If a Starbucks doesn't say "Starbucks," is it local?

Hometown Peninsula: "In one of the more brazen attempts by a corporation to disguise itself as a locally owned business, Starbucks is un-branding at least three of it Seattle outlets. The first of these conversions, reopening this week after extensive remodeling, will be called 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea. All of the signage and product labels will bear this new name. The Starbucks corporate logo will be no where to be seen."

Clearly, the intent is to appear like a local coffee shop while being part of a national chain, taking advantage of people's preference to support a local business. Wow.

Bueller, Bueller... Ben Stein talks Wall Street

In Wall Street Run Amok, financial commentator and one-time sleep-inducing high school teacher Ben Stein talks about the SEC's loosening of rules for investment firms in 2004, which he calls the Bear Stearns Future Insolvency Act of 2004.

In these rules, the SEC did two things:

1. Reduced the amount of capital that firms had to have backing their investments (e.g. less money in the piggy bank).
2. Let the firms themselves value their assets, allowing them to fudge how much was in the already reduced piggy bank.

Quote of the piece?

The S.E.C. told me that all of its actions were helpful to investors and that no one could have prevented the Bear Stearns collapse because it was caused by liquidity issues, not capital issues. My respectful response is that if Bear were thoroughly well capitalized, why would liquidity issues come up at all?

Voodoo economics, anyone?

To Bear Stearns stockholders: STFU

Dear Bear Stearns Whiners,

A week ago, your "investment bank" was in danger of going belly up because of really stupid gambles such as subprime mortgages and "highly leveraged" (read: debt-financed) speculation.

My government stepped in and gave $30 billion in loan guarantees to JP Morgan Chase to buy you out at $2 a share, saving you from bankruptcy.

This week, you whined that the price was too low. And so the Fed relented and said that JP Morgan could pay up to $10 a share.

Excuse me? But for the Federal Reserve and $30 billion in taxpayer collateral, you were about to be worthless. If you'd like to go without a bailout, be my guest.

So do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.

-jff

P.S. And for the Fed: what the fuck? Let them sink if they don't want $2 a share.

Bush administration cut red tape, and safety lines

Many people act as thought the subprime mortgage crisis and Bear Stearns collapse were inevitable motions of the "invisible hand." But the truth is that regulators deliberately turned their backs on the problem, touting the reduction of onerous regulation.

Nice work, fellas. Some Scotch tape is in the mail for all those regs you slashed.

Supreme Court considers 2nd Amendment in DC gun law case

The conventional wisdom is that federal courts have generally held that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right to bear arms via state militias (at least in all the radio commentaries I've heard today). That issue is being tested in a case heard before the court today, DC v. Heller. Get complete coverage, including audio and analysis from Scotusblog.

And if you're wondering why this debate is so heated in the United States, look no farther than my friend Gamerz Thinking, who posted a cool video that is - literally - a techno remix of gun sounds from the video game Call of Duty 4. Yes, America loves its guns enough to make a video, of a techno remix, of the gun sounds, from a military game, that simulates the use of firearms.

Gun rights headed to the Supreme Court

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

For the first time, a federal appeals court has decided in favor of the individual interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Until now, the text of the amendment has been interpreted to support the right to bear arms as part of an organized militia (read: National Guard) and not an individual citizen. However, ongoing lobbying from the National Rifle Association, other gun rights organizations, and pressure from the Bush Administration's Justice Department appears to have convinced the court to reconsider.

The decision is not likely to stand, because the rift between Appeals Courts' decisions will send this puppy right up to the Supreme Court. This is what they like to call a "landmark case."

What do you think of the court's decision?