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.