HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Divernan » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

Divernan

Profile Information

Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 11,358

Journal Archives

Just how typical is it for a 30-something couple to spend $10 mil on a Manhattan apt?

Poster Beacool asked me upthread: "Why did you choose Chelsea and Marc as an example? . . .There are far wealthier residences in Manhattan." I beg to differ that other 30-something couples are spending over $10 million on apartments, and below are the reports showing median prices tend to be about ONE TENTH OF THAT AMOUNT, i.e, from $750,000 to $1.26 million, depending upon what part of the City you're in, and even in the luxury apartments, i.e,. the top tenth of all sales by price, the median price is "only" $4.2 million.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-02/manhattan-apartment-prices-climb-as-buyers-compete.html

The median price of all co-ops and condominiums which changed hands in the 3 months through March 31, 2012 was $820,555.
On the Upper West side, the median price of condo resales climbed 20 percent to $1.26 million, while co-op resale prices rose 4 percent to $730,000, Corcoran said.

Prices declined on the Upper East Side, with the median for previously owned condos falling 3 percent from a year earlier to $975,000, Corcoran said. Co-op prices dropped 17 percent to $726,000, as lower-priced studios and one-bedrooms made up more than half of all sales, according to Corcoran.

Listings for luxury apartments, the top 10 percent of all sales by price, didn’t decline as sharply as the broader market as owners were inspired to try their luck after record prices paid for co-ops and condos in 2012, Miller said. Luxury listings fell 15 percent to 1,025, Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman said, while the median price of completed deals fell 2.7 percent to $4.02 million.

Now granted, there are a few extreme outliers in the price range, but the owners are not 30-something years of age
Steven A. Cohen, the billionaire founder of SAC Capital Advisors LP, is seeking to sell his 10,000-square-foot (930- square-meter) duplex at One Beacon Court for $115 million, two people familiar with the matter said last week.
Steven A. Cohen (born June 11, 1956) is an American hedge fund manager. He is the founder of SAC Capital Advisors, a Stamford, Connecticut-based hedge fund focusing primarily on equity market strategies. (More of that hedge fund money!)

He has an estimated net worth of $9.3 billion as of March 2013, ranked by Forbes as the 106th richest man in the world. Cohen is 35th overall in the U.S. In November 2012, he began to be implicated in a large criminal insider trading scandal. In July 2013, SAC was charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission with failing to prevent insider trading.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_A._Cohen

Then there's a triplex penthouse at the Pierre hotel that belonged to Martin Zweig, who predicted the 1987 stock market crash, is also on the market, for $125 million, the New York Times reported March 29.

Life More: Real Estate New York City
Late Investor Martin Zweig's Penthouse Hits The Market For A Record $125 Million

Wikipedia
Weeks after it was rumored to be headed for market, we now know that late investor Martin Zweig's legendary penthouse apartment atop the Pierre in New York City will be listed for $125 million, the New York Times' Robin Finn reports.

While the listing has yet to appear, the $125 million price tag makes it the most expensive home for sale in New York City. It narrowly beats a midtown apartment owned by Steve Cohen, which the SAC honcho is reportedly selling for $115 million.

So what does $125 million buy you at the fabled hotel?

According to Finn, the penthouse is "a triplex confection graced by a grand black-marble staircase, arched cathedral windows that replicate a Versailles chapel, 23-foot ceilings, and fireplaces embraced by mantels designed in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries."


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-zweig-penthouse-listed-for-125m-2013-3#ixzz2bEQkZaFa


In new developments, the inventory of apartments fell 42 percent in the first quarter from a year earlier, Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman said. The median sale price climbed 36 percent to $1.33 million.

I'm so glad you asked!

(1)Because some here promote the idea that she will go into politics also, so we need to take a close look at how she chooses to live her life.

(2) She has sought publicity, whether in exclusive interviews and glamour photo shoots for high end mags like Vanity Fair and Vogue or on this current highly photographed trip with her father.

But most significantly, because it's worth looking at where the money for this lavishly extravagant purchase came from. (And you're wrong if you think there are 30-something couples purchasing "far wealthier residences in Manhattan - but I'll get to that later.)

(3) The money to purchase this came from where? You say, not "public funds". I say that the vast wealth of this young couple stems from their jobs, their families or some combination thereof. And all of those link back to the connections made by their parents while holding public office, which offices were funded by we taxpayers. Marc's' jobs were at hedge fund 3G Capital & investment banking for Goldman Sachs. (Unlike many people fleeced by scams backed by Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, he likely did not use a balloon note to pay for the $4 million apt. he bought in 2008, or the more recent $10.5 Million place.)

Post Palo Alto,Chelsea opted to join a private international consulting firm, McKinsey and Company and then a hedge fund, specifically the Avenue Capital Group, big campaign donors for both her parents. These firms hire young people with connections - and this young couple definitely had blue chip family connections.

Marc's father was heir to a small supermarket chain fortune, but none of the 3 other in-laws were millionaires when they went into politics. They accumulated their wealth when they left office. (Marc's mother was a Congresswoman who is still talking about running for office again.) Marc's father, Edward, former congressman and head of Pennsylvania's Democratic party, lost millions and ended up penniless. He was convicted of fraud and served time in federal prison for shady business deals that had prosecutors calling him a "one-man crime wave." Prosecutors claimed that in 20 years of doing business between 1980 and 2000, every single deal he consummated displayed aspects of fraud. After his indictment in 2001, he pleaded guilty to 31 charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud. He tried to raise a defense of diminished capacity due to his suffering from bipolar disorder, but the judge disallowed it.

On Sept. 27,2002, he admitted that he bilked investors who handed over more than $10 million, including friends, law clients and even his late mother-in-law, and was sentenced to nearly 7 years in prison. Some tried to paint this as though he was the victim of scams. It started out that way, with him losing his own money - but then he kept doubling down and losing money of any one he could talk into "investing" with him. His rip-off of almost $10 million (ironic - there's that $10 million number agani!) got him seven years in ClubFed . He and his wife, Marc Mezvinsky's mother, eventually divorced. He reportedly is estranged from his son. http://congressionalbadboys.com/Mezvinsky.htm

Ed Mezvinsky got out of the federal lock-up in 2008. He remained on federal probation through 2011, and still owes $9.4 million in restitution to his victims. So safe to say the young couple got no financial help from him.
http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Edward-Mezvinsky/242942968

But getting back to parental connections stemming from holding elected offices, leading to very high paying first jobs, I'd call that "public funds" once removed.

I think one's choice of employment, especially when one is not faced with grabbing the first minimum wage job that comes along in order to survive, says a lot about one's character. And I think her recent move to pick up a master's in public health is a stragetgic move to improve her credentials for an eventual run for public office. She's not out working at some grotty public health office, "in the field" - she's doing occasional broadcasts for NBC. She is also teaching graduate level classes at Columbia - unprecedented for someone who does not have a Ph.D. to be teaching at the graduate level! Another boost to the resume and example of how she benefits from her parents' prestige/status.

"Hedge funds as they are now constituted were illegal from 1933 to 2000, as their type of activity was outlawed as it was considered as destabilizing speculation that helped cause the Great Depression. In the year 2000, Bill Clinton turned his back on 67 years of proven financial regulation and signed a bill legitimating speculation. Hillary was running for the U.S. Senate in the State of New York, Moloch's Big Town, and needed the big bucks from the free-booting financiers.

Hedge funds have been major financial backers of Democratic candidates ever since Bill Clinton made like Abe Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, and set them free. Chelsea's mother Hillary received mucho hedge fund loot during her 2008 bid for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Hedge fund managers hedge their bets, and they also heavily backed Barack Obama, who rewarded them with a watered down "financial reform" bill that left hedge funds unmolested and hedge fund mangers' incomes taxed at the lower capital gains tax rate.

(Do we all recall former Goldman Sachs trading desk honcho Rahm Emmanul became President Obama's chief of staff, whilst his Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, worked as a paid "adviser" to the financial power house? Goldman Sachs is what J.P. Morgan and the House of Morgan and Paul Mellon and the Mellon Bank were to Republican Administrations in previous years, the marionette master who pulls the strings.)

As predicted by naysayers, within seven years of Clinton legitimating financial speculation, hedge funds and other speculative financial schemes helped bring the U.S. economy back on its knees in the worse political catastrophe since the Great Depression.

Since it was Bill Clinton's "centrist" Democratic Leadership Council that sold the soul of the Democratic Party to Wall Street, it is fitting that Chelsea Clinton should be marrying the son of a convicted felon who works for the titan of Wall Street, a firm that engages in legal robbery. It recently got off easy from double dealing in the subprime mortgage market

It was recently revealed that Goldman Sachs, the poster child for Wall Street arrogance and cupidity, used some of its bail-out funds to finance overseas operations. Gobs of taxpayer-provided dollars were used to fund its bonus pools, making employees like Marc Mezvinsky very happy indeed. Wall Street perpetrated a massive fraud on America, made possible in part by Marc Mezvinsky's future father-in-law, but got away relatively scot-free, unlike his own father.


http://voices.yahoo.com/who-marc-mezvinsky-chelsea-clintons-husband-is-6490028.html?cat=49

Obama's vaunted job creation mostly low-wage, dead-end jobs. Want fries w/that?

"Men suffered the biggest job losses in the financial crisis, but they also gained the most post-recession jobs." In other words, "post-recession jobs" translate into low-wage, no benefits (health insurance, sick time, etc.) often part-time and always dead end jobs. Hard to live on your own, let alone pay off any college loans while working at a fast food job or in an Amazon warehouse.
(On edit, to clarify: The following are MY comments: )
Well, in every world, we have winners and losers. Even today, all is not lost, all you naysayers. We have the shining example of one young American who boldly quit her hedge fund job to pick up an Ivy League master's degree (no student loans for HER) AND buy a $10.5 million pad in Manhattan. Hey! 6 bathrooms for 2 30-something adults - and a 250 foot hallway. As someone commented, it's a longer walk from her living room to her kitchen, then many Manhattanites have to get to their corner store. Sometimes people ask, re the transfer of wealth upward to the 1 percent, where does the money go? Well, here's where $10.5 million of hedge fund profiteering and board of directors' pay went.


(On edit, The Newsmax link was to get you to the basic story. Newsmax gave a straightforward news report and did not say anything negative about Chelsea Clinton.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/chelsea-clinton-luxury-apartment/2013/03/14/id/494723

Headline: Chelsea Clinton Buys $10.5 Million NYC Apartment
Chelsea Clinton and her husband have shelled out a cool $10.5 million for a luxurious Manhattan apartment that is ten times the size of most New York City residences. The former First Daughter and Marc Mezvinsky sealed the deal for the stunning four-bedroom, six-bathroom condo overlooking Madison Square Park in the city’s Flatiron District.

Their new digs — in the prestigious five story Whitman building — measure 5,000 square feet, take up an entire floor and are accessible by an elevator that operates with a private key.

By comparison, most standard Manhattan one-bedrooms are about 500 square feet or less.

The deal for the 5,000-square-foot apartment, located at 21 E. 26th St, closed last month, sources told The New York Post. “It’s great for them, because it is in a hot neighborhood and it is very private,” a source told the Post.


___________________________________________________________________________________
A recent DU thread: "Under Obama, we're off to our best Private-Sector Job Growth since 1999 - Inform the republicans and some on this site." http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023406668

Well, backatcha, cheerleaders. Low-wage, no benefits, dead-end jobs do not give you bragging rights.

Excellent charts. Home equity is the final target of the Ravenously Greedy too-big-to-fail banks.

The One Percenters and their agents/corporate lackeys have stripped the American work force of fairly paid, full-time employment with traditional benefits (sick time, health insurance, vacation days); continue to layoff workers every year to keep increasing their profit margins, by forcing the remaining employees to work longer hours with no overtime. What's left to legally embezzle? Home equity!

Home ownership, building up of equity, and the gradual rise in the value of said homes, formed the bedrock of financial security for Americans as they reached retirement age. To the bankers/hedge fund traders It's like waving a red flag at a bull - how can WE (bankers/traders) be the ones to enjoy the equity of residential properties/single family homes? Just foreclose and purchase on the cheap, rent on the high side.

In Florida, for example, homeowners driven into bankruptcy, learned that their homes could be purchased at sheriff's sales for only $100. This compares to a state like Ohio, where homes to be sold at sheriff's sales had to be appraised by 3 different appraisers, and could be sold for no less than 60% of the average appraised value. My daughter bought her first home, in Ft. Myers, FL, at the height of the bubble - paid 20% down, on a $140,000 condo. A year later, just as the bubble burst, her Florida office was closed down & she had to move to another state to find employment. She carried the mortgage on her Florida house for a year as the market continued to plunge downwards, basically throwing money down the toilet, and finally consulted with a bankruptcy attorney and decided to go that route. (Her mortgage holder refused to write off any part of the mortgage so she could sell it.) Whatever banker/realtor snapped up this beautiful new condo for $100, turned around and sold it within a month for about $50,000. She lost her life savings (the down payment) plus paying mortgage/taxes/insurance for a year before finally admitting defeat.

Did y'all get that? A nearly new, $140,000 condo for ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS! And THAT, boys and girls is how wealth is transferred upward in the good ole U S of A!

Have Gay Rights Groups Abandoned Bradley Manning?

Today's article from the UK Guardian discusses why mainstream LGBT rights groups like Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD have stayed quiet about Manning - charging that the silence of these groups has been deafening.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/30/bradley-manning-gay-rights-groups-support

One of the interesting factors is that two of the largest and most well funded LGBT rights groups in the US have stayed quiet about Manning, his reprehensible treatment in custody and his trial. Why has Manning, whose revelations about the US Army's actions epitomize social justice in action, gotten the cold shoulder from the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD (formerly known as the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)? The silence of these groups has been deafening.

First, Manning is the opposite of everything that these groups seek to portray as the image of "gay Americans". I use those quotes because the majority of LGBT Americans don't conform to these upwardly mobile, white, polished, virile male stereotypes. Manning doesn't look like CNN anchor Anderson Cooper. With his slight frame, lower-class background, questioning of his gender identity, inability to hold down a typical job, general dorkiness and dysfunctional family life, Manning does not fit the poster boy image that GLAAD or the HRC would hold up and promote. It's bizarre because Manning is actually what many, if not most, LGBT people have been at one point or another – an outsider, a loner, a person who does not fit in or conform.

Second, organizations like the HRC, which had net assets of over $32.7m at the end of last year and claims more than a millions members and supporters, happens to have the financial backing of major military industrial corporations, including Lockheed Martin, which is sponsoring the HRC's upcoming national gala in Washington DC and Booz Allen Hamilton, a corporate partner for the national event, as well as Northrop Grumman a sponsor of their Los Angeles gala.

US government contracts account for at least 85% of Lockheed Martin's work, Northrop Grumman is intricately tied to our military and Booz Allen Hamilton is wrapped up in Washington's lobbying morass – kicking into high gear now that legislators are finally considering limits on the NSA's surveillance capabilities.

"New Snowden Leak: Australia's place in US spying web"

Would VERY much appreciate your thoughts on this report out of Australia, especially since you are from Canberra, the capitol city and one of the 4 Australian centers involved in NSA's collection program.

http://www.fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/new-snowden-leak-australias-place-in-us-spying-web/50142

Ex-NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden has disclosed his first set of documents outlining Australia’s role in NSA surveillance programs, picking out four facilities in the country that contribute heavily to US spying.

The locations of dozens of the US’s and associated countries signal collection sites have been revealed by Snowden, who leaked classified National Security Agency maps to US journalist Glenn Greenwald, which were then published in the Brazilian newspaper “O Globo.”

The sites all play a role in the collection of data and interception of internet traffic and telecommunications on a global level.

Australian centers involved in the NSA’s data collection program, codenamed X-Keyscore, include Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap in central Australia and three Australian Signals Directorate facilities: the Shoal Bay Receiving Station in the country’s north, the Australian Defence Satellite Communications Facility on the west coast, and the naval communications station HMAS Harman outside the capital, Canberra

Ms. Crumble is from Canberra, Australia.

So I'd like to ask her/him, what's up with foreigners, who obviously are not Americans, let alone Democrats, posting so aggressively on DU to defend NSA and attack Snowden? Really! Seriously.

I'm sure everyone on DU would welcome your input as to what Australians and the Australian chamber of commerce think of NSA spying and Snowden's revelations of same. I would be very grateful if you posted your thoughts and opinions as an Australian on ANY of the issues discussed and debated on DU. But please honor the concept of full disclosure, (not your real name, of course) as to the perspective which informs and motivates your participation. Perhaps you HAVE posted such info in the past and I've missed it. Please include links, if possible.

Anyone proclaiming there are no paid shills posting on DU . . . . .

is de facto promulgating the conclusion that Democratic Underground is not seen by the big players/opinion manipulators as worth bothering with. That's rather insulting to DU, isn't it? So to lock threads discussing the problems with paid disruptors on DU is to say that DU is not of enough consequence in the political arena to justify paying anyone to disrupt its threads.

I personally think that DU has always been carefully monitored by all parties recently revealed to have been paying trolls to disrupt online forums. And it further seems quite clear that when we're considering what side of the political debate has supporters with cash to pay for disruption, we are NOT talking about DU-ers posting in support of the unemployed, civil rights, habeas corpus, the poor, the disenfranchised, the imprisoned, the drone victims, the spied upon, people without health care, etc. Clearly the cash sources to pay disruptors/trolls/etc., comes from Big Interests with profits at stake.

There is a lot of sophisticated technology available allowing a single individual to set up automatic 24/7 multiple responses, by multiple "persona", triggered by key words or phrases. What can/is DU doing to identify and block these cyber attacks?

Shoals of trolls and clots of bots

I've decided to follow the advice/example of several posters whom I most admire, like Catherina, and put these bots on my ignore list. Really, I've been on DU since 2002 without putting anyone on ignore. And you know what? It feels pretty darn good to put these poseurs on full ignore.

To me "bots" is short for a group of robots.

And clots of bots would refer to a group in lockstep, or, as is defined in web usage, a program that operates as an agent for a user or another program or simulates a human activity.

I would never call an Obama supporter the terms YOU posted. I have read quotes where Nazis used those terms. So basically, you're likening me to a Nazi. I believe that is against the DU rules.

Shame on you! Trying to turn policy-based political comments into "racism" by introducing those objectionable terms and trying to tie them to someone who never used them. And you DARE to prattle on about hate speech?
Pretty desperate, aren't you? Why don't you dare to get back to the subject matter of this thread and attempt a thoughtful comment?
Nobody ever tells me what to post, and I assume no one ever tells you what to post either. In which case you are not a bot, are you? So why so defensive?

Everything is not always about YOU.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »