I read in the article 'Entrepreneurs Are Made, Not Born! Facing 4 Fallacies',
"With many businesses the faster you want to make money the more you have to pay upfront, ...."
..the faster you want to make money the more you have to pay upfront .... Which it points to money goes to money. You need to have money to make money, something that banks follow faithfully, promptly rejecting any individual that comes along to ask for a loan without having money in his/her pockets.
Where do you get the money, therefore being wealthy, to borrow money?
The article 'The rich vs poor fallacy', in the 'The Honorable Skeptic's statements' website, by columnist Dale Husband states
"Most wealthy people grew up in wealthy families and received their money from their parents or other older relatives and thus had access to more opportunities from the very beginning, not because of their abilities but because they were lucky enough to be born in the right families. (Paris Hilton is perhaps the most notorious example.) Meanwhile, those who grew up in poverty, even if they are just as smart, beautiful, and hardworking as the average rich person, tend to remain in poverty because they have less access to the money they would need to invest, to educate themselves, and to afford the latest technologies."
So, wealthy people grew up in wealthy families, they have access to more opportunities, whereas those who grew up in poverty tend to remain in poverty, as they have less access to money to invest, to educate themselves. And this is not down to their abilities or how hard-working they are, as these attributes are bestowed upon individuals, regardless of their background.
Systems that societies follow currently, favour the individuals who have access to money, perpetrates inequality and perpetuates the rich and poor divide through time immemorial, which reluctantly or not but nevertheless acceptable by the majority of the people.
In the continuous debate on that matter, over the years the steadfast will of the human individual continuously erodes the strength of the rich and powerful, and from overseers and overlords proper, with life and limb rights over all other individuals they have now assumed new more subtle identities. Millionaires, tycoons, oil barons, successful entrepreneurs, bankers and their place amongst us continues so, as the structures of inequality in societies remain intact.
Subtle but more devious as they have to disguise themselves, fully aware that their position and their profits are highly precarious. Their influence is propagated via the medium of money. Constantly dangling the carrot of money over us, without realizing that the economic structures that so callously take advantage of, erode the fabric of the societies that they themselves are part of.
However, the matter is not for the rich to become poor or the poor to become rich, but for each individual to be left to develop the full range of his/her character and personality unhindered by the factor of money. To take away, to eliminate the factor of money.
Voices, as in the following extract are heard more nowadays
"It's time to put an end to that centuries old scam and just tax the hell of most rich people and be done with it. NO ONE deserves to be billionaires, period! It is the height of perversity for someone who has millions of dollars, including a mansion, to insist on a "right" to acquire MORE wealth and to not contribute to the upkeep of their governments and to society in general! Even most religions condemn that attitude, so there!"
In the same article, in a comment posted by a reader under the pseudonym Filus Publius, is mentioned
"In fact the ultimate Utopian society would be benevolent anarchy, since government would have no need to exist."
Are we that far from the time that governments would cease to exist? Because they would have no need to exist. Would everybody agree that's where humanity is heading to? To a benevolent anarchy? How do societies and individuals prepare for that? By exterminating the rich? By turning the poor into a mob, hence mob rule, or with majority rules and laws?
Or by each one of us, amending our thoughts and ideas into commonly accepted goals, the ensure the right of each individual to hold his/her fate in life into his/her very own hands?
Should demand our states to become benevolent.
Politicians in government to take affront in the view of people loosing their homes, wandering destitute in car parks and other public areas or people searching for food in supermarket and restaurant bins. A failure on their part and a matter that beckons, demands their resignation. People's lives matter more than the well-being of banks, stock markets or other financial institutions.
Monday 9 March 2009
Friday 6 March 2009
USA Federal Reserve Bank absorb crisis? More likely it spreads it further
I did like the word 'instability' in the post 'the instability in our financial system in contained mostly in these four banks…' in shopyield.com website, and straightaway the thought connected in my mind with chaos, but not the chaos synonym of mayhem and destruction which every mind is conditioned by the prevailing values in societies today but the chaos which brings about new attractors new ways of looking at things, the chaos which translates instabilities into bifurcations, bifurcations which lead to new attractors, new ways at thinking about things.
Instabilities and bifurcations as they are looked at by the systematic and reliable approach of individuals who are not biased or straitjacket their search, on what their search will bring about, that they have not put any bars, any limits on what their search, and use it constructively to reach in conclusions.
A furtive Google-search on 'instabilities and bifurcations', is enough to bring about what the Fed is actually doing and
I read from the forward of the paper 'Second International Symposium on Instability and Bifurcations in Fluid Dynamics'
"Hydrodynamic stability is of fundamental importance in fluid dynamics and is a well-established subject of scientific investigation that continues to attract great interest in the fluid mechanics community. Hydrodynamic instabilities of prototypical character are, for example, the Rayleigh–Bénard, the Taylor–Couette, the Bénard–Marangoni, the Rayleigh–Taylor, and the Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities. A fundamental understanding of various patterns of bifurcations such as identifying the most dominant mechanisms responsible for the instability threshold is also required if one is to design reliable and efficient industrial processes and applications, such as melting, mixing, crystal growth, coating, welding, flow re-attachment over wings, and others."
Hydrodynamic stability, in fluid dynamics both concepts have direct counterparts in societies economic structures state economies despite each developing in different contexts. The instabilities mentioned in the extract, bringing about bifurcations, and by carefully studying the bifurcation patterns aiming to find out the mechanisms that trigger the bifurcation. At what threshold of the instability the bifurcations are triggered. To what avail? Their purpose, to design efficient and reliable industrial processes.
Certainly the fed, despite having as its goal to bring about stability in the economy, appears as it is lost. They don't know what they are doing. The sought after stability in the economy they so eagerly want can not be seen, not even a glimpse. Why?
First, the systems referring to fluid mechanics are isolated, carefully planned and even so the ensuing complexity is enormous. Whereas the systems economy are not isolated, they are open. Myriads of factors exert their influence, beyond the narrow boundaries of markets banks and institutions, to which they design and apply their measures.
Second, their approach is biased. Their ways of identifying what went wrong, which determines the measures to take, are not different from the system that want to fix.
It is mentioned in the article
"In expanding its balance sheet and lending commitments, the Fed has relied on methods used by the very Wall Street institutions to which it has extended lifelines. The Fed uses credit ratings to help determine what to accept as collateral for its loans, employs structured-finance gambits to protect its positions and relies on imprecise valuation models to evaluate prices and monitor its exposures."
Fed relies on methods used by the very Wall street institutions? Instead of assuming the role that supposed to have, acting like the system that wall street institutions, banks, and whatever other organisations are sub-systems within, it doesn't differentiates at all. It doesn't look from above but next to, the systems at fault, therefore any solutions offered hardly touch the cause of the crises. it lets the crisis spread amidst it.
As a result the predictions upon the effect Fed's moves will have for the state of America
"It has loads of subprime-mortgage bonds, souring commercial real-estate debt and collateralized debt obligations worth a fraction of their original value. This isn’t Citigroup Inc. or Merrill Lynch. It is the Federal Reserve."
and
"But as the economy slows, mortgage and corporate defaults climb, and asset prices continue to decline, analysts are beginning to argue that U.S. taxpayers could end up shouldering losses from some of the Fed’s moves."
which will end up
"The Fed’s lending could swell by another $1 trillion or more in 2009 ..."
By not looking at the crisis from above a supersystem, overseeing its subsystems, is not able to offer solutions that will eradicate he problem. It is what comes out of Godel's theorems. The systems which in their development advanced to a stage, a result of rules abide, have reached a stalemate as solutions can no be found within the system. Any solutions can only be found beyond the system. What the system in stalemate, is included in. In that case, the system that includes the system in stalemate being the fed. Which is not doing what it is supposed to do.
Instabilities and bifurcations as they are looked at by the systematic and reliable approach of individuals who are not biased or straitjacket their search, on what their search will bring about, that they have not put any bars, any limits on what their search, and use it constructively to reach in conclusions.
A furtive Google-search on 'instabilities and bifurcations', is enough to bring about what the Fed is actually doing and
I read from the forward of the paper 'Second International Symposium on Instability and Bifurcations in Fluid Dynamics'
"Hydrodynamic stability is of fundamental importance in fluid dynamics and is a well-established subject of scientific investigation that continues to attract great interest in the fluid mechanics community. Hydrodynamic instabilities of prototypical character are, for example, the Rayleigh–Bénard, the Taylor–Couette, the Bénard–Marangoni, the Rayleigh–Taylor, and the Kelvin–Helmholtz instabilities. A fundamental understanding of various patterns of bifurcations such as identifying the most dominant mechanisms responsible for the instability threshold is also required if one is to design reliable and efficient industrial processes and applications, such as melting, mixing, crystal growth, coating, welding, flow re-attachment over wings, and others."
Hydrodynamic stability, in fluid dynamics both concepts have direct counterparts in societies economic structures state economies despite each developing in different contexts. The instabilities mentioned in the extract, bringing about bifurcations, and by carefully studying the bifurcation patterns aiming to find out the mechanisms that trigger the bifurcation. At what threshold of the instability the bifurcations are triggered. To what avail? Their purpose, to design efficient and reliable industrial processes.
Certainly the fed, despite having as its goal to bring about stability in the economy, appears as it is lost. They don't know what they are doing. The sought after stability in the economy they so eagerly want can not be seen, not even a glimpse. Why?
First, the systems referring to fluid mechanics are isolated, carefully planned and even so the ensuing complexity is enormous. Whereas the systems economy are not isolated, they are open. Myriads of factors exert their influence, beyond the narrow boundaries of markets banks and institutions, to which they design and apply their measures.
Second, their approach is biased. Their ways of identifying what went wrong, which determines the measures to take, are not different from the system that want to fix.
It is mentioned in the article
"In expanding its balance sheet and lending commitments, the Fed has relied on methods used by the very Wall Street institutions to which it has extended lifelines. The Fed uses credit ratings to help determine what to accept as collateral for its loans, employs structured-finance gambits to protect its positions and relies on imprecise valuation models to evaluate prices and monitor its exposures."
Fed relies on methods used by the very Wall street institutions? Instead of assuming the role that supposed to have, acting like the system that wall street institutions, banks, and whatever other organisations are sub-systems within, it doesn't differentiates at all. It doesn't look from above but next to, the systems at fault, therefore any solutions offered hardly touch the cause of the crises. it lets the crisis spread amidst it.
As a result the predictions upon the effect Fed's moves will have for the state of America
"It has loads of subprime-mortgage bonds, souring commercial real-estate debt and collateralized debt obligations worth a fraction of their original value. This isn’t Citigroup Inc. or Merrill Lynch. It is the Federal Reserve."
and
"But as the economy slows, mortgage and corporate defaults climb, and asset prices continue to decline, analysts are beginning to argue that U.S. taxpayers could end up shouldering losses from some of the Fed’s moves."
which will end up
"The Fed’s lending could swell by another $1 trillion or more in 2009 ..."
By not looking at the crisis from above a supersystem, overseeing its subsystems, is not able to offer solutions that will eradicate he problem. It is what comes out of Godel's theorems. The systems which in their development advanced to a stage, a result of rules abide, have reached a stalemate as solutions can no be found within the system. Any solutions can only be found beyond the system. What the system in stalemate, is included in. In that case, the system that includes the system in stalemate being the fed. Which is not doing what it is supposed to do.
Wednesday 4 March 2009
Once again the same recipe? Competition?
"... a meaningful advantage over competitors?"
Once again the same recipe? Competition?
An extract from the article "Leaders, Take a Ride on the "Down Economy" Bandwagon"
Is that not the reason that economies failed and will continue to fail? Does it not lead to the notions, annihilate the competition, destroy them, devour them, take over this and that company, all out to engulf all other competing companies and in the race, they forget everything. That they do not have the capital, the supposed shareholders, to back a takeover, an acquisition, is not an obstacle. They became callous. They borrowed, more than what their companies worth.
I would not be surprised if I hear that banks ended up been tightly squeezed between what they owe and what they are owed. Credit and debt. Tying up any real assets they have as collateral for borrowing money, other banks doing the same, in their incessant pursuit of annihilating the competition, ended up with no more assets being available to secure a loan. The whole system locked drying up credit.
Their rules rigid and strict, mechanistic, reminding Godel, do not allow them to find a solution within the narrow boundaries of their companies. They need a solution from a solution from outside. They seek out their Godel in governments and states. Bailouts and stimuli.
At the same time the lives of all individuals in the world over, are messed-up and destroyed. They are put down as collateral damage. The matter is solved.
Their insatiable hunger to devour the competitors leading to bloated burgeoning organisations that despite their epiphenomenal air of assurance the exercise of their authority brings, they are stupid, as via their rules and regulations, they take less and less in of the plethora of information that is around them, exacerbated by the filter of money, steadfastly adhered, which only allows out of that rich bed of information that comes out of the lives of individuals, only what is relevant to the accumulation of more and more money, more profits.
The individuals in them, mere cogs of a fundamentally flawed machine that sees all other individuals around them from that very limited, restrictive prospective imposed by the company. Sees individuals as clients, prospective buyers or sellers, as units to make a profit out of and dismisses all else, that we, all are. Which bring about the underlying stark realisation, that by doing so dismissing themselves too, their very own human nature.
Their lives are taken away, left only with the tatters that organisations allows them to have? Isolated, detached and disinterested, complete apathy, they are there to do the job, and go home to immerse themselves into their comfort zones.
It mentions further in the article
"... there are some fundamental problems that we haven't yet faced."
Yes there are fundamental problems. A glimpse I offered above.
""... there is a good chance that we will experience an economic upturn sometime in the not-too-too-distant future."
And no, it is not a matter of chance.
What you call chance, what happens now bailing out banks and companies, is purely artificial and it is imposed form above, states and governments and as such a respite. It will lead to the onset of another cycle, the boom-and-bust cycles, never-ending, something I hear quite a lot coming out of your circles.
What is fundamental is not left up to chance. In this case it will come out from what you mention here
"to build greater trust and behavioral cohesiveness."
but not for the restricted isolated narrow limits of organizations, so they will make more money, more profits and so on ....
but out in the open, trust and behavioral cohesiveness for the individuals of the world, the whole world included. The credit crunch becoming a point of no-return in the path for re-organizing societies.
Once again the same recipe? Competition?
An extract from the article "Leaders, Take a Ride on the "Down Economy" Bandwagon"
Is that not the reason that economies failed and will continue to fail? Does it not lead to the notions, annihilate the competition, destroy them, devour them, take over this and that company, all out to engulf all other competing companies and in the race, they forget everything. That they do not have the capital, the supposed shareholders, to back a takeover, an acquisition, is not an obstacle. They became callous. They borrowed, more than what their companies worth.
I would not be surprised if I hear that banks ended up been tightly squeezed between what they owe and what they are owed. Credit and debt. Tying up any real assets they have as collateral for borrowing money, other banks doing the same, in their incessant pursuit of annihilating the competition, ended up with no more assets being available to secure a loan. The whole system locked drying up credit.
Their rules rigid and strict, mechanistic, reminding Godel, do not allow them to find a solution within the narrow boundaries of their companies. They need a solution from a solution from outside. They seek out their Godel in governments and states. Bailouts and stimuli.
At the same time the lives of all individuals in the world over, are messed-up and destroyed. They are put down as collateral damage. The matter is solved.
Their insatiable hunger to devour the competitors leading to bloated burgeoning organisations that despite their epiphenomenal air of assurance the exercise of their authority brings, they are stupid, as via their rules and regulations, they take less and less in of the plethora of information that is around them, exacerbated by the filter of money, steadfastly adhered, which only allows out of that rich bed of information that comes out of the lives of individuals, only what is relevant to the accumulation of more and more money, more profits.
The individuals in them, mere cogs of a fundamentally flawed machine that sees all other individuals around them from that very limited, restrictive prospective imposed by the company. Sees individuals as clients, prospective buyers or sellers, as units to make a profit out of and dismisses all else, that we, all are. Which bring about the underlying stark realisation, that by doing so dismissing themselves too, their very own human nature.
Their lives are taken away, left only with the tatters that organisations allows them to have? Isolated, detached and disinterested, complete apathy, they are there to do the job, and go home to immerse themselves into their comfort zones.
It mentions further in the article
"... there are some fundamental problems that we haven't yet faced."
Yes there are fundamental problems. A glimpse I offered above.
""... there is a good chance that we will experience an economic upturn sometime in the not-too-too-distant future."
And no, it is not a matter of chance.
What you call chance, what happens now bailing out banks and companies, is purely artificial and it is imposed form above, states and governments and as such a respite. It will lead to the onset of another cycle, the boom-and-bust cycles, never-ending, something I hear quite a lot coming out of your circles.
What is fundamental is not left up to chance. In this case it will come out from what you mention here
"to build greater trust and behavioral cohesiveness."
but not for the restricted isolated narrow limits of organizations, so they will make more money, more profits and so on ....
but out in the open, trust and behavioral cohesiveness for the individuals of the world, the whole world included. The credit crunch becoming a point of no-return in the path for re-organizing societies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)