[Papa Bear] Folks at this point I would like to praise Fl. Patriot for the discernment he is exhibiting
[scrench] Papa Bear yes, FLPatriot did a great post...
[cain321] Papa Bear. I second that.
[weimar] Papa Bear I just read what he wrote - it was good / must be the same people on some other forums, because recently we have had a rash of know it alls like FL was talking about. by gum they are right and everyone else is an idiot lol
[Papa Bear] Fl Patriot also works so hard transcribing for us. TY
BigDog-OH] We all want to have hope. I do believe that it will happen in due time. I do not believe that things are as fluid as represented. There is a process... protocals... events that need to happen in a certain order.... Once these happen, then it will be released
Read More Link on Right
RAJAF] a mentally strong person is able to avoid miring their mental energy in past disappointments or in fantasies of the “glory days” gone by. They invest the majority of their energy in creating an optimal present and future.
[RAJAF] Mentally strong people are willing to fail again and again, if necessary, as long as the learning experience from every “failure” can bring them closer to their ultimate goals.
[RAJAF] A mentally strong person accepts full responsibility for past behavior and is willing to learn from mistakes. Research shows that the ability to be self-reflective in an accurate and productive way is one of the greatest strengths of spectacularly successful executives and entrepreneurs.
[art] A young boy about 12 asked an old gentlement how he became so successful and the gentleman said by making good decisions. The boy thought about that for a minute and asked, how did you learn to make good decisions? The gentleman answered..... by making bad ones. There you go. No more crying... move on.
[RAJAF] It takes strength of character to feel genuine joy and excitement for other people’s success. Mentally strong people have this ability. They don’t become jealous or resentful when others succeed (although they may take close notes on what the individual did well). They are willing to work hard for their own chances at success, without relying on shortcuts.
[art] RAJAF So true and we are responsible for where we are today, for the most part. And optimism draws help when one needs it and pessimism drives people who could/would help, away. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
[RAJAF] A mentally strong person is willing to take calculated risks. This is a different thing entirely than jumping headlong into foolish risks. But with mental strength, an individual can weigh the risks and benefits thoroughly, and will fully assess the potential downsides and even the worst-case scenarios before they take action.
joyd] I think how we conduct ourselves in this life....how we deal with problelms.....handle bad situations .....are the greatest learning tool we can ever have......it is not what we go through that matters it how we handle it that lifts us up
ericasmom] airam I was just telling my friend, this as such an addiction to hopieum... .. unlike other addictions.. if you drink, there are bars, if you do drugs, you find dealers, if you overeat, you run to Taco Bell, but with dinarism, you just find that craving hopieum almost unbearable!! haha
Emailed to Recaps:
Volcker rule' finally at finish line By James O'Toole @jtotoole December 8, 2013: 5:17 PM ET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
It's a moment Wall Street bankers have been anxiously awaiting for more than three years: Regulators are set to vote Tuesday on the so-called Volcker rule -- a key piece of the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law.
Congress has long since passed the legislation. But the law's implementation has been slow-going, as regulators were tasked with crafting its specifics.
Of the 398 rules Dodd-Frank required to be drawn up, only 42% had been finalized as of last week, according to law firm Davis Polk. Around 30% are awaiting approval, with 28% yet to be proposed.
The Obama administration has faced a chorus of criticism from Republicans and the financial industry over the law's plodding progress. But the finalization of the Volcker rule will mark a big milestone.
The rule sounds simple enough in principle: Banks with federally insured deposits will be restricted from risky investment activities undertaken for their own benefit, a practice known as proprietary trading. It also prohibits them from taking ownership stakes in hedge funds and private equity funds.
Named for former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, the rule harkens back to the Glass-Steagall Act, a Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking but was repealed by Congress in 1999.
Reform advocates say that with federally insured banks reined in, taxpayers will be saved from having to bail out ailing financial institutions whose failure would hit the accounts of average citizens.
Related: New legal costs for big banks could top $100 billion
The proposal has generated furious lobbying from advocacy groups and big-spending Wall Street firms.
Regulators have received over 18,000 comment letters on the subject, among the highest for any provision of Dodd-Frank. They have also held dozens of meetings with interested parties, the vast majority of which were affiliated with the financial industry, according to a recent paper from Duke University law professor Kimberly Krawiec.
A key point of contention is how the rule will define proprietary trading, a task that bedeviled even Volcker himself. He once quipped in testimony before Congress that it was like "pornography -- you know it when you see it."
Banks say the rule must protect "market making," in which firms hold securities to facilitate customer transactions. Banks also want to preserve their ability to trade for the purpose of hedging -- offsetting risks elsewhere.
Most major banks have already shut down their proprietary trading desks, which functioned like internal hedge funds. The problem is that even outside of proprietary trading desks, it can be difficult to tell when a trade is made for hedging or market making and when it's made for purely speculative purposes.
JPMorgan (JPM, Fortune 500), for example, claimed its $6 billion "London whale" trading loss last year resulted from a hedge. But the failed trade, which drew on federally insured deposits, prompted fresh concerns about the industry's stability, and government officials say it's exactly the kind of activity the Volcker rule will prevent.
"The rule prohibits risky trading bets like the 'London Whale' that are masked as risk-mitigating hedges," Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said last week. How exactly the rule writers define terms like hedging and proprietary trading will determine the provision's reach.
Regulators will also have to decide on a date for the rule to take effect, which might be several years from now. The rule could be held up by lawsuits from the financial industry, as other aspects of the Dodd-Frank law have been.