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
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
Monday, 9 March 2009
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.
"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.
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.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Credit crunch, messed-up lives and victim.
The credit crunch creates anger. Anger that individuals feel within, and it builds up and at certain times, by virtue of being ever ready to explode, instantiates its force in ways that depends on the person's ways of expressing built-up anger.
He was a quiet person, a manager in some company, lost his job, became depressed, taking anti-depressants, isolated himself within the walls of his apartment, his comfort zone. He fell off the window in his block of flats, his body laid out for hours, before it was taken away, said the person I had this conversation with. Messed-up lives of individuals a result of the gambling games banks, entrepreneurs played in the pursuit of bigger and bigger profits on the back of our societies, a ghost of a growth that offers nothing for individuals in societies. A victim of the credit crunch.
What happened certainly would not be deemed worthy for public media to include in their broadcasts, exacerbated by the prerogative of for accuracy, cast as mere hearsay part of noise our bustling world creates every moment, but it makes no difference where it is coming from. As whoever receives it will evaluate its worthiness and use it to create or re-enforce meaning (ref) within itself, the meaning of, how out of touch monetizing societies are from the lives of individuals amidst them. The messed-up lives they are responsible for.
Anger has a force that could lead an individual to create new ways of thinking, new approaches in the affairs that have to deal with in their every day lives. It is creative
But that alternative is only open once an individual realises that they are not the last cog in the wheel, the insignificant part of an engine that is powerless to do anything, to effect any changes in their lives and the lives of all other people around them.
Individuals that feel their consciousness swamped by the plethora of messages that come through the mouths of politicians or other agents that speak out and express opinions out of their own standpoint only, a standpoint that expresses the values of the current societies which are wholeheartedly devoted to maintain the current status quo of the wealthy against the interests of all the rest of the individuals.
What politicians say worth nothing for the majority of the individuals in all societies. Societies are built to favour the few to the detriment of the many.
But that is not the case. Governments and states are precarious holders of power, as they are allowed to do so, and they are allowed to do so by the large body of individuals in societies, the real holders of power.
All governments and states they will run into gallops and opinion polls, at any moment, to assess what that large body of us thinks of any acts, political or whatever, they have in mind to follow.
But do we pass the right message to them? In the current states societies are, deeply divided in so many little groups, and so easily conquered? Driven by the incessant pursuit of the handful of money, that represent the crumbs they throw at our tables, if any one compares what the wealthy are putting into their coffers to what the rest of the individuals in societies get.
Even the whole concept of wealthy and poor is unreal, a construct devised to separate, to divide individuals in societies, messing-up the minds of individuals branding them as poor to their subsequent submission by the power-hungry members in societies.
Slumdog millionaire it says, hailed by them media, showered with oscars, its sole purpose being, to rekindle within the minds of individuals the thirst to become millionaires. Any one can become a millionaire, the film proclaims, even a slum dog from Delhi, feeding us with dreams, fallacies. Disgusted, useless, wretched values and while humanity deep in dreaming, the millionaire-dream-fallacy, they will have the chance to make more money out of them. More profits.
Vile are the politicians who utter these words: to assist the poor, the weak in our societies, because any one knows, that this is anything but. That instead they will devise the laws, or whatever comes into their minds, to suck up even more of their blood, for the benefit the wealthy.
Services and goods cost more, in corner shops, in power cards, in loans with loan sharks proper with 189.2% typical APRs hideous, vile operators with only sense left is amassing profits with no affront at all advertising it in their websites. The most disgusting aspect is that they feel at ease, societies not only tolerate but favours and nurtures them, the double talk of politicians and the monetizing rules that societies are plagued by.
The time is not far, that not just to expose how filthy they are, they are already exposed in the minds of people, but that would not even dare not simply say, but even to think or even dream of that profits are above and beyond the individual.
He was a quiet person, a manager in some company, lost his job, became depressed, taking anti-depressants, isolated himself within the walls of his apartment, his comfort zone. He fell off the window in his block of flats, his body laid out for hours, before it was taken away, said the person I had this conversation with. Messed-up lives of individuals a result of the gambling games banks, entrepreneurs played in the pursuit of bigger and bigger profits on the back of our societies, a ghost of a growth that offers nothing for individuals in societies. A victim of the credit crunch.
What happened certainly would not be deemed worthy for public media to include in their broadcasts, exacerbated by the prerogative of for accuracy, cast as mere hearsay part of noise our bustling world creates every moment, but it makes no difference where it is coming from. As whoever receives it will evaluate its worthiness and use it to create or re-enforce meaning (ref) within itself, the meaning of, how out of touch monetizing societies are from the lives of individuals amidst them. The messed-up lives they are responsible for.
Anger has a force that could lead an individual to create new ways of thinking, new approaches in the affairs that have to deal with in their every day lives. It is creative
But that alternative is only open once an individual realises that they are not the last cog in the wheel, the insignificant part of an engine that is powerless to do anything, to effect any changes in their lives and the lives of all other people around them.
Individuals that feel their consciousness swamped by the plethora of messages that come through the mouths of politicians or other agents that speak out and express opinions out of their own standpoint only, a standpoint that expresses the values of the current societies which are wholeheartedly devoted to maintain the current status quo of the wealthy against the interests of all the rest of the individuals.
What politicians say worth nothing for the majority of the individuals in all societies. Societies are built to favour the few to the detriment of the many.
But that is not the case. Governments and states are precarious holders of power, as they are allowed to do so, and they are allowed to do so by the large body of individuals in societies, the real holders of power.
All governments and states they will run into gallops and opinion polls, at any moment, to assess what that large body of us thinks of any acts, political or whatever, they have in mind to follow.
But do we pass the right message to them? In the current states societies are, deeply divided in so many little groups, and so easily conquered? Driven by the incessant pursuit of the handful of money, that represent the crumbs they throw at our tables, if any one compares what the wealthy are putting into their coffers to what the rest of the individuals in societies get.
Even the whole concept of wealthy and poor is unreal, a construct devised to separate, to divide individuals in societies, messing-up the minds of individuals branding them as poor to their subsequent submission by the power-hungry members in societies.
Slumdog millionaire it says, hailed by them media, showered with oscars, its sole purpose being, to rekindle within the minds of individuals the thirst to become millionaires. Any one can become a millionaire, the film proclaims, even a slum dog from Delhi, feeding us with dreams, fallacies. Disgusted, useless, wretched values and while humanity deep in dreaming, the millionaire-dream-fallacy, they will have the chance to make more money out of them. More profits.
Vile are the politicians who utter these words: to assist the poor, the weak in our societies, because any one knows, that this is anything but. That instead they will devise the laws, or whatever comes into their minds, to suck up even more of their blood, for the benefit the wealthy.
Services and goods cost more, in corner shops, in power cards, in loans with loan sharks proper with 189.2% typical APRs hideous, vile operators with only sense left is amassing profits with no affront at all advertising it in their websites. The most disgusting aspect is that they feel at ease, societies not only tolerate but favours and nurtures them, the double talk of politicians and the monetizing rules that societies are plagued by.
The time is not far, that not just to expose how filthy they are, they are already exposed in the minds of people, but that would not even dare not simply say, but even to think or even dream of that profits are above and beyond the individual.
Friday, 13 February 2009
'Corrupt assets' or 'toxic assets'?
Relevant thoughts
- Toxic assets…
- Let banks fail, says Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz
- Toxic assets?
I read in the post Toxic assets…
I felt they should be called “corrupt assets”… Wikipedia defines “corruption” as…
~~~~ ” …Corruption, when applied as a technical term, is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system’s original purpose….” ~~~~
I find the approach correct and certainly the term 'corrupt assets' should be used instead of 'toxic assets', just an attempt to lull public opinion to accept the measures proposed, something along the lines, of what is meant by the phrase, .... to make the pill easier to swallow.
I will take it further that this crisis is not a hiccup of the system world economy but a much more fundamental issue, something intrinsic and inherent in global economies currently in force. Something equivalent to genetic.
They can not be anything else but corrupt or toxic, as their sole reason of their existence is the accumulation of assets, for individuals that already possess enormous assets. Beyond what real economies of real individuals require. The wealth out of the services and products, the world over, siphoned through the banks and all other economic institutions, its bulk filtered, into the pockets of this handful of individuals.
Money goes to money. In a few words corruption or even toxicity is and it will continue to be the end result of such economies. Stimulus or anything of the sort, a pure waste.
- Toxic assets…
- Let banks fail, says Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz
- Toxic assets?
I read in the post Toxic assets…
I felt they should be called “corrupt assets”… Wikipedia defines “corruption” as…
~~~~ ” …Corruption, when applied as a technical term, is a general concept describing any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system’s original purpose….” ~~~~
I find the approach correct and certainly the term 'corrupt assets' should be used instead of 'toxic assets', just an attempt to lull public opinion to accept the measures proposed, something along the lines, of what is meant by the phrase, .... to make the pill easier to swallow.
I will take it further that this crisis is not a hiccup of the system world economy but a much more fundamental issue, something intrinsic and inherent in global economies currently in force. Something equivalent to genetic.
They can not be anything else but corrupt or toxic, as their sole reason of their existence is the accumulation of assets, for individuals that already possess enormous assets. Beyond what real economies of real individuals require. The wealth out of the services and products, the world over, siphoned through the banks and all other economic institutions, its bulk filtered, into the pockets of this handful of individuals.
Money goes to money. In a few words corruption or even toxicity is and it will continue to be the end result of such economies. Stimulus or anything of the sort, a pure waste.
Wednesday, 11 February 2009
Toxic assets?
"... instead of an illiquid toxic asset."
... so toxic assets are illiquid? Can not be liquidated into hard cash? Can not be re-possessed? Regular payments are made but this is not what they want. They want to have the money the property worths right now, not later. But where did all the cash they had, went? It was swallowed by the entrepreneurs? They left no cash at all? Or even, being invested further into god knows what other instruments to make more money? To talk about greed is a commonality that offers nothing. But what can be said about, is the insipid feature of capitalism, its intrinsic tendency to grow big and devour all other competitors, says a lot. There is an insatiable hunger in accumulating more and more that adds nothing at all for the individuals in societies. Burgeoning corporations full of hot air, they were bound to deflate sooner or later.
And now what? Do they demand another round. They want to be rescued? What for? They are bound to follow exactly similar paths, their insatiable hunger for more and more profits, is genetic. Their Darwinian trait, their intelligible mark that guides their evolution. They can not get away from it.
Banks and similar corporations bear no trust, deserve nothing. Let them default.
... so toxic assets are illiquid? Can not be liquidated into hard cash? Can not be re-possessed? Regular payments are made but this is not what they want. They want to have the money the property worths right now, not later. But where did all the cash they had, went? It was swallowed by the entrepreneurs? They left no cash at all? Or even, being invested further into god knows what other instruments to make more money? To talk about greed is a commonality that offers nothing. But what can be said about, is the insipid feature of capitalism, its intrinsic tendency to grow big and devour all other competitors, says a lot. There is an insatiable hunger in accumulating more and more that adds nothing at all for the individuals in societies. Burgeoning corporations full of hot air, they were bound to deflate sooner or later.
And now what? Do they demand another round. They want to be rescued? What for? They are bound to follow exactly similar paths, their insatiable hunger for more and more profits, is genetic. Their Darwinian trait, their intelligible mark that guides their evolution. They can not get away from it.
Banks and similar corporations bear no trust, deserve nothing. Let them default.
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
Idolise Barack Obama? Most certainly not.
Idolise Barack Obama? Most certainly not.
It distracts, sways, hides in the minds of the people, where credit goes for his rise in the presidential seat. The American people who voted him to power.
The 'change' shout, that has been used during Barack Obama's election campaign, primarily reflects upon the changes that took place within each American individual, the paradigm shifts in societies, the masses of people that it takes to shift, in order for the behaviour to “tip” in a new direction. Barack Obama, being president nowadays, is that change in behaviour “tipped” to a new direction.
A mass of processes directly attributed to chaos's tenet of minute changes and sensitive dependence on initial conditions that brought about the avalanche that ushered Barack Obama to power. All the 'little' changes that have brought about the change in America, that the world bears witness.
But that is the beginning.
Barack Obama has to do battle with a well spread, deep rooted network of vested interests. The task is enormous the opponent formidable, ruthless, cunning, resourceful and more than anything extremely devious, to the utmost the concept can ever take.
They have a strong grip on mass media, a faithful servant to provide them with ample support, to dissuade and persuade people towards to and for the benefit of their own selfish, ulterior motives. The idolization of Barack Obama, their primary task that mass media are expected to pull, to bring down Barack Obama, the changes he represents, the change in America. One of their main weapons in their arsenal.
Barack Obama will definitely rely heavily on what fueled its rise to prominence. The people in America, along with the people worldwide. Whether he will survive such a task or not and prove himself worthy to the situations arising, the momentum built within the American people should not be lost.
As certainly his and the people's opponents will use underhanded methods to discredit Barack Obama, something that might have already started as they hide extremely well their underlying intentions. Quite a lot of people, even unaware play in their game. Or they are helpless to do otherwise as their livelihood depend on it, as they are tied up to their jobs providing, most of the times unwillingly, support to practices which most of the times turns out, to be against them
Barack Obama has to prove that has the strength to cut the ties of unscrupulous interests that plagued, held hostages, almost all the previous occupants of the presidential seat, republican or democrat alike, up to now. One of them, is the military, with its many facets, that for its growth and sustainance, wars are regularly invented throughout the globe, what most certainly fuels the hate among people throughout the world on everything that is taken to represent America. Wrongly directed towards the American people instead of the culprits who hide cowardly behind them, hideously perpetrating illusions that amount to nightmares.
He has the backing of the majority of the american people and he should not fret, he should stand tall.
Further, Barack Obama should never forget that what really matters in his stint in the presidency is not the economy, foreign affairs, or other offshoot of his office but the people in America and there his task is double. First he should consolidate the changes effected in the minds of the people, whatever has been gained so far and second to take them a notch further. To increase that euphoric feeling that embraces all Americans now.
Adhering to thoughts expressed in these posts
- Paradigm Shift: Changing the Human Experience
- Mundane approaches and paradigm shifts in societies
- Stimulate the economy? Better curb it, ostracise it. The system economy has met its boundaries.
- Barack Obama pledges to restore 1,500,000 jobs lost by the credit crunch. Should not.
It distracts, sways, hides in the minds of the people, where credit goes for his rise in the presidential seat. The American people who voted him to power.
The 'change' shout, that has been used during Barack Obama's election campaign, primarily reflects upon the changes that took place within each American individual, the paradigm shifts in societies, the masses of people that it takes to shift, in order for the behaviour to “tip” in a new direction. Barack Obama, being president nowadays, is that change in behaviour “tipped” to a new direction.
A mass of processes directly attributed to chaos's tenet of minute changes and sensitive dependence on initial conditions that brought about the avalanche that ushered Barack Obama to power. All the 'little' changes that have brought about the change in America, that the world bears witness.
But that is the beginning.
Barack Obama has to do battle with a well spread, deep rooted network of vested interests. The task is enormous the opponent formidable, ruthless, cunning, resourceful and more than anything extremely devious, to the utmost the concept can ever take.
They have a strong grip on mass media, a faithful servant to provide them with ample support, to dissuade and persuade people towards to and for the benefit of their own selfish, ulterior motives. The idolization of Barack Obama, their primary task that mass media are expected to pull, to bring down Barack Obama, the changes he represents, the change in America. One of their main weapons in their arsenal.
Barack Obama will definitely rely heavily on what fueled its rise to prominence. The people in America, along with the people worldwide. Whether he will survive such a task or not and prove himself worthy to the situations arising, the momentum built within the American people should not be lost.
As certainly his and the people's opponents will use underhanded methods to discredit Barack Obama, something that might have already started as they hide extremely well their underlying intentions. Quite a lot of people, even unaware play in their game. Or they are helpless to do otherwise as their livelihood depend on it, as they are tied up to their jobs providing, most of the times unwillingly, support to practices which most of the times turns out, to be against them
Barack Obama has to prove that has the strength to cut the ties of unscrupulous interests that plagued, held hostages, almost all the previous occupants of the presidential seat, republican or democrat alike, up to now. One of them, is the military, with its many facets, that for its growth and sustainance, wars are regularly invented throughout the globe, what most certainly fuels the hate among people throughout the world on everything that is taken to represent America. Wrongly directed towards the American people instead of the culprits who hide cowardly behind them, hideously perpetrating illusions that amount to nightmares.
He has the backing of the majority of the american people and he should not fret, he should stand tall.
Further, Barack Obama should never forget that what really matters in his stint in the presidency is not the economy, foreign affairs, or other offshoot of his office but the people in America and there his task is double. First he should consolidate the changes effected in the minds of the people, whatever has been gained so far and second to take them a notch further. To increase that euphoric feeling that embraces all Americans now.
Adhering to thoughts expressed in these posts
- Paradigm Shift: Changing the Human Experience
- Mundane approaches and paradigm shifts in societies
- Stimulate the economy? Better curb it, ostracise it. The system economy has met its boundaries.
- Barack Obama pledges to restore 1,500,000 jobs lost by the credit crunch. Should not.
Thursday, 8 January 2009
Stimulate the economy? Better curb it, ostracise it. The system economy has met its boundaries.
"It's just not that easy to figure out how to stimulate an economy in this condition,"
Stimulate the economy? Better curb it, ostracise it. You can not patch a system that met its boundaries, as witnessed by referring it as being in 'this condition'. That has so many holes.
And that is what someone does, trying to find solutions within the system. You need to go out of the system
Keep what it's worth, the 'goods' and the 'services' and scrap everything else. What, to create jobs, for the sole reason to maintain (or increase) a wasteful manic consumption, as the article declares
"... needs Americans to spend, spend, spend, and not to save."
which, as everybody knows, all these money, will find their way into deep fat pockets.
Use instead people dedicated and willing to furnish 'goods' and provide 'services'. The intrinsic value of 'goods' and 'services' stripped bare from the crutches of money, become paramount.
Their production, dispatch, distribution disengaged from the money medium, and become gradually available to all.
Scrap money.
Stimulate the economy? Better curb it, ostracise it. You can not patch a system that met its boundaries, as witnessed by referring it as being in 'this condition'. That has so many holes.
And that is what someone does, trying to find solutions within the system. You need to go out of the system
Keep what it's worth, the 'goods' and the 'services' and scrap everything else. What, to create jobs, for the sole reason to maintain (or increase) a wasteful manic consumption, as the article declares
"... needs Americans to spend, spend, spend, and not to save."
which, as everybody knows, all these money, will find their way into deep fat pockets.
Use instead people dedicated and willing to furnish 'goods' and provide 'services'. The intrinsic value of 'goods' and 'services' stripped bare from the crutches of money, become paramount.
Their production, dispatch, distribution disengaged from the money medium, and become gradually available to all.
Scrap money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)