RSA Changing Education Paradigms

Governments thick and fast in eradicating poverty. Exterminate poor people. Problem solved.

Governments around the world are near to the solution of eradicating poverty. World rejoice. Exterminate poor people what best way there is, in Britain, in Europe, in USA all have laid out their illustrious plans, budget cuts name it and along with governments, myriad entrepreneurs scrutinize elaborate schemes, steadfast on the tracks of making poverty history. Constantly checking up in their records the rate of success, the poor extermination rate and on the other side what goes hand-in-hand with, their record on their success of making money. Their annual returns of revenue match step-by-step with how many individuals have sent to an early grave. Eradicating poverty? Problem solved.

From the front-runners micro-lending, their reach worldwide. What its inventor has started, was taken up to new heights. Its creator Muhammand Yunus, recipient of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, unaware of what he has unleashed upon this earth, the weapon to feed the unquenched voracious appetite of the making more-and-more money accolytes that would drive deeper and deeper into despair individuals around the globe till they can not take any more, they could not stretch their boundaries any further and will bounce back with such a force, a tsunami that would lead to their demise.

The new heights of entreprneurship WONGA in Britain. It charges a typical 2689% APR, and though they are explaining, the reason for charging such an exorbitant APR, reveal the inner workings of societies engrossed in the path that leads to devoted on-the-know practioners, shrewd entrepreneurs in ammassing unreal fortunes.

They are taking compounding of interest to its extremes, every service offered in annualised rate of charge, compounded by the hour or even at increments smaller than an hour, there are barely any limits, to yield astronomical returns when annualised! All for the sake of a constant pursuit of making more and more money.

As the loan period gets shorter, the more times you have to multiply and compound interest to make it into a theoretical annual figure what reveals the underlying scam, what is responsible for the plight of countries worldwide, the crisis they are in, what makes the world a haven for lawnsharks, whether these are small-time WONGA lawn sharks or big-time sovereign lenders, compounding interest.

That is what is quoted in wikipedia, regarding the history of compound interest.

"Compound interest was once regarded as the worst kind of usury, and was severely condemned by Roman law, as well as the common laws of many other countries. [2]

The Qur'an explicitly mentions compound interest as a great sin. Usury (oppressive interest), known in Arabic as "riba", is considered wrong:
“ O ye who believe! Devour not usury, doubling and quadrupling (the sum lent). Observe your duty to Allah, that ye may be successful. ”

— Qur'an 3:130

In one passage, the Bible addresses the charging of interest in the following manner:
“ Take no usury or interest from him; but fear your God, that your brother may live with you. You shall not lend him your money for usury, nor lend him your food at a profit. ”

— Leviticus 25:36-37"

Businesses embracing creativity?

I read the post "Innovate or Die: Why creativity is economic priority number one"

let my chaotic mind create ... What is create? Is it, all there is to be of creativity, the creativity that is worth for individuals, only in the field of big-dollar economy? That it worths more than any other manifestation that creativity can assume.

Certainly not. Mark Mcguiness, the author of the article, I am reading now, points out one more aspect of creativity. As he mentions that

"Did all those hard-nosed business people suddenly decide there was more to life than capitalism and give up chasing dollars so they could express their artistic soul?"

... another aspect of creativity, the 'artistic soul'. Which by the way, it doesn't look that the author thinks, that 'hard-nosed business people' appreciate creativity that much, as they will not give up the chase of the dollars for the sake of creativity.

The chase of the dollars, and in its altar creativity is sacrificed, a crime perpetrated, the abuse of creativity. A drive towards taking advantage of creativity and with that the creators, to squeeze every dollar possible out of innovations, and once it is done, creativity and creators become a burden, a refuse material which can be discarded at will.

Creativity, its very use, lasts, as far as dollars are made. Tainted creativity, more likely, deeply seated in the monstrosity they call economy? Economy is about people, lives of individuals and not the dollars, that hard-nosed business people, will make.

What kind of creativity is that, which is forced, single-minded, streamlined to the all-consuming priority, to make more dollars for the hard-nosed business-people. What kind of products and services would such creativity sustains?

The priority being not how would better people, how would people enjoy the products and services the hard-nosed business people offer, but how many dollars the hard-nosed business people will make out of it.

Creativity thus employed where its goal is to make big business people more dollars, will fail as it will constantly ignore and go against the aspect of products and services, people are interested in as such a perspective is not included by the providers.

The so-called creativity to be used to dupe and manipulate people, to disguise the products and services on offer, all in the name of the gain of even more dollars. A respite, that forces people to spit out and reject the products and services thus provided.

I should paraphrase the example of the new land of creative opportunity being the tip of the very large economic iceberg. The economic iceberg which its bulk made out of people and their lives that the big-dollar economy at the tip takes advantage of, using creativity as the means to ammass enormous profits, forgetfull of the fact of what makes, what sustains the tip, is the people that without them there would be no iceberg at all.

Economy is, and it has always been about people, that make up the bulk of icebergs, and without them, there would be no hard-nose business people, either.

Economy: thin or ..thick value.

--


"The real crisis isn't about bankers, bonuses, and bailouts— " ..is reported in the article "America's Lost Decade(s)" by Umair Haque hosted by the Harvard Business Review

..is that so?

"— it's about an economy that's geared to create thin value; value that's artificial, meaningless, and often, actually worth little, in human terms. " .. continues.

Bankers, bonuses, and bailouts, asking for, gagging someone would say, survive out of an economy that creates thin value.

An economy that creates value, which is artificial, meaningless, that worth little in human terms, is geared out of "bankers, bonuses, and bailouts".

..and economists that do not dare to go beyond what the "bankers, bonuses, and bailouts" want, careful not to bite the hand that feeds them, and it is not because the economists say so, it is because the people had enough and the economists merely interpret the will of people, and they interpret it from the viewpoint of the "bankers, bonuses, and bailouts".

As they would never bite the hands that feeds them, only giving away the little bit, only enough to calm things down, sustaining economies of thin value.

"So the real challenge isn't about eking out another penny of profit by laying off more another hundred people, offshoring with an even greater ferocity, crushing your fiercest rival more savagely, or churning out more lowest-common-denominator "product." "

Yes, the challenge is there. But who is to take it. Certainly not, the "bankers, bonuses, and bailouts", hooked in eking out another penny of profit.

"It's about learning to create thicker value: authentic value, that endures, resonates, and multiplies. "

Learning to create thicker value. Is it a matter of learning? What kind of learning-inducing environment is there? Does the state provide for such an environment? Are the conditions adequate for such environment to exist?

"..for-profit colleges received more than $4 billion in Pell Grants and more than $20 billion in federal loans provided by the Department of Education" .. is reported in page "For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices."

The U.S. Government Accountability Office report, bears witness what kind of value such investment has produced. Thin? That would have being something, at least, but more likely negative value.

And such a process is going on and on, every time and everywhere, what makes me wonder. Are they so thick that they would never learn? Or the 'thickness' factor is transfered from the value prerogative to their mental faculties. Incapable of learning. The state, its executives, hard on their heels into producing thinner and thinner value.

The state that is supposed to be, that it is there for the people. Governments that are voted in office, by people.

"Unless, of course, you think you can survive another lost decade."

Lost decade? Who has lost it? Certainly not the "bankers, bonuses, and bailouts". The people?

If the people, who cares!
Certainly not the "bankers, bonuses, and bailouts" and probably not the economists.

Bailout funds unwanted, not needed. Why? Executives and executive compensations. What the banks are there for.

The Foxnews story under the title "Official: Banks Seeking to Return Bailout Funds Must Meet Guidelines" announce that

"Banks .... want to return government bailout funds .."

Absurd but a fact. Bailout funds unwanted, not needed. Why?

"That would free the banks from federal restrictions on executive compensation."

What is in their minds. What they want to protect. Their executive compensations.

Bank Executives out there ready to fight, tooth and nail for their rights. The fat compensation checks, the pure essence of them being there at all.

I am pretty sure, in their minds they think, that they are doing a service to the public. For them being there, for them running the banks, for them receiving fat checks, that it is owed to them and should be recognised by anyone, by everyone. By the public, the governments, the states. Weird, and wonderful, as a friend of mine, says. No, not at all wonderful.

Most certainly, they have recovered quick, the credit crunch of a few months away. Already a long lost, forgotten memory. I do not know what are the reasons of this recovery. Short memory, the pinch from the constantly underlying greed, an eagerness to get back to "normal". Anything goes.

Should they be allowed to?

The government

"...said banks will have to demonstrate that they do not need debt guarantees ..."

Demonstrate? That they can do the job? What they are entrusted to do, what they are supposed to be there for? Government doubts what of the banks? Doubts their sanity, their integrity? Whether they do the right thing, checks upon them?

How low have they stooped, in order to protect, their executives compensations, they are willing to forfeit their bank's position. Who cares whether the banks can or can not handle their debts. What matters for them, are the fat compensations, they receive. The sense of security gone out of the window. Who cares? Do the banks and their executives care? ... certainly not.

Do banks need their services ... certainly not ... or ... in a more appropriate manner. Hell not

Should demand our states to become benevolent.

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.

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.