor unions. They were able to strike out their claims more effectively and nimbly than any government regulation.

Labour unions are given power through Federal and State government. In both cases business claim that minimum wages, safety standards, and work agreements pushed through by labor unions stifle business growth. Labor is seen as an input factor in economic thinking, not as a group of people. Mises always argued for the elimination of minimum wage for example. Furthermore if you remember the when the Detroit bailout was being discussed it was the Union workers that were blamed for over inflating their wages.

If labor mobility is taken as presented in Austrian economics then all trade restrictions must be done away with, there is efficiency reached when US manufacturing jobs are taken to less regulated non union parts of the world such as China.

The business has great power then its workers to dictate the terms of employment, dissatisfaction with labor conditions would mean mass firings and replacements, the exact reason why China has no labor problems with regards to unions there are so many people vying for the jobs as is.

Who are these "others" to which your refer? If a company charges a fair market price for its product, it can pay its workers well, and his family can prosper as well, the consumer also gets his product at a reasonable price. It is the happy medium.

Fair price is never set in the capitalist market, its is the abnormal profits price that is set. With migration of manufacturing to Chinese nations there has been no price fall in basic commodities like clothes. Per unit production costs are in the pennies, however the price charged is inflated. So what you bought for 50$ made in the US is still $50 when made in China, even though production costs are reduced. This applies to almost every industry. Even though market competitiveness is supposed to drive down price we do not see that as there is unspoken collusion of where to set the price. Or rather how much can you set such that demand is stable but with the highest profit creation possible. There is an entire course on profit maximization at the expense of the consumer.

It is when the government interferes with this that the unfairness is introduced.

What about Government intervention on child labour laws? Social externalities and pollution? In the last 8 years the argument has always been that firms in a free market system can account for externalization given the chance because they are hurting their own market in the long run.

However firms operate on short term profit maximization, and do the best they can in socializing their losses, and privatizing their gains. See Banking bailout.

It is only government regulation that allows or rather forces through economic incentives such as carbon trading to make firms pollute less or increase the welfare with regards to its work force.

Trying to merge two opposites is not wisdom. This is the idea of having your cake and eating it too. You can not have the powers of the market work if they are stifled in other areas. There ends up with a bubble of something eventually, and the market will always find that and exploit it until it bursts.

Really? Explain how socialistic and free market governments flourish in places like Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Finland and shit even China? Mixed economy systems are the most prevalent in the world yet somehow you claim they are all made to internally fail because there is government intervention. That flies in the face of historical fact.

China is the perfect example because you have centralized government which allows free market activity in the economy but nowhere else basically proving Mises belief that the free market leads to democracy in a populace is not altogether sound.

The resent housing bubble is the greatest explained of poor government regulation. the The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 caused the housing bubble by not alowing banks to use their normal risk evaluation models when considering blacks and other minorities for loans.

Utter right wing spin rubbish, I mean do you even think about it? A 1977 act results in a market meltdown some 32 years later. Be serious. The banks knew the risks, they just hoped the bubble wouldn't burst before making out, further increased exposure by repacking toxic debt and then selling that off as investment packages.

There clear causality found in the 1994 to 2004 time of Fed debates regarding regulating sub prime and derivatives markets, remember junk bonds of the 1980s? Same shit different name but far more severe effects.
For more http://www.videosift.com/video/Klein-Blames-Greenspan-Deregulation-for-Economic-Crisis

Greenspan believed that banks would self regulate themselves.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7687101.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/business/economy/09greenspan.html

Committee chairman Henry Waxman, a Democrat, suggested that Mr Greenspan had added to the problem by rejecting calls for the Fed to regulate the sub-prime sector and some complex, risky financial products.

"The list of regulatory mistakes and misjudgements is long," Mr Waxman said.

"Our regulators became enablers rather than enforcers. Their trust in the wisdom of the markets was infinite," he added, saying that the mantra became "government regulation is wrong".

Central planning nearly always results in tyranny of the most extreme kind. Once the power is centralized, the ability to abuse that power becomes irrefutable as far as history is concerned.

Of course it does, but that makes my comment sound like an endorsement of communism and central planning, its not, its rather a clarificaition in that there is no idealized free market system that enables all citizens to be free in the vein of Rand and Friedman. One extreme is a mirror of the other.

Goverment intervention is needed to regulate markets through laws, laws that protect from monopolies from emerging and allow free market competitiveness to occur. To state that a free market system would simply regulate and account for all external costs that it imposes is ridculous.

At the end of the day the onus of proof lies at the feet of Free marketers to prove it can, well the derivatives and sub prime market was a free market entirely with no regulation and see how much profit maximazation and risky behavior that developed, primarily because each firm was acting as an independent actor working towards its own profit maximization.

What did it create? A huge social externality that they were bailout out for, so we continuously social the costs and risks through government and privatize the profits and benefits because that is capitalism.

If we allow free market thinking to take over all these banks should have been allowed to fail for their risky behavior in the market, but that would mean socio-economic collapse, though I think it would have been better since it would clarify to any one else that risky business behavior has its costs. But the people running the banks are tied closely to those running the economy, and you can't have a major change in the Wall Street it would create a huge loss of investor confidence that would create even worse effects. Business confidence is a frighteningly fickle beast.

I find it personally difficult to believe that government is to blame for financial problems on wall street. The CEO's of those companies were the ones who made risky business descisions that resulted in the recent bailouts. I don't agree with the idea of a bailout, not without at least a takeover and subsequent sell off of the businesses properties to those businesses who were responsible. And a regulation only prevents people from doing something unethical and stupid. If a house gets robbed, the robber is still to blame whether the doors were locked or wide open.

When left to their own devices people are greedy, and greedy people will do whatever they can to ensure that they have all the money they can. Government cant stop greed, they can only ensure that it doesn't hurt anyone else.

Finally, I see a lot of people dogging on Obama's message of hope. What bothers me is that because a man was able to excite his party, those excited people are somehow less intelligent. But counter to this, when the republicans get excited about Palin, Its perfectly acceptable. Their is a double standard in this election, and let me tell you it has nothing to do with race or gender.

Heaven forbid any of these things happened to anyone X had personal relation to....there would be dead people and bodies buried, never to be found-
X would start with the first lawyer that contacted X-Stop there? Fuck no-that Hotel of Horror would sustain some major damage....X would see to it, other similar assets that had anything to do with audits or training, met with a similar fate-X would only stop, when X's lust for retribution, began to interfere with X's freedom to do whatsoever X wilt....

Scientology better hope they never fuck with X...lawyers and mind-fucks are invitations to parties for X.....May even end the whole game with a personal visit to Mr. Risky Business itself.....

Now THAT"S deprogramming!