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.

'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.