Thank God this con-man never targeted America: the U.K.'s Paul Bint posed as a banker, a lawyer, and a hospital consultant, bedding what he claims were 2,500 women along the way, and making away with 2 million pounds (approximately $3.1 million in today's money). The Daily Mail caught up with Bint -- who's been nicknamed "King Con" -- upon his recent release from a three-year jail term.
Although Bint claims, "If I could go back 25 years and start again I would," his interview hits some unrepentant notes as well. "What I've done is turned a lot of my dreams into reality," He told the Daily Mail. "I've gone that extra step. Instead of fantasizing what it would be like to own a Ferrari I went out and got one." Dealbreaker hypothesizes about which is the most plausible Bint lie here.)
So, now that Bint's (second) jail term is behind him, will he play by the rules? "...I can't say never again. Let's be honest, nobody would believe me if I said was going straight," he told the Daily Mail.
Many more details of his outrageous lies and manipulations can be found here
BBC's Crimewatch has put together an ingenious renactment of Bint's downfall. It began in a taxi cab.
Get HuffPost Business On
Twitter and Facebook!
Know something we don't? E-mail us at huffpostbiz@gmail.com
“However, to blame progressive cosmopolitanism for the recession makes little sense; progressives did not support financial deregulation and do not oppose Keynesian.”
I wouldn’t blame the left for the Great Recession. However, you will note that MattY places enormous importance on “economic freedom”. Let me quote from
“Life in 1960″
‘Private ownership of telephones was also illegal, a regulatory agency set airfares, the Pentagon was 9.3 percent of GDP, and a bank couldn’t have branches in more than one state.
Since that time, we’ve had a huge increase in personal freedom, a dramatic expansion of the welfare state, and yet a huge increase economic freedom.’
Did branch banking trigger the Great Recession? No. Did bank deregulation (of which branch banking was part) play a material role in the Great Recession? That would appear obvious (at least to me).
Virtually everyone (even including Greenspan) recognizes that the Great Recession was a consequence of economic liberalism run amuk. Economic liberalism was never a project of the traditional left (with a few notable exceptions). However, it was very much a goal of MattY and friends.
“Labor force participation for males dropped as females entered the labor force for obvious reasons. It’s not clear that this was a bad thing for males, but if it was, it’s an example of “progressive cosmopolitanism” helping females over males, not of hurting the working class generally.”
Policies have consequences. Note my quote from Robert Reich about how important it was/is that the stimulus not benefit “white male construction workers”. Aside from the absurdity of construction as a “whites only” trade, the actual stimulus was clearly structured to benefit the “feminized” sectors of the economy in spite of the Great Recession disproportionately impacting men. Note that only 1 dollar in 7 was spent on infrastructure.
More broadly, “free” trade was been a core component of the PC agenda. In practice, this has lead to massive (unheard of in world history) trade deficits to the obvious detriment of the tradeable goods sector. Of course, tradeable goods production disproportionately employs men.
I say the same about the broad shifts in government outlays over time. They have moved away from infrastructure (and defense) towards social programs that are less likely to employ men. Clearly this historic trend has been actively supported by the PC community.
“The recent decline in labor force participation is general, and again, explained by the recession.”
LFP has crashed recently because of the Great Recession. However, many of the male (and in some cases female) trends are of long standing. See the BLS data for details.
“As for Hispanics, that data is complicated by immigration. It is possible for the median income of Hispanics to drop even if most Hispanics make more than their parents.”
Incomes do rise from the first generation to the second. However, what is notable is that the “like for like” comparisons show amazing deterioration over time. See Los Angeles and its Immigrants – Metropolis Web Site (http://www.international.metropolis.net/research-policy/losang/chapt3_e.html). I quote
“Consequently, the terms of compensation at the bottom of L.A.’s economy got worse over the past two decades: between 1970 and 1990, real earnings in the Mexican immigrant industrial niches declined by over $6,000. The downturn is not simply a matter of exchanging bad jobs for worse: real earnings also declined in all of the industries that served as Mexican niches in 1970, before the massive immigration truly began.”
“Ten years after their arrival in the United States, the immigrants of the 1970s are doing worse than were the immigrants of the 1960s at the same point in time. And all cohorts have seen the gap separating them from natives grow — a statement that remains true both before and after adjusting for differences in background characteristics.”
“
overseas online reputation management
Small Business <b>News</b>: Your Legal Brief
A big part of running a small business these days involves understanding legal issues, both those that could impact your business directly and those that could.
Did LeAnn Rimes get breast implants? « Entertainment
about this blog. The FOX411 Blog is your first call for celebrity and entertainment news. FOX411 brings you the latest scoops using FOX's unmatched reach in news, entertainment, TV and the Internet. Click on back now, ya hear? ...
New Edition of Huckleberry Finn to Drop N-Word: Instant Reactions
Auburn University professor Alan Gribben, along with NewSouth Books, plans to release a newly edited edition of the Mark Twain classic, with every instance of the N-word replaced with the word.
No comments:
Post a Comment