Markets were, they are and continue to be in the grip of speculators. The sooner they fall, the better for humanity.

I read in the article 'World stocks down amid fears of deep recession', in yahoo.news

"World stocks fell sharply Thursday as fears of a deep global recession gripped markets and sent oil prices below $50 a barrel to levels not seen in more than three years."

How on earth could someone interpret that quote? A deep global recession gripped the markets. Markets in turmoil. Oil prices below $50 a barrel.

Right away, certainly by isolating these phrases, the meaning they carry, from the whole that represents global recession, recession experienced in many different ways the world over, who benefits from such a development? Oil prices below $50 a barrel, millions of motorists, to say the least, will take a breather from the recent onslaught of high prices in forecourts. I quote

"Oil prices have fallen 66 percent since reaching a record $147.27 a barrel in mid-July."

High prices thanks to what, in mid-July? Thanks to who? The much dreaded fall in oil reserves? Finite resources which are constantly depleted and can not be replaced, renewed?

None of the sort. Speculation has driven oil prices to soar. And oil-producing countries, a long-drawn euphemism here, which hides greedy individuals, out for the chance of a quick profit, despite the desperate pleading of governments and states to cut oil-production, they either sustained or increased output. And now that the crude oil prices are low, as this video announces, OPEC cuts oil output.

Despite any meaning given for the words 'speculators' and 'investors', in any dictionary, the meaning that makes sense, the meaning that is worthy, is the meaning carried in the minds of people, and that meaning yells that there is no difference between speculators and investors. It is a mask that you wear, which you easily replace with one another.

Lamenting about the 'poor' world stock markets, the wretches that call themselves human individuals, the speculators cum investors or vice versa, that their debased, spiteful, sordid perspective adapted, short of the standards befitting humans, fades away, to the remotest corners of their minds, virtually into oblivion, the wants and needs of human individual, humanity itself.

Cloud the minds of people, forcing their perspective upon them.

I would take further the conclusion reached by the author of the post 'Speculators are not "Investors"'

"Let the speculative "instruments" die so that our society can rediscover an economics founded on fundamentals that benefit real people."

Markets were, they are and continue to be in the grip of speculators. The sooner they fall, the better for humanity.

Inferences drawn by human individuals and bias built-in in perspective.

The abstract for the paper 'FROM SIMPLE ASSOCIATIONS TO SYSTEMATIC REASONING: A Connectionist representation of rules, variables, and dynamic bindings using temporal synchrony', which currently depicts the mode, I want to put my mind into, to go through the article 'World stocks down amid fears of deep recession', in yahoo.news. It followed up the technorati link Tag Page for: speculators that brought me into the post 'Speculators are not "Investors"' and the aforementioned article in yahoo.news.

"Abstract: Human agents draw a variety of inferences effortlessly, spontaneously, and with remarkable efficiency — as though these inferences are a reflex response of their cognitive apparatus. Furthermore, these inferences are drawn with reference to a large body of background knowledge. This remarkable human ability seems paradoxical given the results about the complexity of reasoning reported by researchers in artificial intelligence. It also poses a challenge for cognitive science and computational neuroscience: How can a system of simple and slow neuron-like elements represent a large body of systematic knowledge and perform a range of inferences with such speed? We describe a computational model that is a step toward addressing the cognitive science challenge and resolving the artificial intelligence paradox. We show how a connectionist network can encode millions of facts and rules involving n-ary predicates and variables, and perform a class of inferences in a few hundred msec. Efficient reasoning requires the rapid representation and propagation of dynamic bindings. Our model achieves this by i) representing dynamic bindings as the synchronous firing of appropriate nodes, ii) rules as interconnection patterns."

I want to use that ability of, as myself, a human agent, to draw and extract a variety of inferences out of the available body of background knowledge, but guided by my own unique perspective, unique defined as myself, as any other individual, I am a single unit.

The inferences derived by the author of the post

"If the "instruments" traded on Wall Street have no connection to a tangible economy, then what are they "investing" in? They aren't "investors," they are "speculators" in the worst sense of the term.

Let the speculative "instruments" die so that our society can rediscover an economics founded on fundamentals that benefit real people, not just the cuff-linked and spangled elite. There will be pain in the short run, but that sacrifice will build our character as a nation."

providing the co-ordinates of my perspective.

Relevant to perspective adhered, by any human agent, is that quote from the New Scientist, 24 June 2000, No 2244, article 'Wired like a human', page 11

"When the researchers tested the circuit, they found it processed information much like the brain. In particular, when multiple signals were fed in, the inhibitory neuron suppressed the weaker signals. This is akin to "sensory attention" that occurs, say, when you focus on an object, and everything else fades into the background."

Human agents assume that stance, in everything that deal with in life.

Barack Obama pledges to restore 1,500,000 jobs lost by the credit crunch. Should not.

Threads responsible for the associations brought forth

- Current credit crunch: just a bear-bull game for stock markets to play or a point of no-return in the path for re-organizing societies
- Investors shun Greek debt as shipping crisis deepens
- εργάτη πολέμα σου πίνουνε το αίμα
- THE SHAM-FUL JOBS REPORT NEEDS OBAMA'S ATTENTION


Credit crunch 1,500,000 U.S jobs lost thus far. And what? Do they need to be restored? Should not.

The words written by a commenter, in the Telegraph.co.uk 'Investors shun Greek debt as shipping crisis deepens', article who I mentioned before in 'Current credit crunch: just a bear-bull game for stock markets to play or a point of no-return in the path for re-organizing societies' post, entered my mind.

"... a destructive world economy system based on raping the planet to produce rubbishy goods most can do without is winding down. A system which requires year on year increase in rubbishy consumption and destroys families ..."

He was talking about rubbishy products.

Another commenter in the same article points out

"... de-industrialised nations that no longer produce anything but forms and pop music can start producing a real form of wealth again."

The mention of the word wealth, brought a tinge of bad taste, by virtue of their unpleasant associations. Associations that become evident when you visit websites of this sort, as this one prominently displayed on the top of Ask.com search pages, as a sponsored link. Wealth, money, three or four cars? Is that the kind of wealth implied in the comment?

Wealth teeming with notions, as we have been customarily subjected to, of products being wasted as they can not be exchanged with money. From the back-alley refuse bins of supermarkets to the EU butter mountains and milk lakes, products which have not realised their goal of benefiting, with their use, the individuals they were targeted for. Wasting, simultaneously, destroying the efforts of all the people involved in their production, diminishing the value of their work and of themselves. Products which are destroyed before the end of their useful life, because they are overproduced, or fall victims of the new for old insurance policies, the insurance industry heavily promotes, therefore raw materials, and other resources, are wasted. Products have no value at all, if they are not attached with money?

It struck me that, this should not have been the kind of wealth the commenter was referring to, as there is something wrong with the word wealth, the meaning attached to it.

That is not the meaning of wealth. Wealth should not be associated with money. How some wise guy entrepreneur will make money out of. Practices that constantly interfere, and in the end, rob, subtract, instead of, add value, for the products and services offered to the public. Products have no value at all, if they are not attached with money?

These are not the products people crave for, benefit by and enjoy with. Real wealth has no need of money, no price tags attached. As it is commonly said out of popular wisdom. Money can't buy happiness, in whatever way this is construed, in the minds of every single individual.

Governments and states in their fervour to show hallmarks of a thriving economy, presumably to their public, in reality just to rub it in the face of their opposition, they are easy prey to the guile of unscrupulous entrepreneurs. Out to create jobs, out of the thin air without any consideration whether the jobs created would be of any value for the public at large.

As this blogger in one of his posts have asserted and stated

"[m] of course, I should point out, that personally I would not give, even 50 euros to someone, to do most of the jobs of the 700 euros, because the only thing these jobs produce is hot air."

In the New York Post website, in the article 'THE SHAM-FUL JOBS REPORT NEEDS OBAMA'S ATTENTION', is stated

"... even in a horrible job market and during a credit crunch as we have today, Washington believes courageous entrepreneurs are forming businesses and hiring people."

Courageous entrepreneurs forming businesses and hiring people! What a hogwash. As if any entrepreneur, is out there for other people's sake and not for his very own. That he cares about other people before his own overriding objective: make money. That with the loot stashed from 'fat cows' periods, is out to buy cheap, shattered, broken pieces, the credit crunch is leaving behind, calculating that they will worth more, when it is over.

Create new jobs? Are you kidding? We are here to make money.

No one should expect, notwithstanding people with clout, world leaders and the like to rely on entrepreneurs for any jobs to be created. Any jobs created should solely be based, by having in mind the good of the public, whether it offers a real service that people can benefit and enjoy. And not the monkey jobs, that produce nothing except thin air, rubbishy products and account for fake growth. Should not attempt to resuscitate, revive and proliferate a rotten cycle of growth.

Courageous? Anything but. First it doesn't or barely applies for them, as it is out of context and even in their own game, for whatever standards, if there are any, they abide to, within the context of making money, they will go for the easiest pickings. Corpses that offer no resistance, minimal risks involved. And unfortunately there will be plenty around, your entrepreneurs will thrive.

It is paramount to save from their clutches, jobs, industry sectors, activities that produce real products, and represent real growth and which are faced with the danger of being subjected through their ruthless criteria, which boils down to how much money will I make out of. And in the process leave behind nothing worthwhile, for the people to enjoy.

Get governments and states away from that mob, and get closer to the people.

Current credit crunch: just a bear-bull game for stock markets to play or a point of no-return in the path for re-organizing societies

Thread-thoughts dangling their wares stimulating new thoughts

- Investors shun Greek debt as shipping crisis deepens
- Credit crunch 'may hit UK growth'. What kind of growth are they talking about?
- The human mind is an invaluable asset to be wasted by the monetising societies.
- Throwing overboard relentlessly whatever is remotely connected with what is not agreed now.
- The paradigm shifts in our minds.

This article 'Investors shun Greek debt as shipping crisis deepens' in Telegraph.co.uk announces the spread of the credit crisis in the shipping industry stating that

"The daily rental rates for Capesize big ships have dropped $234,000 to $7,340 in weeks, leaving operators stuck with heavy losses on long leases. Empty ships are now crowding Singapore and other global ports."

why would they be empty ships crowding Singapore and other ports? Are there no goods to be transported, has the world stopped producing

"... coal, iron ore, and grains, and other dry goods."

why in the same article states that

"... It is telling us that world trade in raw materials has slowed dramatically."

is it not the case that

" .... banks shut off credit lines to the industry .."

that created the woes in the shipping industry. Certainly, you would expect a reduction in the amount of raw materials produced worldwide, but not to the extent that they would entirely account in the announced downturn in the shipping industry.

And besides that, raw materials will get cheaper as they would cost less for the individuals the world over. What is the primary and foremost concern of the article's author, for such an unsolicited act? Interested only to safeguard the unscrupulous demands of shipowners, speculators, or any other parasites that suck up unreasonable profits, just because they happen to have the control of the means for rendering the services the world expects from them.

The comment by the article's reader John Wood,on October 29, 2008, at 05:04 PM, readers comments that have a lot more juice than the article has, gives a proper account of the reasons for the credit crunch

"All that this 'credit crunch' is doing is proving that you cannot borrow for growth indefinitely. It is like the cartoons when a character is carrying a leaking barrel of gunpowder and a fuse is lit behind. Eventually he stops, the lit fuse catches up and Kaboom."

incessant purposeless growth, growth for the sake of growth, that do not add any value in the lives of individuals, as the reader, O G Osborne, on October 29, 2008, at 07:43 AM, states

"Perhaps, as it's no longer easy to transport goods, de-industrialised nations that no longer produce anything but forms and pop music can start producing a real form of wealth again. Wait till fuel gets so expensive that we have to make stuff right where it's sold!"

De-industrialised that produce thin air, services that offer so little, materializing just for the sake of keeping societies in motion, creating jobs that are worthless and which are wasting individuals lives.

And on whose shoulders the burden will fall? The reader, A German in Spain, on October 29, 2008, at 11:49 AM, spells it out

"Both countries will have to suffer a lot. Spain because of the housing crisis and low productivity and therefore unemployment and Germany because a big part of the industrial sector will be send on forced holidays for some time. Mercedes will close all factories for 5 weeks in December. In the end unemployment should soar there too."

Unemployment which is expected to rise, forced holidays and/or what has already been decided for Iceland

"... Iceland was forced to raise interest rates 6 percentage points to 18pc by the IMF as a condition for its $2bn (£1.3bn) rescue package."

straightaway, the burden is passed on to the people in Iceland to bear it, to bail out the handful of individuals that caused it, in the first place. A fate that is in store for other countries to come.

Whereas individuals who have exploited to the hilt their privileged positions, as the reader named Greek, on October 29, 2008,at 04:02 PM, stated in his comment

"Most of the traditional Greek Shipping companies, are very cash rich and have mortgage free ships. This drop in the market has been anticipated and is an opportunity to purchase more ships at reduced prices, only to have more mortgage free ships, when the market picks up again, as it will."

will remain unscathed and not only but, as the reader Aloicius, on October 29, 2008, at 11:49 AM so emphatically declares

"Today's piece is more of the same. The situation is shipping, banking and elsewhere is extremely serious but it is no more then par for the course as evidenced by the past couple of centuries of cycles and excesses. To the astute it spells opportunity while all the others whine and regret."

This callous remark, indicative of an individual so detached from his surroundings, so cocooned within his bubble, his little world, ignorant of others, sees the whole affair as just another opportunity for making more money. So much gives the essence in the whole shambles. For the astute, he says, it spells opportunity, while the others whine and regret. The astute, the wise guys, who would not be affected at all. And who are the ones that, not so much about whine, but certainly will regret it, all the other individuals, that through no fault of their own, they would allow these smart-alec individuals to make a kill and make more bucks.

They will continue their past practices, as the reader Peter Charter, on October 29, 2008, at 08:48 AM, states

"Having spent 10 years as a client of these shipping companies I am overjoyed at their demise. A more greedy, unreasonable, lazy bunch of proverbials you will never find. When the goods times roll they double their rates overnight, now listen to them bleat. Their mates the ship brokers are no better always using bunker prices as an excuse to add 50,000 to the charter rate. I will not be alone in rejoicing."

And certainly is not. Voices of this sort, as the reader's Chris, on October 29, 2008, at 11:49 AM, are no longer shouted out in the desert

"Steve at 9:35 is right. It's absolutely wonderful that a destructive world economy system based on raping the planet to produce rubbishy goods most can do without is winding down. A system which requires year on year increase in rubbishy consumption and destroys families because it's all based on fractional reserve banking is breaking down. We should throw a party."

They no longer fall onto deaf ears, they are heard and get responded.

Capitalism, objectivism, Allan Geenspan and other stuff.

I have amassed a lot of information today about labels in the American political arena. The writer of this article is WineRev and posted the entry as a comment in 'Crush their spirits' post kos in the Daily Kos website.

" Republican party taken over by the proto-fascists in an unholy combination of neo-con warmongers + theo-con American Taliban + Wall Street greedhounds."

What I am interested about is what ideas these labels serve. How people, being called as such or pursuing their interests under theses banners, are thinking about themselves. What do they profess as they are doing?

An interesting account of Ayn Rand and her capitalism by Devilstower, titled RIP John Galt. Further on, that testimony is based on what Alan Greenspan had confessed about free markets.

In need to preserve these flowing (following) thoughts for future reference.

You are truly content and fulfilled only if you are surrounded by people that are content and fulfilled. Otherwise you are as wretched and miserable as the most wretched and miserable person around you or even in the world over.

Property, the most revered aspect in the monetising societies becomes the haunt of a recluse, a cage, where you hide yourself to spare your feelings and your senses from your most wretched and miserable neighbours, the suburbs, the gated housing schemes, mere ghettos, self-imposed sanctuaries, to ostrich-hide your sensitivities from the wretchedness around you.

The laws against vagrants and beggars for loitering in high streets, your callous efforts to sweep under the proverbial carpet the rubbish you have so aptly and insensibly created. For which you are responsible for, and you must be ashamed about.

Credit crunch 'may hit UK growth'. What kind of growth are they talking about?

I read in the BBC website about the poor UK growth would be hit. What kind of growth is that, that individuals should be concerned about?

Economies would never ever change, if they continue to operate within the current monetary framework. Being all engrossed in an insane pursuit of a growth based on imaginary, man-made, artificial 'products', that they could be anything else but products.

Economies invented constructs, hanging over precariously; looming; barely supported on thin pillars; like snakes eating their own tails, with nothing solid underneath to sustain their existence, as they are drawn out of the short-sighted, ignorant insistence, to satisfy the needs of steadfastly prescribed monetary rules.

In states administrations, growth indicators become an obsession. Rigidly adhered administrations would account as growth anything that comes into their clutches, no matter where it is coming from. They would have easily accounted as growth even illicit activities, being these loots of bank robbers, drug profits, black market if it was in their hands and if they did not fear the public outcry.

Still they welcome in their folds anything, that ingenious entrepreneurs out of dragons dens out there, all eager to make a penny, make money for the money, so gave away the once free phone directory enquiry service to a horde of disparate providers, council-run car parking to aggressive greedy operators, with telecom companies charging the tenths of the seconds and lots of other initiatives, a mundane task to go through.

And this is the growth they are after? Growth based on thin air? Growth that draws its profits directly out of the pockets, of individuals in a society, being no different than an additional tax, that individuals could without it. No wonder economies fail. That there is a credit crunch, as individuals are squeezed even further, by what governments regard and relentlessly pursue, as growth.

What does he perceives, a supposed Barack Obama led, USA socialist take over, would do to him?

"I'm really mad" because of "socialists taking over the country,"

That is what a McCain supporter stated, in Waukesha, Wis., GOP rally on Thursday October 9, as I read in YAHOO News website post titled 'McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd'.

So socialists led by Barack Obama will take over USA? But that is not what strikes me and why I have singled out that particular phrase from that article. What I want to find out is ....

... What is he mad about? Socialists? And provided that Barack Obama and his followers are actually socialists, and if they are, then what kind of socialists. What then these socialists would do? Take over the country? And what would they do to the country? Or, is it not, more precisely, what would they do to him, or, what he perceives they will do to him.

In his mind, this thought is overriding, powerful to the point that he completely ignores the state his country is already in, a result unopposedly attributed to GOP administration, the country in the grip of a capitalist takeover. Yet, this is still not a matter to consider about, as easily or not, someone, or he himself could argue at length and probably successfully for the merits of capitalist supremacy, without making any difference to the route USA politics and subsequent administration takes.

What it matters, is why he is overwhelmed with anger as many other GOP supporters and why it seems, that the republicans as a party are not able to control. To my mind this attitude comes down to ignorance, a state of mind where none or very little of the properties of certain arrangements (the socialist in this case) are known, where the mind gets loose, imagination grows wild, rampant and confused.

The leaders a.k.a shepperds and the mindless, self-indulgent flock?

...shepherds leading the sheep, mindless self-indulgent flock that needs herding .... tending for the flock out of their benevolent nature

.. pastoral care for the poor in the mind, a philosophy that permeates the fabric of british and not only societies

... distorting ... that, what has been established as given order in societies at large, is out of the struggle of the collective will of individuals in a society, fought hard and gained and not given out of the good heart of those in charge or out of the inspired acts of a handful of individuals. A fallacy that is continuously fed by media

....a trend, remnant of the past, a deep-rooted abhorrence for the nature of the human individual, one that endlessly separates individuals into categories, the worthy and the unworthy, the aristocrats and the peasants

....constantly rob the achievements of the collective will attributing it to this or that inspired individual, diminishing the value of the rise in consciousness in each and every individual

....continually bombard individuals with messages that what they are, what they can amount to, is just a mindless herd and would not be any better

....leaders that woefully ignore that what they can accomplish is what the established collective will of the individuals in a society allows them to ... are permitted to

.... what they have or will accomplish is only made possible as the individuals in a society have made it so

... claim unashamedly all the laurels and undeserved gains along with unfathomed unscrupulous rewards

....humanity's rise a collective effort that the names attached to it, have very little to do with it

....a practice deeply rooted in the psyche of state and governments

....the place writhes with leaders. From schools, where headteachers are chosen out of the ranks, which their only token is that they have brilliant crowd managing skills, herding skills mostly fizzled out in the epitome of British society. The formal attire, school uniform and tie, an insane insistence but nevertheless engineered along the lines of british society's master plan, glorifying the form to the detriment of substance, it is what you wear and how you look and not who you are, that matters.

....there are a lot of flocks out there that they need herding

.....have the television and other media to provide for

.....immerse them heavily into every form of indulgence

Save the banks. George Bush declares.

Save the banks? What for? What is to save there that is worthwhile for the majority of the individuals in USA, and possibly the world over? Or to save the banks so they can continue unhindered to amass insane profits?

Mr. Bush said, that the bank rescue package is

"For the financial security of every American"

but very few give him credit, as credit nowadays is in short supply, that what Mr. Bush says, is what he means. What it actually is going to happen.

All this vast sum of money pledged, to save the banks will be used to furnish the enormous appetites of a limited bunch of executives to a great part, and very little, if any at all, will be channeled to maintain what is worth for, for the people as such. Or what is actually is going to be channeled down, is misery and hardship, which unlike credit the US administration has ample quantities in reserve.

As quite a lot of these monies will be used to feed scavenging companies, which like vultures encircle the carcass ready for the kill to pick up rich spoils, as this report suggests.

All the executives responsible for the fall would have already built up substantial nest eggs, unscathed and untouched by the whole shambles, even used to short-sell their own stock, (what kind of entrepreneurs are they after all, not to foresee and take advantage of an opportunity), and the only people to suffer, are the people hapless recipients of the so-called services to the public banks render. The only ones really affected and hit hard, their stories untold, since their cases are not mass media material, their credit crunch-busting parties would not sell.

And what else could you expect from a state run by the same bunch of individuals that have similar ulterior objectives, and nothing in common and it is not even in their mind, the welfare of the individuals that their services is/was supposed to provide for.

Both of these groups of people common objective is to sustain growth, an insane insistence on fallacious indicators applied in a fragmented manner for each of the companies, based strictly on the wares the company offers for, and the profits they make, isolated from the economy at large. As if the aggregate of all these individual growth figures, a strictly monetary approach, has any grounds, and it does reflect growth that matters, for the individuals in a society at large.

A growth that is not based upon the real needs of individuals in a society, but the needs of voracious companies to furnish all the short-sighted fragmented economic indicators and figures, overindulge and bathe in their sunshine (from UV-lamps more likely, artificial).

As each company and the people responsible for their running lack the ability to see beyond their company's needs, have a fragmented, distorted view of the economy, highly biased by their own limited perspective, ignoring all else.

All the monies certainly would end up in coffers of already established entrepreneurs-individuals, a result of the structure of the system and the mentality of the individuals involved. And states, overrun by a horde of people whose their needs are highly exaggerated, unreal and superficial, detached by the needs of the human individual.

By all means ample help should be given to maintain the service banks provide, to maintain the infrastructure necessary but never with that bunch of people in charge and not with the same mentality. With a different focus.

A focus not based upon the fallacy that the leaders and not the development of individuals, empowered to take on, in their hands, humanity's affairs, all in control of their lives. Agent-based societies to provide the amenable conditions. Conditions that exist in, and are part of, of each and every individual

Societies that evolve by the dynamic of change developed within each individual, where the presence or not of a leader is purely coincidental.

Societies will take their path, follow their trajectory, regardless temporary setbacks emanating out of external manipulations by unscrupulous individuals, powered by ulterior motives.

Societies where each and every individual within their bosom and amidst their ranks, matters for. What societies should be for.

'Legal and binding'? What is the value of that expression.

The following statement was included in a letter of Ross and Liddell company, whose primary business is to act as a factor of tenement properties in Scotland

"I must repeat myself in saying that indeed property in Scotland is governed by a Deed of Conditions which were initially drawn up when the building was erected. Albeit this was a number of years ago until such times as the government introduce some sort of new legislation to alter this, as Managing Agents we are obliged to abide by them and enforce their conditions upon proprietors."

And the building(s) in question tenement flats and the year most of them were erected is the 1900s or maybe the twilight years of 19th century. On the grounds of this legislation, Ross and Liddell, which presumably has acted as factor since then, has been charging proprietors buildings insurance premiums, against the will and the freedom of proprietors to choose from where to buy a service product.

Of course someone can not ignore the fact that the buildings insurance is a modern product of the insurance industry and certainly not as old as some of the tenements, as well as the legislation they quote, to justify their action, which makes their claim dubious. However, that is not the point I want to make.


What is disconcerting is the appeal of the author of the letter, an employee of Ross and Liddell, that this action constitutes a legal and binding process as the paragraph below states.

"As you will be aware, property in Scotland is governed by a Deed of Conditions, being a legal and binding document drawn up when the building was erected."

What is the value of the expression 'legal and binding?'

Legal to what avail, binding for what purpose? The only legal 'legal' aspect there is, is what promotes and fosters unity and trust among the individuals in a society. In what sense legislation, like what Ross and Liddell abides to, where its main goal is to protect the businesses at the expense of the individuals that seek their services, promotes and fosters unity in a society? Business-centered government instead of people-centered?

By looking in any old history books, in search for the origins of the modern states, the only or main reason that governments were brought into existence, was to guarantee the contracts, for merchants, banks, landowners and any other such individuals. And still is.

If not all the legislation at least a great part, if not all modern states at least a great many, its or their sole or primary objective is about protecting the integrity of the contract, its their cornerstone of their existence.

Guaranteeing contracts, meaning securing the profits for business, at the expense of the services provided to individuals. Services as a public good for individuals to enjoy. The contract elevated to a point where it is disjointed from the service is supposed to provide. Becoming the goal and not the means in the service provision, to the point that legislation prescribes that it needs to go on, despite and against whether the service is required any longer. Individuals forced to adhere to contracts by the 'legal and binding legislation' even if they have no use of the service the contract is for, to fork out money for a service they cease to be interested in.

Strict adherence to contracts enable businesses to extort monies from individuals without providing any service. Monies milked out of individuals with nothing in return. No more no less, business and those involved in them, are nothing but parasites. Any growth in the business or the economy at large is parasitic growth. A kind of growth detrimental to the health of a society, and is anything but 'binding'.

Contracts should be based on mutual trust between the parties engaged and in service of the service provided, otherwise it will continue to breed parasites and harm the social fibre of the society.

Talk about democracy, governments of states elected by the people for the people. Anything but. Politicians should change their scope of governing. Aim towards providing a people-centred government. If Mr Brown, and other politicians wonder about the persistent indifference of individuals in politics should seek their answers there.

Businesses can still survive amidst a climate where the service they provide is a priority, instead of the profits they will amass in their coffers. A penny more, in anyone's pocket, worths nothing if it is not given freely by a satisfied customer.

If businesses do not adapt, they simply should not exist.

Black swans are always present. Either you choose to ignore or you choose to notice.

Lack of understanding, or I would say of an unwillingness to heed, clear messages shouted out deafeningly in ears which lay mesmerized to the songs of beguiling sirens, oblivious to their imminent doom.

Reporting on the world economy

"Near-zero borrowing costs are the source of speculation since they allow investors to borrow cheaply in yen and take punts in countries where interest rates are higher."

out of thin air, nothing productive, making huge profits out of nowhere, precariously balancing on glass stilts. Is that the growth world economy relies upon, thrives on? Run by speculators?

Created a world of make believe, a bubble afloat a vibrant world, powered by inertia alone, a direct reflection of the so-called economic forces, and have the affront to be called investors.

Black swans? Not seen, unpredicted, your eye. Your eye has not seen them. You can see what you choose to see. A matter of scope. You choose to ignore, but it is there.

A for randomness let's borrow the words from freakonomics

"I keep writing here and there that my definition of randomness is as follows: incomplete understanding or incomplete information."

and

"So the degree of randomness is observer dependent."

And the point is, you are either in knowledge of your incomplete understanding or the fact of incomplete information, or not. And further a matter of choice whether you acknowledge your knowledge or not.

Flap-strapped around the eyes, like cart-pulling cattle, restricting views of the going-ons in the world, in search for black swans. Might as well be blind-folded. Fail to notice the obvious, unwilling to take heed of even the mythoplasy that spawned the term. Black swans did not appear out of nowhere, they were already there, in Australia or wherever.

Likewise, the black swans of today's world are there, but are not given the attention they demand. It is not that they are unpredictable, it is more like the inability, for the sake of want, to predict the chances their predicted values, in the minds of the world's human individuals, stand to sweep you away, fed up of the hogwash they are fed daily, trivializing lives, unwilling pawns to insane insignificant games.

Insignificant as they offer nothing in fullfiling the aspirations of humankind and insane as they are still allowed to exist.

Prepared to face, be exposed, recognize and rigorously exploit Black Swans? Be prepared for more.

The editorial administratum of Forbes.com is wrong. The "Black Swans", the exceptional unpredictable events, that carry a huge impact will not yield to exploitation for the winners, it will end exploitation, in whatever way it could be imagined. An end to useless, precious time squandering, mind-numbing brain wastage, heart-rending anguish in the trivial pursuit of exploiting for financial gains. Instead it will be an enlightening journey to personal and collective fulfillment that only knowledge brings.

Nassim Nicholas Taleb's ideas are intriguing, and so after my own thoughts, is uncanny. Even the name given to his personal website is far-reaching, as he correctly contemplates individuals fooled by randomness. Even my current encounter, an unplanned haphazard www link journey, with the thoughts of Nassim Taleb, no matter how random it appears to be, will not succumb me into accepting it as random.

As a few hours ago, contemplating on the claims put forward by Carlos Gershenson, in his attempts to establish the connections between behaviour and the evolution of cognition specifically mentioned:

"We believe that, in order to model plausibly reasoned behaviour in an open, unpredicted, non deterministic environment, we should model first convincingly reflex, reactive, and motivated behaviours."

The appeal to an open, unpredicted, non deterministic environment stopped me in my tracks. It was difficult to accept the claim for an open, unpredicted and non-deterministic environment. It brought into my mind notions about local and global environment. Local environment, its limits defined by the extent of our sensoria, seemingly open, a matter of convention, but in reality closed irrespective of where the boundaries lie. Conventions based on the chosen variables and parametres imply the nature and degree of its openness. And via the variables and parametres the individual chooses to monitor, bounds local environment unpredictability and its apparent determinism or non-determinism.

Advancing knowledge gears changes, of kind, of range, of the variables and parametres monitored by human individuals, in personal and collective level, expand the boundaries of local environments, decrease unpredictability. Introduced changes gradually assume control over attitudes and behaviours and guide acts either in individual or collective capacity. Local environment expanded, widens the arena, an increase in phase space which deterministic chaos explores.

So McCain is another Bush-type candidate?

I read in renoir's comments, in the Huffington Post website, a comment posted in Alec Baldwin's, 'Who can beat Mccain?' post.

"McCain is most certainly a Tool! Consider his pandering to the religious right. Consider embracing Bush after all the slime tossed his way during the last election. Consider not voting to ban torture.... MY GOD! How is this man NOT a tool? Consider his vote that prioritizes immunity for the telecom industry over the Constitution. Consider his lack of knowledge of Shiite vs. Sunni vs. extremists vs. Al Queda and still standing by his insistence that he's the most qualified candidate based on his knowledge of international issues. Consider his abject ignorance of environmental concerns. Then consider his connection to lobbyists while pretending to be all concerned about corporate influence. Consider his complete lack of critical thinking when it comes to this war... and how he is willing and able to ignore not only it's immorality and illegality but also it's impact on our military and let our men and women march into a quagmire that HE said was not winnable not so long ago. Consider his flip-flop over the immigration issue.... he says something that sounds amazingly lucid, compassionate and sensible about illegal immigration but then immediately reverses that when he gets heat from right-wing wingnuts."

So McCain is another Bush-type candidate? Or Reagan-type for that matter? That is a reiterating pattern that makes me wander? Is it the way that the republican party has found in order to avoid the pitfalls of appointing to the presidency an individual, who if it is left on its own devices it might create more trouble than they bargained for?

Have in the presidency somebody pliable, responding to commands, a macho exterior but a limited interior and its performance carefully orchestrated by director's type committees, requiring just an actor to play the part? And what makes the difference is the hypocritical (that is acting) qualities of the incumbent? See Reagan for example and the currently incubated Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger?

'Saint Barack'? The warmonger? A view of presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The icon of 'Saint Barack' intrigued me, and following up to its source, the American conservative website, and to the article 'Can Barack Obama, who campaigns as an icon of peace, actually be more bellicose than Bush? Yes, he can.', authored by Brendan O’Neill, it gives me the opportunity to bifurcate to new attractors.

I must admit that the author's writing style in this particular article contradicts his writing style in the spiked online publication, for which he is the editor. Which brings me the idea that this was a tailor-made article for the tastes of 'The American Conservative' magazine publishers. However, apart from some emotive overtones sprinkled throughout the article, it does not entirely diminish its value. The claims made are substantiated by valid references, as far as I can tell, and the point made, can not be ignored.

As for the the term conservative, or any term for that matter, I have to say that I hate labels, it is more appropriate, the use of perspective, standpoint, point-of-view. Instead of using hard, rigid descriptions which leave no room for freedom of thought, not to mention that bring along an enormous set of rules which is unwieldy, prone to flaws according to a wider interpretation of Godel's incompleteness theorem, simply godelitis, shutting off its premises, the thoughts and ideas professed, to other individuals which the mere announcement of a label, any label, cringes their innards.

As for the article, I can not deny that the case brought forward by the author is valid. You can say that an overzealous leader is worse than a leader administrator or any kind of leader for that matter. I see that as a serious shortcoming of state structure, its utter reliance upon the will of single individuals. The leader is there to interpret the will of the people and not to assume divine powers, god-send enlightenment, know-all attitudes, infallibility syndromes, messiahs or any other similar flavour descriptions. The elected official suggest and await for approval or undertake action along the lines he/she was elected for, and only acts on behalf of the people, regardless whether they voted for or against.

In the article, among other items, the following paragraphs drew my attention

"There’s a palpable whiff of semi-religious hysteria at Obama rallies."

"They fantasize that he is pure and righteous, a miracle-worker who, in a pique of rage, will overturn the conventions of neocon-ruled America."

"Having never been stirred by the sight of Obama giving an MLK-style speech on the need for change, I can only take the candidates at their words. And Obama’s words are ominous indeed."

"President Obama would be a warmonger. He would be a wide-eyed, zealous interventionist who would not think twice about using America’s “military muscle” (his words) to overthrow “rogue states” and to suppress America’s enemies, real and imagined."

"Yes, Obama described the planned invasion of Iraq as “dumb” and “rash,” but his overriding concern—expressed repetitively throughout the speech—was that the Bush administration was damaging the legitimate case for American-made wars of intervention and potentially making it harder for future administrations (Democratic, for example) to send soldiers around the world to depose unfriendly regimes."

"We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership—military, diplomatic, moral—to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities.”"

Certainly, as a good president, as any other president possible from the existing candidates, or any other american politician for that matter, has to satisfy his employers or employees or even secure employment for the American nation, that is, the war industry as 54% of the American budget is dedicated to war, and need to capitalise on new opportunities.

The crunch to all these comes from these paragraphs

"As Taylor argues, “An adept politician, Obama began emphasizing his ‘anti-war’ stance as the war became increasingly unpopular among Democrats across the country and he began gearing up for the 2008 presidential campaign.”"

"Citing a Pew Survey that found that 42 percent of Americans agree that the U.S. should “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own,”"

That is the point which should be kept foremost in mind. Barack Obama directly responds to the will of the American individuals, which more than anything, it worths a lot more than the election of any individual for U.S. President. Certainly, any candidate is bound to flow along the direction of the wind and not against it. In the monstrosity that it is the american politics, an arena for combat of all sorts of diverse interests under the constant scrutiny of powerful media, nobody would expect anything better.

This change in the American people, is which Barack Obama currently expresses.

The only clean alternative is to abandon everything, and let America be leaderless. Thing impossible.

(Presidents or other elected officials in case they abandon the premises on which they were elected, impeached by a measure of public opinion?)

Free markets. Are they really free? Exploring.

It drew my attention, the statement, of a probably well known figure in the financial circles, which my meager knowledge of the subject, failed me, that the free market will work out a solution as it was announced in that BBC News article that Markets rattled by bank worries

"Markets worldwide recorded heavy losses in reaction to the emergency bailout of US investment bank Bear Stearns over the weekend."

and its imminent recession in U.S. economy and its subsequent adverse impact in the world economy at large.

The plea(?) to the forces prevalent in the free market were suggestive, or at least that is how it was impressed on me, of chaotic dynamics. Motions, in that case financial economic, unleashed in the phase space comprised by all existing economic states in U.S. and in world economies involved, as well as all sectors of economic activity and the lives of countless individuals, directly or indirectly involved.

An enormous phase space where chaotic motions frantically seek the stability of desperately sought attractors. The question is? Are all the potentialities in phase space open to explore or not? Or, is it the case that only a very small part of the phase space is actually utilised? Available to be explored.

And goes on. Is it actually a free market, or a market that is tightly confined by prohibitive parametres. If it is totally free, phase space exploration will eventually lead to a safe haven that is so eagerly in searched of. But if they are not, if the current parametres, the tariffs, economic rules and regulations, protectionism interventionism or any other imposed measure, effectively curbs the economic activity flow, chaotic motions will suffocate as there is not, adequate and sufficient phase space to unfold into. In the ever parameter-diminished constricted phase space.

U. S. politics bifurcating to new attractors? Expressed in Barack Obama?

I am impatient and common sense(?) would tell, imprudent. But I can not resist. I want to use my new found knowledge to find answers. Regard it as an experiment, a sort of case study. To put all the data out and applying the framework and let the thoughts unleashed, without fear and prejudice. Well just a little prejudice, the least. But not to the point that will compromise the thoughts.

As I was thinking lately about attractors, the set of states that a system falls as chaos is testing all configurations possible. Chaos unleashed as is physically observed by the frantic involvement of all the people engaged in the presidential elections. That drives the efforts of countless individuals in their attempts to preempt the chances of one or the other candidate.

But what would be these attractors in this particular case? Corresponding to what is mentioned here

"falling into an existing attractor in the case of a recognised odour, but bifurcating to form a new attractor in the case of a newly learned stimulus."

An existing attractor, like a recognised odour or bifurcating into a new attractor in response to new learned stimuli. What can the existing attractors be? Or what a new attractor be? Which of the candidates represent or even, is the expression of the existing attractors and what of the new attractors? There is no doubt about that. Mr McCain rely upon the existing attractors whereas Mr Obama represent that part of the american state that wants to bifurcate to new attractors, to a new set of states, be that social, political or other.

As what would the content of the attractors be, a fair amount is deduced by reading through the article 'For Obama, a Taste of What a Long Battle Would Hold' in New York Times.

"In the last few days alone, Senator John McCain has mocked a statement Mr. Obama made about Al Qaeda in Iraq. The Tennessee Republican Party, identifying him with his middle name as Barack Hussein Obama, suggested that his foreign policy would be shaped by people who are anti-Semitic and anti-Israel."

By 'mocking' instead of 'criticising' brings about an air of superiority and condescension, the superiority myth of the white race. By referring to the middle name of 'Hussein' makes artificial connections by the name's Arab origin and assumes that, the name determines the foreign policy. Soon it would follow the transliteration of Mr Obama's name to Ossama and again will instigate connections with Al Qaeda. And even the very name of Mr Obama for its lack of the Anglo-Saxon origin, will be used against.

The thoughts brought out in this post

"History bears witness as countless norms and laws have perished as they journeyed to infinity and oblivion as they were not part of the attracting basins and countless more keep perishing and will perish as the human kind draws closer to its goal."

Is that the time, where the norms that define the policies that Mr McCain stands for, to journey into oblivion, as they are not part of the attracting basins. And the policies that Mr Obama stands for, taking advantage of their favorable position within the attracting basins, to materialise a state that will find Mr Obama a winner of the presidential election, and Mr McCain his policies and their followers into the doldrums of history?

Multinational corporations in 5th gear towards the 'global village'?

Multinational corporations are gearing up the way to a certified 'global village' reality. The world, in all its aspects, does follow up a path towards global integration. It is inevitable as the transactions between individuals or groups of individuals, in disparate locations around the globe, grow exponentially as time goes by. Multinational corporations have the organisation to achieve that.

Lots of thoughts which are needed to be channeled appropriately. Questions in seek for answers.

Their expansion a result of a multitude of all the wrong reasons, paramount being the maximisation of profits, but at the same time, they only have the know-how and possess the necessary organisational structures to bring the world closer together.

Someone can argue that the profits drive tends to leave places in their path bone dry, lunar landscapes. Using up remorselessly all resources a place can offer. Human and natural resources alike.

But on the other hand they push the world nearer to its attractors. Amidst conflicting forces they spread the means for development and bring the world communities together.

Whereas I find this necessary, a major concern is the extent of the damage to environment and to human lives. Would they manage to bring the world in an unrepairable state beyond recovery? If they are left on their own they would certainly do.

Their course unstoppable. Supported to the hilt by the multitude of legislation and the more effective underlying web of power in governments and states, what spawned them in the first place, spring out of their home countries, to spread all over the world. Assisted by the dominant, in most individuals, ego-centred facet of the human persona, to look after dear self blind of others, driving its insatiable hunger for profiting at all costs.

draft

Scope of individuality

Makes me feel like throwing up, it boaks me. Profits? A feeling of revulsion. As in the Atlas shrugged at 50, proclaim

" .. who held to his own ideas and ideals, in stark contrast to those who surrender their dreams simply for the empty approval of others."

that is true and is everywhere, in all societies and it applies for the capitalists and for the "postmodernists", and in short for any individual.

" ... are needed even more today to provide the philosophical basis for a much-needed culture of principled individualism."

I am getting confused or the message is a product of a confused mind. If the American culture is not purely or largely individualistic, why would be in need for individualism or is it the 'principled' what is in question here? I can not think any other society on earth to be more individualistic than the American society.

Individuality? It makes me think that the only individuality you talk and care about is your very own individuality, your cherished ego. Individuality thrives when it considers the individuality of all individuals, and in a society like yours the individuality that is nurtured is the individuality of a handful, hand-picked individuals ignoring all other.

And a misguided individual which at some point in her life guided by her own simplified mind, produced the work you so proclaim that proves your style, a few self-cherished concepts by the likes of you, out of the richness of concepts about. And by virtue of these few partial concepts built a worldview totally defined by her choices.

Any individuality will grow only when all individualities are let free to grow, in the farthest out freedom-to-grow version, as it can be imagined.

It is vile to mingle genuine human traits with false, empty messages. To admit that there were and are

"... pseudo-businessmen, looters who were more interested in appearance than products; who used government to extort wealth from others; and who were guilty and ashamed of their prosperity."

is not enough to exonerate the pursuit of profits for what it actually is, a scourge to humanity.

Profits? Profits? What on earth would profits give you apart from indulging your ego and spoiling your body.

" ... and who took pride in their profits and achievements."

Does humanity live for that? Profits! Is it its ultimate goal? Profits! Is what it is longing for? Profits! And what kind of achievements are these? As they are so proclaimed. Measured in hard currency?

We are but simplified minds. Our mental capacities does not allow us to be any better. Unable to include in our daily thinking everything that exists and takes place around us. And that is what we are. And fair enough.

But this is something we should always bear in mind when we take a stance, look around and address the world.

Everyone in the world that has been born and died or is born and still alive or even (may be, it depends) has not been born yet and not lived, is, or is going to be an individual with a simplified mind.

Me, you, everybody should drive that deep into mind before even think to actually do pass judgment against another person or persons.

Everybody has the potential to thrive if a chance is there to have.

Mr John McCain voted as the next President of the United States. The white man wins.

This website reports on a study which shows that culture influences brain function, following up the trail left by research in psychology.

"Psychological research has established that American culture, which values the individual, emphasizes the independence of objects from their contexts, while East Asian societies emphasize the collective and the contextual interdependence of objects. Behavioral studies have shown that these cultural differences can influence memory and even perception. But are they reflected in brain activity patterns?"

Is there anything here that can be connected with the current presidential primaries in USA? Yes there is, as the values adhered by the American people define the simple rules followed by individuals in the American society, and by that, its complexity and the emergent states which will come out of the process of the presidential primaries. Emergent state being the next administration that would follow up Bush.

As the American culture values the individual, it is obvious that their vote is judged on issues that emphasize the independence of the objects from their context(s). The objects being, the candidates and the context(s) being, the current local and global political situation. The candidates will be picked according to their individual merits, regardless of the policies they profess, their approach to the context.

The New York Times report after the decisive Super Tuesday primaries that

"Black voters overwhelmingly supported Mr. Obama ..."

and

"Women went, by large margins, to Mrs. Clinton."

and certainly on the day after the Presidential election they will announce

"Mr John McCain voted overwhelmingly as President of the United States."

As the overblown and misguided American individuality will certainly choose along gender and racial lines and the choice between a white man and a black man or a white woman, is not hard to guess.

The white man wins. So there it is again, four more years of McCain health care

"For free-market, consumer-based system; has pledged affordable health care for every American without a mandate; says universal health care is possible without a tax increase."

war in Iraq,

"Voted in 2002 to authorize invasion, still supportive; in favor of troop increase; against a timetable for troop withdrawal."

economy,

"Short-term plan is long-term plan: make the Bush tax cuts permanent; eliminate alternative minimum tax."

and so on.

Glimpses galore of the state of the world, US presidential primaries would bring about

Presidential elections, primaries in USA. What does it actually matter here? Would it make any difference what candidate wins?

It is not a simple matter of funding an election campaign in the US primaries, it is what the fundraisers would expect from the person they back that makes the difference. The ties that hold the candidates with their backers. And it is obvious that the big money would back the candidate that would follow a policy that favours their schemes. And usually these schemes do not include the welfare of individuals. It will be the schemes which will ensure that profits for industry do not suffer setbacks.

A recession, it was proclaimed yesterday, looming in the world, as it is deduced by the recent fall in the stock markets.

"Stock markets in London and Europe recorded their biggest one-day falls since Sept 11 yesterday, as concerns about global credit market turmoil and a looming US recession sparked panic selling amongst investors."

A global recession that is driven by a recession in USA. What does that actually mean? Would the recession deduced by the stock markets, involves or is it about the individual in the world? Would be a matter of concern for the individual? Or is the recession the result of the change of mind in the individual? The myth of terror in the world, that the US has to defend the world from, is crumpling. Nobody believes President Bush and the Americans. The global view of the US is going from bad to worse:

" A poll of 26,000 people in 25 countries show the global view of the U.S. role in world affairs is deteriorating.
• 73% disapprove of U.S. role in Iraq
• 68% believe that the U.S. military presence in the middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents
• 49% believe the United States plays a mainly negative role in the world."

The bubble is bursting. If Bush and the rest of the Americans that their livelihood depend on the proliferation of wars and the creation of tensions in the world to bring forth new wars, if they can not convince the individual about the necessity of the wars they start, that would have an effect on their industry, the GDP and so forth, and if the industry doesn't do well, you bound to have recession. Would that be a bad thing? No, not at all.

Is that what actually happens? How can not be? What effect would a 51% of the total current US budget allocated for military purposes would have in an economy? What would happen if the common sentiment around the world is against wars? That economy is bound to go into recession, or nearly collapse? Is that a bad thing? Certainly it is not.

And what is the position of the candidates in the recent US presidential primaries? According to sources all republican candidates have proclaimed they are in favor of troop increase and against a timetable for troop withdrawal in Iraq, apart from Ron Paul, the representative from Texas. As for the democrat candidates they are all opposed to troop increases and in favour of troops withdrawal ranging from immediate to within 16 months, apart from Hilary Clinton who sees troops withdrawal to conclude by the end of 2013.

Over the years it has become a lasting impression of the US as a war nation and that notion is hitting home. And the repercussions are felt and reflected on the American individuals and in the positions put forward by their candidates. True, the republicans did not concede. They continue on supporting war efforts. They are the ones that have direct links with the war involved interests. Their backers and funding partners are representing the war industry. But, as there is the widespread belief that the republicans do not have a chance to win in the presidential elections, that they are fighting a loosing battle, what it matters comes from the positions of the democrat candidates.

They are responding to the change in the minds of the american individuals, all apart, as it is obvious by the prolonged withdrawal procedures put forward, from Hilary Clinton. It brings about notions that her backers are representing the war industry and the prolonged troop withdrawal is translated to a continuing war related business cycle and the hope that, in the meantime another war would be prepared to ensure the war industry would not go out of business.