This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
Citigroup to Cut 9000 More Jobs
Citigroup Inc. lost $5.1 billion during the first quarter and will eliminate about 9,000 more jobs, as poor bets on mortgages and leveraged loans lopped billions of dollars from its investment portfolio.
Write-downs related to mortgages and turmoil in the credit markets reached about $12 billion, and costs stemming from consumers' credit problems surpassed $3 billion, the bank said Friday. And in a conference call with analysts, Citigroup chief financial officer Gary Crittenden said the bank, seeking to cut costs, is eliminating about 9,000 additional jobs... [AP via KELO, 2008.04.18].
Throw in with outside industry and corporate America and put our economic fate in ever more distant hands, or focus on local agriculture, local shops, local entrepreneurship, and maximize our ability to captain our own destiny.
Take your pick... but I'll be busy painting and writing, and Mrs. Madville Times will see you at the farmers market!
The credit/mortgage crisis is hitting everyone, so lets put 9000 more people in the unemployment line and rack up higher forclosures! That makes sense!
ReplyDeleteOh, but Anon, you seem to think that corporations are people and have some moral obligation to society. Their lawyers have won them personhood so they can sue and enjoy other rights, but ask a corporation to fulfill responsibilities to society, and all of a sudden they are held to a different standard.
ReplyDeleteCitigroup will tell you its only obligation is to its shareholders -- i.e., to its profit reports. I'd rather invest my economic development dollars in neighbors, real people who live where I live, vote where I vote, and have to look me in the eye every day at the grocery store.
Since we haven't had any recent "terroist attacks" within our boarders, do you think that this is a sort of "financial terrorism".
ReplyDeleteFirst it was gas prices getting higher and higher, then it was groceries, now mortgage foreclosures, and now laying off jobs. Do you see a pattern here???
Since there are no usuery laws in the state of South Dakota, why doesn't Citi just hike up the interest rates 2% and all would be good. :-)
Hey Cory, I like your paintings. I went on an abstract painting "jag" when I lived in South Beach Miami. Also did the environmental interest column for a fashion magazine. Oh, for the glamour days! But there is a flip side to that place, as anyone who spends much time there will invariably see.
ReplyDeleteSo dear readers, check out Cory's paintings.
As for economic development in South Dakota, we have lots of wind and lots of sun. I have already thought of a name for the entity that would harness these things and make us a powerhouse: DAPCO (Dakota Alternative Power Cooperative).
Lots of keyboard tapping, not enough action, I know, I know.
Surely we're smarter than to let large, foolish, greedy multinational corporations dictate our economic future.
I went to your website about personhood, which stated, "In 1886 the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that a private corporation is a person and entitled to the legal rights and protections of the Constitution."
ReplyDeleteIf this wasn't so sad, it would be funny. A corporation is afforded the legal right and protections of our Constitution, but a living unborn baby is not. Sad commentary on the state of our nation.
I know this is off topic, but it was so apropos but illogical that I had to mention it.
In my opinion, if a corporation has all the rights of a person, then it should bear all the responsibilities of a person.
ReplyDeleteHas this notion ever been tested in a court of law?
A plug for my paintings! Thanks, Stan!
ReplyDeleteAnon 10:21, you're only sort of off-topic. Corporate personhood is a very weird and very harmful concept. And I've wondered the same thing in reverse: how can a pro-life state demean the concept of life by ascribing personhood to a legal fiction?
Stan, obviously there hasn't been enough legal testing of the concept. Check with your own corporate lawyer, but as far as I know, corporate charters mandate just one responsibility: return on investment for shareholders.
I thought it was the federal courts that ascribed personal rights to a corporation, NOT South Dakota. Unless I'm mistaken about that!
ReplyDeleteBTW, When DOES the farmer's market start? And do they do homemade bread?
True -- it was the U.S. Supreme Court that created this "personhood." But local governments can challenge that ruling by limiting the rights of corporations, as Humboldt County, CA, did in 2006 with "Measure T." States can also take action by retaking control of corporate charters, which define how long and for what purpose a corporation may exist. If we can't abolish personhood, we can make it mean something by writing corporate responsibilities into their charters right along with their "rights."
ReplyDelete