-Costick67 (8^P
[the last of its kind]Upcoming conference: How to surrender to the bankers
[a statue of empire. Asia, I think]
[statues in a pool, at night]
[lighthouse]
[the old port. dried up][the marina]
Sunday 30 May 2010
Trip to the cote d'azur
Howdy folks from cloudy, off-season Marseille, home of international anarchists. Seriously, there's a research centre here, CIRA, and I think it's dedicated to Molotov, philosophical father of their better-living-through-flammables department.
-Costick67 (8^P
[the last of its kind]
[a statue of empire. Asia, I think]
[statues in a pool, at night]
[lighthouse]
[the old port. dried up]
[the old port]
[the marina]
-Costick67 (8^P
[the last of its kind][a statue of empire. Asia, I think][statues in a pool, at night][lighthouse][the old port. dried up][the marina]
Dunkirk of the Euro
[assets flattened or confiscated]
[bodies and homeless everywhere]It's a pitched battle between the retreating good guys and the attacking bastards.
Thousands of bodies strewn about. thousands waiting to be saved, and dying in the process.
The differences-
good guys: Euro countries and EU
attacking bastards: US bankers/hedgers, ratings agencies, SEC.
Question: where are the Euro countries going? Not to the City of London, that's for sure. They should be running in the other direction.
The Euro is still under attack from the private American ratings agencies, like Fitch, Standard & Poors (ironic) and Moody's and the hedgers.
The only people who might be able to turn the tables are the US government who are investigating most of those agencies for fraud, as well as Goldman Sachs. However, the new banking law in the US is toothless.*
As it stands, the agencies can still make countries disembowel themselves. Latest gut-fest is Spain.
Downgraded to AA+.
The trick is, they (and the retail banks) let every Western government hang themselves with the rope of debt. Nobody said anything for 60 years. Now, in order to make money, the US investment bankers are scaring the sh*t out of investors about the Euro-countries' ability to pay off their debts. Maybe they're right, making they're speculating. I hedge for the latter.
What about the US and UK, baby? Hedgers can just ignore them, because they like those countries, for the time being.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (US), the body that should be putting pressure on the agencies and the hedgers, is in bed with both of them. That's how Madoff made off with the money.
Where is that money, by the way?
Check Harry Markopolos
[the man spent a decade giving data to the SEC]:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8616941.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7871217.stm
Here's what the crisis has done to the US, as a society:
A letter on Alternet
Posted by LesLeopold at 12:30 pm
May 28, 2010
The Ten Wealthiest Financiers in America Are Not Worth $900,000 an Hour
Dear Messrs, Tepper, Soros, Simons, Paulson, Cohen, Icahn, Lampert, Griffin, Arnold and Falcone,
It’s now estimated that about 150,000 teachers will lose their jobs next year because of the financial crisis touched off by your industry.
On behalf of the 3 million young people who would have been their students, I have a proposition for you: Donate 50 percent of your 2009 earnings to keep those 150,000 teachers in their classrooms. Each of you, on average, still would net over $935 million dollars for the year (you should be able to scrape by on that) — and the money you’d forgo would ensure that 3 million kids would get an education.
That the ten of you personally received $18.7 billion (not million) from your hedge fund proceeds in 2009 is quite a feat, given that it was the worst economic year since the Great Depression. You each got roughly $36 million a week — over $900,000 an hour! Meanwhile, as result of the Wall Street shenanigans you helped engineer, 29 million Americans are now without work or forced into part-time jobs.
---end (see more below)
The situations above are some of the reasons why I am (metaphorically) calling the financial and fiscal attack on civil society 'a war'. It's not a joke. These monsters have been let loose as a result of globalisation, the WTO, etc. and nobody seems able to rein them in.
I ask: How long is this polite, civilised war going to continue to destroy the very foundations of society? The hedgers have managed to make the pensions of millions of people disappear. That's quite a feat. They've destroyed companies, and put 29 million Americans out of full-time employment and, because they've tricked most American cities with their snake oil, they're slowly taking over those cities and pitching homeowners out onto the street, after having caused the banking crisis**. And, as you can see from Les, children are going without education.
Am I exaggerating?
Sorry, out of jokes for today.
Please: A moment of silence for 'society'
as it lays dying.
-Costick67 (8^Pas it lays dying.
For the rest of Leopold's letter, checkitout:
http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/05/28/an-open-letter-to-the-wealthiest-financier-in-america-youre-not-worth-900000-an-hour/
* alternet:
[WITNESS PURE CORRUPTION, FOLKS, HERE in this story- Costick67]
AlterNet / By Danny Schechter
Obama Talks a Lot of Game About Taking on Wall St, While Killing off Reforms in the Shadows: The American people are clamoring for justice but our voices are still being ignored. The President says he is on our side. Is he?
...In several high profile speeches, Obama lashed out at Wall Street for its greed and mendacity, proposing financial reforms that appeared to be hard hitting if only because of the way the lobbyists for the financial services industry squealed about them.
But even as he was feinting left, he and his main economic operative, Tim Geithner, were moving right to kill off amendments that the bankers hated like Senator Bernie Sanders's proposal for a deep audit of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Brown-Kaufman Amendment that would have broken up the six biggest banks in America."
As John Heilman explained in New York Magazine, "Geithner's team spent much of its time during the debate over the Senate bill helping Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd kill off or modify amendments being offered by more-progressive Democrats."
He used an old trick: embracing reform publicly while modifying its toughest provisions privately. [corruption!- Costick67]
No wonder bank stocks went up when the bill passed.
James Kwak praised the Obamacrats skill at political manipulation on BaselineScenario.com, "The administration is happy with the financial reform bill roughly as it turned out, and it got there by taking up an anti-Wall Street tone (e.g., the Volcker Rule), riding a wave of populist anger to the point where the bill was sure of passing, and then quietly pruning back its most far-reaching components. If anything, that's a testament to the political skill of the White House and, yes, Tim Geithner as well.
checkitout:
http://www.alternet.org/story/147041/obama_talks_a_lot_of_game_about_taking_on_wall_st%2C_while_killing_off_reforms_in_the_shadows
**Google: 'Huffington Post' 'Baltimore' 'evictions'
Tuesday 25 May 2010
well, it ain't a pizza pie
As a young, impressionable lad, I used to be anti-nukes and anti-war. Now, I simply admit that countries will never give up their nuclear defenses. Okay then, how does the UK defend itself?Well, it could place a bunch of missile silos in certain secret locations, around the country. The deterent is ready. Great. Actually, they're not happy.
They have been talking about 'renewing the Trident defense system', for over a year now. The old ones've gotta go. Problem, the new ones (three to be exact) cost 70 billion quid. What's so special about Trident? Well, it's the delivery system.
It's a F^^**Iking SUBMARINE!
[thanks to Greenpeace for the snap]
Now, what possible use could a submersible
-that could crash*, blow up, leak all over the place-
have that a silo can't?
Delivery to your door!**
One day in the near future:
Hello. British Navy, here.
We've got a delivery for you,
Mr. Ahmedinejad.
Mr. A: I no want.
BN: It's a pizzaaaaa.
Mr.A: Sok-et. Fak-off. No want!
[Hiroshima memorial]
Why don't you just tell the British public,
you want to use nukes to threaten
countries you don't like.
No harm done, so far.
[thanks to Greenpeace for the snap]Now, what possible use could a submersible
-that could crash*, blow up, leak all over the place-
have that a silo can't?
Delivery to your door!**
One day in the near future:Hello. British Navy, here.
We've got a delivery for you,
Mr. Ahmedinejad.
Mr. A: I no want.
BN: It's a pizzaaaaa.
Mr.A: Sok-et. Fak-off. No want!
[Hiroshima memorial]Why don't you just tell the British public,
you want to use nukes to threaten
countries you don't like.
No harm done, so far.
-Costick67 (8^P
* The Brits ran into a French tub in the Atlantic. A bit crowded over there.
* The Brits ran into a French tub in the Atlantic. A bit crowded over there.
** If you have a port within 500 miles.
the evolution of the species
gals are becoming more like guys
no, it's not about hermaphrodites
no, it's not about transexuals
nor about butch lesbians either
Used to be that a guy would go off to fight the world for a paycheck. He used to lose faith in humanity and then go home, shell-shocked from the stress, and ignore his wife and kids. Read the paper in his underpants, on the back porch. Normality reigned.
[pic- daily mail]
He used to smoke and drink too much. Usually, the week after he would retire, he'd die. If he happened to live longer, he'd bitch about how his boss screwed him out of money, his colleagues stole his ideas...blah, blah, blah.
About 50 years ago, after all the emotional and physical abuse from hubby, women thought,
'Gee, I must be missing something out there. It all seems so exciting.'
Well, if you like it, I'm here to tell you, you can have it. All of it.
It was as my generation was growing up that this shift was picking up pace, in the workplace. So, I've seen a wide range of female behaviour.
You may think that I'm complaining about my maternal unit. Not true. quite the opposite, actually. She's not the reason why I've tried to formulate this theory for 30 years now.
It's about changes in public female behaviour over the years.
It seemed to me that women tended to be more understanding and willing to listen. Perhaps guys, in the places where they work, have used too much emotional blackmail on those women. As a result, women are now more often on the attack than willing to listen. This is particularly bad for women in management. I've often witnessed this female style of management, but it's not the rule; just fairly common. [One of them was even an Ayn Rand fan, and thus up her own butt, but I digress.]
Since men have the cultural confidence in management, they're now actually more understanding, because they know that most employees are not stupid enough to actively seek to get fired by being aggressive (or being a bad employee). Women, it seems, lacking this confidence, are more interested in not appearing weak, and so go on the attack, thus alienating otherwise good employees.
I find some of the same behaviour from female co-workers. I truly believe that they're covering for their natural openness in an environment which they find threatening. No amount of self-effacing feminist babble on my part seems to calm them down. I try, buuutttt, I won't apologise for being a guy, or castrate myself.
Some do the 'guy' act so well that they appear to be colder than the fellas. I've always wondered what kind of pussy-whipped guy would ever want one of those women.
It's as if they aren't women at all. They're just one of the guys.
For them, I've used the epithet
no, it's not about hermaphrodites
no, it's not about transexuals
nor about butch lesbians either
Used to be that a guy would go off to fight the world for a paycheck. He used to lose faith in humanity and then go home, shell-shocked from the stress, and ignore his wife and kids. Read the paper in his underpants, on the back porch. Normality reigned.
[pic- daily mail]He used to smoke and drink too much. Usually, the week after he would retire, he'd die. If he happened to live longer, he'd bitch about how his boss screwed him out of money, his colleagues stole his ideas...blah, blah, blah.
About 50 years ago, after all the emotional and physical abuse from hubby, women thought,
'Gee, I must be missing something out there. It all seems so exciting.'
Well, if you like it, I'm here to tell you, you can have it. All of it.
It was as my generation was growing up that this shift was picking up pace, in the workplace. So, I've seen a wide range of female behaviour.
You may think that I'm complaining about my maternal unit. Not true. quite the opposite, actually. She's not the reason why I've tried to formulate this theory for 30 years now.
It's about changes in public female behaviour over the years.
It seemed to me that women tended to be more understanding and willing to listen. Perhaps guys, in the places where they work, have used too much emotional blackmail on those women. As a result, women are now more often on the attack than willing to listen. This is particularly bad for women in management. I've often witnessed this female style of management, but it's not the rule; just fairly common. [One of them was even an Ayn Rand fan, and thus up her own butt, but I digress.]
Since men have the cultural confidence in management, they're now actually more understanding, because they know that most employees are not stupid enough to actively seek to get fired by being aggressive (or being a bad employee). Women, it seems, lacking this confidence, are more interested in not appearing weak, and so go on the attack, thus alienating otherwise good employees.
I find some of the same behaviour from female co-workers. I truly believe that they're covering for their natural openness in an environment which they find threatening. No amount of self-effacing feminist babble on my part seems to calm them down. I try, buuutttt, I won't apologise for being a guy, or castrate myself.
Some do the 'guy' act so well that they appear to be colder than the fellas. I've always wondered what kind of pussy-whipped guy would ever want one of those women.
It's as if they aren't women at all. They're just one of the guys.For them, I've used the epithet
men-with-tits.
Honorary members of the Men-With-Tits Club:
Maggie Thatcher (this is a proven fact)
Condoleeza Rice (dances like a lesbian)
Hillary Clinton (why did Bill wander?)
Honorary members of the Men-With-Tits Club:
Maggie Thatcher (this is a proven fact)
Condoleeza Rice (dances like a lesbian)
Hillary Clinton (why did Bill wander?)
Birds of a different feather:
It seems that there's another brand of modern woman who at work, or in private life, tries to walk around like feminism never happened. They may not be understanding, but they certainly are feminine. Almost too feminine, like 'Dolls'. Not feminine and normally dressed, but feminine and sexually alluring- all day long. No problem there. It just seems that this too is a reaction to modern life. It's as if the only place for femininity is in the seeking of sexual attention*. Again, no problem for me. They get that attention.
A strange mix, which I've seen before, is the man-with-tits who may be physically appealling, and actually sexually threatening. The kind of gal who will stand eye-to-eye with you and expect to be hit on, or else she'll check your packet. Exciting!
It gets annoying though when they're in a pack of lad-ettes (another modern female archetype), and they've all got fat arses from sitting at a desk all day, and drinking too much beer every night.
[the second group is from Australia, where they're affectionately known as bushpigs]
They don't like being rejected, especially when they're three-sheets-to-the-wind. Then it's boot-to-the-nuts time for any shy guy within range.
I'm afraid that when the dust clears, it'll be (weak) guys vs (tough) girls, which will be a disaster. Maybe that's why many older, shy guys are finding foreign wives. Most other countries around the world, advanced and not, don't have (wo)men-with-tits. Women act like women, and all some of them want is a good husband (I wonder what the divorce rate is). Of course, their female kids will likely become men-with-tits, so this is just a statistical blip.
It's one thing to work overseas and find a wife, or find an immigrant in your country. Buttt, mail-order wives are a disgrace in this century. There was a good British film with that as the central plot.
[this movie temporarily cancels my 'ignore Nicole Kidman' policy**]
-Costick67 (8^P
notes-
* perhaps they're worried that feminists have beaten the crap out of men and that guys need a sexual pick-me-up/ wake-up-call, lest they all go gay. Or maybe they're just desperately looking for a vanishing resource; a civilised yet virile guy (or one with a bottle of viagra), who isn't a wife-beater.
** also Tom Cruise, and Nicolas Cage Copolla
***why do we call young women 'girls'? The age of the infantilisation of adults and sexualisation of children (by advertisers).
Sunday 23 May 2010
GALS & DOLLS
Why are lots of normal men hooked on something whichpisses alotta women off? as if that question doesn't answer itself.
As I visit strip clubs, I've often thought 'wow, look at us guys, checking out fit, naked women in complete silence...and there's booze!' Heaven.
[Actually, the above is the very definition of an academic. When everybody is looking at the chick, he's looking at everybody else's reactions.]
On the one hand, we have no power over them, we'll probably never meet them, we can barely formulate a sentence, but we still enjoy... just watching.
It's a rather complex issue, and for the first time, a woman actually approaches a normal
discussion on the subject (see below).
I'll add some ideas in a while. Now, back to the stripping:
[Actually, it's burlesque, but still good.]
Actually, the author is trying to get behind the fascade that we guys build up around us, so that nosy women can't figure us out. All that introspective stuff is just bullsh*t, anyway. We don't have feelings or worries. We're tough. We insist, it's just about the sex.
Anyway, Shira is about the only woman who doesn't think we're ill, wife-abusing monsters. She actually makes a link to women's lib. Good one!
I will say that women's lib is actually making more men go to strip clubs. We have lost our place in society and we don't know how to be, so we're looking around at the legal and illegal outlets for our.... selves.
One of the key ways for a guy to settle down and accept his place in society is just to admit that it's okay to watch a woman peel her clothes off in public (that includes manly self-control).
It's a modern interpretation of the eternal pursuit of sex, or... (by association) the appreciation of the ultimate in titillation by professional titillators, so to speak. Dancing is one of the things that many women love doing (the other is shopping). Of course, if the dancer slinks about to Pink Floyd, she's a coked-out whore.
The best in the biz are, of course, Moulin Rouge. [Not Nicole Kidman-she qualifies as contraception].
That's it.
No feelings involved. We don't have any.
I TELL U!
-Costick67 (8^P
checkitout: from Alternet
Huffington Post Shira Tarrant
Rethinking Stripping: So Why Are So Many Men Paying Women to Take off Their Clothes?
We need to talk about gender, sexuality, safety, pleasure, earning power, and choice when we discuss sex work.
May 20, 2010
Alternet recently published a piece on sex and relationships titled "Should You Try Stripping?"
The "you" in question is specifically female and author Lily Blau's suggestion that parading in the buff empowers women has rightfully ruffled the feminist blogosphere.
These days, says Blau, "sex appeal has attained a status that no other quality shares. So the thought of making money from stripping, especially in these tough economic times, "is increasingly appealing." What sexy girl wouldn't want reassurance that she's hot enough for cash, Blau seems to say. But the real question is not a supply-side issue. It's about the demand.
Yes, women go to strip clubs. We drink beer and eat wings at Hooters. We hire prancing men in Speedos for our bachelorette parties and Cardio Striptease is women's domain at the gym. But the primary market demand for stripping, lap dancing, and other forms of fleshertainment come from men.
So why are so many men paying women to take off their clothes?
This question is sure to elicit a Seth Rogen-esque snicker along the lines of, "Umm ... Cuz they're naked and we saw boobies."
The allegedly more thoughtful among us will argue that men are visual creatures, hardwired to become aroused at the mere site of female flesh. Besides the fact that this doesn't explain women's arousal, or why some men aren't turned on by watching women work a pole, this pseudo-scientific reasoning is just a lame excuse for "boys will be boys." As I explain in my new book, Men and Feminism, this lets men off the hook for their decisions to purchase or rent women's bodies.
In so many circles it's hip to strip. I count my friends among them. But as author and blogger Amanda Marcotte writes, we've got a "hipster culture that plays at men and women being equals, but still makes women tap dance and submit like performing monkeys begging for cookies." Let me add: makes women tap dance naked.
Others suggest that in a capitalist society women are free to choose stripping (or teasing or sucking or fucking) for cash. A simple case of contractual agreement, they might say. Yes, we all make choices. But some choices are more freely made than others. And that still doesn't answer the question why men choose to buy women's bodies and whether it's time for them to stop.
The thing is, this isn't just about stripping. Take away the pole, and we're still left with a host of problems and a crisis in masculinity: A culture that rewards men for being hyperaggressive and punishes those who can't or won't. We have pop culture films like I Love You, Man, which shows men bumbling through authentic interpersonal relationships. There's the Judd Apatow movie model that portrays guys as perpetual kidults who might not ever really grow up. Or Dito Montiel's new flick Fighting that suggests the way hard-bodied men stand tough is by kicking ass.
Yet with tons of mixed messages and no good roadmap, it's still crucial for guys to achieve successful masculinity. Failure is not an option because the stakes are really high.
In her April 2009 New York Times article, "Dude, You've Got Problems," journalist and author, Judith Warner, describes the recent suicides of two young men after being bullied at school, taunted, and called "gay."
The fast route for guys to "prove" they're not gay is to show that they're tough, that they're not weak, that they don't back down -- whether on the playground, the bedroom, or the boardroom. Warner states, "Being called a 'fag,' you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay. It's really about showing any perceived weakness or femininity... It's what being called a 'girl' used to be, a generation or two ago." Though the paradigm is shifting slightly, gender expectations for young boys and men are more heightened than ever.
As author Lindsay Beyerstein comments, "strip clubs are just a symptom of much larger inequities. If they were all eliminated tomorrow, the net effect on women's liberation would be approximately nil. It's not like men would suddenly respect women more." And it's not like men would instantly have masculinity figured out.
The real issue, then, is not whether men keep watching naked women parade around in Lucite heels. The real point is that it's time for men to expand their repertoire, pay attention, and start watching something new. Like their kids growing up. Or our shifting attitudes about gender, work, and home life. Men can head over to YouTube and check Def Jam poet Rafael Casal spit some righteous words about women, men, and relationships. More men can get involved with projects like A Call to Men's National Speak Out, a conference about ending male violence against women.
I'm not willing to tell men -- or anyone else -- to stop watching women strip. I'm not the G-string patrol. I refuse to bed-down with the conservative right. And censorship can only lead to trouble. I'm not going to debate whether women doing sex work is good, bad, sexy, or ugly.
But I am going to insist that we keep asking hardcore questions about men's market demand for female flesh. We need more -- not fewer -- conversations about gender, sexuality, safety, pleasure, earning power, and choice. Because whatever we're watching, it's time we also time to start watching something new. Our culture needs it.
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/146918/rethinking_stripping%3A_so_why_are_so_many_men_paying_women_to_take_off_their_clothes?page=entire
---end
Costick67 (8^P
thanks for hanging around through all the verbosity. Now, for some fine American burlesque with Dita von Tease:
This is from San Remo, this year. Ma, che bella!
[you might notice that Dita's youtube videos have the least comments-per-visit ratio ever. If you can a functional sentence write, then not you're enough paying attention her to technique.]
Friday 21 May 2010
Don't worry, Merkel is just hedging her bets
This is a notification for the hedge traders. You know, those guys who've beentrying to sink the Euro and the whole union? British, American traders. You guys:
Germany's leader is not commiting suicide when she says the Euro is in trouble.
She's just spreading rumours, like you hedgers do.
The surprise part is that she's short selling the Euro.
And, only she knows when the Euro will start climbing again.
That'll be shortly after she cashes in on her short position.
Hedge against that if you can!
-Costick67 (8^PThe surprise part is that she's short selling the Euro.
And, only she knows when the Euro will start climbing again.
That'll be shortly after she cashes in on her short position.
Hedge against that if you can!
you doubt the fight and cojones of the Germans?
checkitout:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/10/hedge_funds_and_vw_what_a_pile.html
no more Mister Nice Employee
[pic- Walmart board]If, as I see it, bosses are getting/vaccuuming 50-100 times the pay of the front-line staff, then the usual routine of work ceases to make sense.
for example:
A certain Mr. Walsh, and the board of British Airways, has been beating up on its staff union. Meanwhile, the company is losing money,
but the board gets 4 million in bonuses, last year.
Any fairness in that? I didn't think so.
Are they breaking any laws? Unfortunate, but no. Nor for beating up on the union.
Are employees just a lifeless input to be minimised?
Or, are they vital for a company's survival?
When it's survival of the fittest, you have to ask these kind of questions.
I've been reading new business theory about how to promote
or even demand that employees provide new ideas for the company.
Of course, there's no mention of the employee being paid anything.
They might get a pat on the back.
As you can see, the board is too busy transfering company money to itself
for them to be bothered to think about improving things. So, what exactly is it that they do?
Since I was a kid, I've always thought that the Board of a company
was little more than a back-slapping club. Many guys
are on the board of 10 companies. How the F^&**K do they manage
to RUN one company, let alone deal the with conflicts of interest of 10?
Maybe the truth is that all they do is sit around, smoking and soaking up money.
"Hey, you want a Cuban cigar?"
"here, light it with a 50."
I don't even know why they exist, except to suck money.
Enough with the bullsh*t!
The point of this article is simple.
If an employee has a good idea for an improvement,
then that employee should bring in a union lawyer,
sit the company down and ask them, legally,
what that idea is worth to them.
If they don't accept the terms, the idea is sold to the
highest bidder, including competitors.
How you like them scruples, Chairs of the Bored?
Never again should an employee offer any idea to a boss
unless that boss can show the appropriate respect.
Worse yet, in these difficult times, Boards are
taking the money and running, leaving factories with debts
and employees with no jobs.
Some see this as workers' last best opportunity.
More than ever before, employees are
telling the banks to go F^&*k themselves,
taking over the factory, and making money.
Of course, you typically have to be Latin American
in order to pull this off. Anybody else have
big enough cojones?
Bosses: gone. Capitalists: gone
Let Naomi Klein explain:
Are they breaking any laws? Unfortunate, but no. Nor for beating up on the union.
Are employees just a lifeless input to be minimised?
Or, are they vital for a company's survival?
When it's survival of the fittest, you have to ask these kind of questions.
I've been reading new business theory about how to promote
or even demand that employees provide new ideas for the company.
Of course, there's no mention of the employee being paid anything.
They might get a pat on the back.
As you can see, the board is too busy transfering company money to itself
for them to be bothered to think about improving things. So, what exactly is it that they do?
Since I was a kid, I've always thought that the Board of a company
was little more than a back-slapping club. Many guys
are on the board of 10 companies. How the F^&**K do they manage
to RUN one company, let alone deal the with conflicts of interest of 10?
Maybe the truth is that all they do is sit around, smoking and soaking up money.
"Hey, you want a Cuban cigar?""here, light it with a 50."
I don't even know why they exist, except to suck money.
Enough with the bullsh*t!
The point of this article is simple.
If an employee has a good idea for an improvement,
then that employee should bring in a union lawyer,
sit the company down and ask them, legally,
what that idea is worth to them.
If they don't accept the terms, the idea is sold to the
highest bidder, including competitors.
How you like them scruples, Chairs of the Bored?
Never again should an employee offer any idea to a boss
unless that boss can show the appropriate respect.
Worse yet, in these difficult times, Boards are
taking the money and running, leaving factories with debts
and employees with no jobs.
Some see this as workers' last best opportunity.
More than ever before, employees are
telling the banks to go F^&*k themselves,
taking over the factory, and making money.
Of course, you typically have to be Latin American
in order to pull this off. Anybody else have
big enough cojones?
Bosses: gone. Capitalists: gone
Let Naomi Klein explain:
-Costick67 (8^P
Wednesday 19 May 2010
Gross International Banking, UK-style
[this is the big one. We do ourselves in, and the chimps take over.C. Heston says "Damn you bankers all to hell!"]
[under construction 2010-2012]
The EU is looking to control the hedgers whose tentacles reach out from the City stockbrokerages in London.
Like I said below, many times, it seems that the EU has figured out, F^&*KIN' FINALLY, that the UK and US hedgers were aiming to shoot down the whole EU, and not just the Euro. Nothing personal, just business.
New Law Drive to clean up the mess:
This clean-up process could take up to two years, and there's gonna be a lot of sanctimonious screeching, in Received Pronunciation, on the tapescript in Brussels.
Therefore, I'm really going to enjoy this. I'll follow every step of this process, goddamit, and i'm gonna light a smoke after every session!
[Gimme a lite, over here!]STAY TUNED!
-Costick67 (8^P
1
May 18, MMX
first vote in the Commission for hedging law change. Passed. Yee-haw!
pass the ashtray!
"http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/042-74270-127-05-19-907-20100507STO74256-2010-07-05-2010/default_en.htm">http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/public/story_page/042-74270-127-05-19-907-20100507STO74256-2010-07-05-2010/default_en.htm
[Addendum] Germany has made a law, in the middle of the night, to outlaw naked short-selling, which, truth be told, was the most ridiculous, illogical and dangerous of the traders' tricks. I'M LIKING THIS!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/may/19/german-short-selling-ban
-I wonder why this is causing turmoil? Maybe it's the panic of a wolf looking for a new Red Riding Hood, to put it politely. Maybe Germany is trying to force Europe's hand, because the law above could take 2 years to pass, and Britain stands in the way, if they need unanimity [the Conservatives are funded by the bankers in question].
gross national happiness
what's so gross about it?
check out the kingdom of happiness:
You've all heard that after a certain point, our riches don't make us any happier. In fact, if we spend every day chasing after bucks, we lose the essence of life. Of course, that never stopped anybody in the West from chasing the buck and one-upping the Jones next door.
The expression GNH came from the 4th King of Bhutan, who is more interested in the happiness of 'his people' than their production.
Another alternative view on life is that it's just a ride, and that it's not about doing what anybody tells you, and not about 'must do' stuff which cost you money (making others rich) and yet provide you nothing.
This is from Bill Hicks.
He says 'You think life's real, and maybe it is. But it's a ride, and it's your choice how to ride.
He's mostly against war-mongering, banking, advertising, etc.
or, you could follow the capitalist creed: JUST BUY IT, consumers:
-Costick67 (8^P
checkitout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
check out the kingdom of happiness:
You've all heard that after a certain point, our riches don't make us any happier. In fact, if we spend every day chasing after bucks, we lose the essence of life. Of course, that never stopped anybody in the West from chasing the buck and one-upping the Jones next door.
The expression GNH came from the 4th King of Bhutan, who is more interested in the happiness of 'his people' than their production.
Another alternative view on life is that it's just a ride, and that it's not about doing what anybody tells you, and not about 'must do' stuff which cost you money (making others rich) and yet provide you nothing.
This is from Bill Hicks.
He says 'You think life's real, and maybe it is. But it's a ride, and it's your choice how to ride.
He's mostly against war-mongering, banking, advertising, etc.
or, you could follow the capitalist creed: JUST BUY IT, consumers:
-Costick67 (8^P
checkitout: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
Tuesday 18 May 2010
Gulf states in political conflict
It's about oil, government and money.They're ruled by despots and oil hungry companies.
The people are full of radical religion and might take up arms against the infidel.
Oil has brought them money, but also environmental degredation.
Someday, God will save them, insh'alla
This is the Gulf....
the Gulf of Mexico
I'm talking about Louisianna, Texas, Florida, Mississippi and Alabama
And you thought I was talking about the Middle East, didn'tcha?
The despots are the money-hungry politicians, like Bush43, who are destroying environmental laws.
BP is the main oil company in the Gulf. They saved a billion by firing all their safety personnel.
The radical religion is fundamentalist Christianity, with guns. The infidels are the present government, the one that's actually trying to save these people from Bush43 and from themselves. They still might just end up paying the ultimate price. There's no telling what a fanatic with a gun will do.
There are jobs, but there's also one hell of a mess in the Gulf.
Anybody got a match?
Adios carbon-burning muchachos
From Mejico
-Costick67 (8^P
checkitout: from Greg Palast
Slick Operator: The BP I've known too well
by Greg Palast for Truthout.org
May 5, 2010
I've seen this movie before. In 1989, I was a fraud investigator hired to dig into the cause of the Exxon Valdez disaster. Despite Exxon's name on that boat, I found the party most to blame for the destruction was ... British Petroleum. That's important to know, because the way BP caused devastation in
Deepwater Horizon in flames before sinking. Photo provided by D.BecnelTankers run aground, wells blow out, pipes burst. It shouldn't happen but it does. And when it does, the name of the game is containment. Both in
What's so insane, when I look over that sickening slick moving toward the Delta, is that containing spilled oil is really quite simple and easy. And from my investigation, BP has figured out a very low cost way to prepare for this task: BP lies. BP prevaricates, BP fabricates and BP obfuscates.
That's because responding to a spill may be easy and simple, but not at all cheap. And BP is cheap. Deadly cheap.
To contain a spill, the main thing you need is a lot of rubber, long skirts of it called "boom." Quickly surround a spill or leak or burst, then pump it out into skimmers or disperse it, sink it or burn it. Simple.
But there's one thing about the rubber skirts: you've got to have lots of it at the ready, with crews on standby in helicopters and on containment barges ready to roll. They have to be in place round the clock, all the time, just like a fire department; even when all is operating A-OK. Because rapid response is the key. In
Chugach Natives of Alaska clean Exxon Valdez oil off their beach, five years after the spill. 1994©James McAlpine for Palast FundBefore the Exxon Valdez grounding, BP's Alyeska group claimed it had these full-time oil spill response crews. Alyeska had hired Alaskan Natives, trained them to drop from helicopters into the freezing water and set boom in case of emergency. Alyeska also certified in writing that a containment barge with equipment was within five hours sailing of any point in the
[oh, the f$^*£kin humanity of the thing. 11 people died]
math lesson number 1: graphs
Obama44 tried to hoodwink the American public, by using big mathematical concepts like graphs, about how things are going SOOOoo well in Afghanistan. Let's put this in the form of a school Math problem.Problem:
The president of the U.S. has said that the US army has reduced the momentum of the Taliban. (Of course, they're supposedly after Al Qaiduh, the 'terrorists'.) But, aaaanyway.
What does the graph of this statement look like?
A)
B)
C)
Answer:
A) This is falling. That's the US economy, regardless of what the official economists say.
B) Rising like crazy. That's the deficit.
C) Si!! See how, at the very top, the graph is starting to tail off? OK. The momentum is reducing. It's still a momentum, though. That's what effect the US imperial army is having on a handful of illiterate, bearded Afghan nationalists, after 10 years.
Next week, Politics for Idiots.
-Costick67 (8^P
Monday 10 May 2010
market metaphors need a new beast
BULL
BEAR
The usual market metaphors.
They work, if we're talking about
capitalism and banking supporting a manufacturing economy.
Of course, now we have capitalists running around
trying to wreck everything in sight so that they can
win their hedged bets.
Businesses, countries,
Western Stock markets going up and down like a yo-yo
Much like fat-boy here, some people are controlling the yo-yo action.
We need some new metaphorical beasts
CHICKEN (Little)
Brokers see an advantage in sowing panic
in the markets.
When idiots panic, they run around
like chickens with their heads cut off,
or screaming 'the sky is falling'
The only people who benefit are the traders
and all those who can see the chicken run coming,
and have a billion on the side.
i.e. Sorros, Buffett
OSTRICH
Governments willfully close their eyes.
They have set loose so many chimeras
that circle the planet, trying to find new victims.
The IMF
The WTO
free capital flow
globalisation
hedging and derivatives.
They set them loose thinking
'they ain't gonna get us.
they're designed to screw poor foreigners.'
Well, while their heads were in the sand,
the bastards took the upper hand.
Now, we're dancing to their tune.
CHAMELEON
Bankers have done their best to such
the cash out of the markets
without realising that they were doing harm.
Fraud usually someone.
Now, these same bankers are all
economic experts and they seem to
think that 'Europe is unsteady'
The 'Euro is shaky'
The market are in the dumps.
This situation exists because of the
same bankers actions, past and present.
All of a sudden, they're concerned about the
national debt of the Western countries.
Actually, no. They're shaking things up just
to get their commissions up.
HYENA & WILDEBEEST
guess which one we are.
Who's the hedge market trader?
see below
-Costick67 (8^PBEAR
The usual market metaphors.
They work, if we're talking about
capitalism and banking supporting a manufacturing economy.
Of course, now we have capitalists running around
trying to wreck everything in sight so that they can
win their hedged bets.
Businesses, countries,
Western Stock markets going up and down like a yo-yo
Much like fat-boy here, some people are controlling the yo-yo action.We need some new metaphorical beasts
CHICKEN (Little)Brokers see an advantage in sowing panic
in the markets.
When idiots panic, they run around
like chickens with their heads cut off,
or screaming 'the sky is falling'The only people who benefit are the traders
and all those who can see the chicken run coming,
and have a billion on the side.i.e. Sorros, Buffett
OSTRICHGovernments willfully close their eyes.
They have set loose so many chimeras
that circle the planet, trying to find new victims.
The IMF
The WTO
free capital flow
globalisation
hedging and derivatives.
They set them loose thinking
'they ain't gonna get us.
they're designed to screw poor foreigners.'
Well, while their heads were in the sand,
the bastards took the upper hand.
Now, we're dancing to their tune.
CHAMELEONBankers have done their best to such
the cash out of the markets
without realising that they were doing harm.
Fraud usually someone.
Now, these same bankers are all
economic experts and they seem to
think that 'Europe is unsteady'
The 'Euro is shaky'
The market are in the dumps.
This situation exists because of the
same bankers actions, past and present.
All of a sudden, they're concerned about the
national debt of the Western countries.
Actually, no. They're shaking things up just
to get their commissions up.
HYENA & WILDEBEESTguess which one we are.
Who's the hedge market trader?
see below
checkitout:
this is from Alternet, Mark Ames
http://www.alternet.org/story/146964/top_billionaire_hedge_funder_sees_himself_as_a_hyena_devouring_wildebeests_
Top Billionaire Hedge Funder Sees Himself As a Hyena Devouring Wildebeests
We're ruled over by people who despise us and think of us as prey and themselves as hyenas, busy devouring everything they can.
May 21, 2010 |
Ray Dalio is a billionaire hedge fund manager who makes more money in a single day than most Americans will earn in their entire lifetimes. That’s because hedge funds are the top of the Wall Street food chain — and Dalio runs the largest hedge fund of all, Bridgewater Associates. Life’s good at the top of this food chain: in 2008, a bad year for most Americans, Dalio took home $780
million. That same $780 million could have paid the salaries of about 20,000 teachers — and those 20,000 teachers could have taught about 400,000 American students (using author Les Leopold’s calculations). A lot of people might find this offensive and unjust, but not Dalio—he thinks this is all part of Nature’s Plan, and it just so happens that Nature favors the hedge fund managers:
“I believe that self-interest and society’s interests are generally symbiotic [bold--Dalio’s]…That is why how much money people have earned is a rough measure of how much they gave society what it wanted.”
So now we know why hedge fund managers are raking in record pay (last year, the top 25 hedge fund managers earned on average about $1 billion each), while hundreds of thousands of America’s teachers are getting fired all across the country: Nature hates teachers and other do-gooders. Sure, Dalio’s hedge fund is flush thanks in no small part to all the teachers retirement funds that Bridgewater managed to tap—without those teachers pooling their money together, he’d have a lot less to plunder, and society would never even know what a great person he is.
To which Dalio would answer, “Be a hyena. Attack the wildebeest.”
Did you write that down yet? Because that’s Cruel Reality According to Ray Dalio, a self-described “hyperrealist” and author of a bulky book of maxims leaked recently via the financial blog Dealbreaker. Dalio titled his collection of maxims—some 250 in all-- “Principles” and he makes every Bridgewater employee memorize it. A weighty title like Principles might have you thinking he’s the Descartes of the new millennium. Except that his philosophy comes down to something like this: I [am too rich to] think, therefore I am [a delusional asshole].” Or better yet, “If I’m so rich, then you ain’t smart.”
You can read Dalio’s Principles thanks to the folks at Dealbreaker who leaked it last week. Imagine some Ayn Rand geek a few decades later and a few billion dollars richer, and you get Dalio’s Principles, exemplified by his “Be a hyena” maxim:
When a pack of hyenas takes down a young wildebeest, is that good or evil? At face value, that might not be “good” because it seems cruel, and the poor wildebeest suffers and dies. Some people might even say that the hyenas are evil. Yet this type of apparently “cruel” behavior exists throughout the animal kingdom. Like death itself, it is integral to the enormously complex and efficient system that has worked for as long as there has been life. It is good for both the hyenas who are operating in their self- interest and the interest of the greater system, including those of the wildebeest, because killing and eating the wildebeest fosters evolution (i.e., the natural process of improvement). In fact, if you changed anything about the way that dynamic works, the overall outcome would be worse.
That’s right, America’s largest hedge fund manager sees himself as a hyena, and the rest of us as his wildebeest. As awful as it reads, coming from the mouth of one of the oligarchy’s most powerful barons, it also reveals what an idiot Dalio is. Does he even know anything about the hyena he compares himself to—specifically the spotted hyena, since that’s the only hyena that regularly feasts on wildebeest? Can he handle the truth? Because he’s not going to like it—not unless a macho hedge fund manager like Dalio is into being dominated by bitches.
THERE'S MORE IF YOU CAN STOMACH IT
Sunday 9 May 2010
don't listen to advisors, watch where they put their money
I love it when financial gurus diss each other.
Anyway, Peter Schiff called Warren Buffett's bluff.
Buffet seems to think that in these doldrums, he has to help cheer up the US.
He says, 'I'm bullish on America' 'Uh...Ya. Buy US stocks and dollars'
ACTUALLY, he's also bullish on Goldman and derivatives, now, and on government protection.
(see below)
Meanwhile, Buffett's investing in transport! Which means that he thinks oil costs are going to skyrocket.
Other's (like India) are buying gold, on a large scale, which is what wise guys do when currencies (like the dollar) and stocks are due to fall, and inflation is going to rise.
Save your money folks. and canned food
-Costick67 (8^P
watch and learn:
the seer of omaha, is gonna see more money:
from Les Leopold on alternet
Let’s Hold Benedict Arnold Billionaire Warren Buffett Accountable
Buffett taken to defending the biggest shysters in the country -- and argues that his own questionable derivatives should be shielded from government regulators.
May 9, 2010 |
The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear. Central banks and governments have so far found no effective way to control, or even monitor, the risks posed by these contracts. In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal. (Berkshire Hathaway annual report, 2002)
Those were some wise words from Warren Buffett, the Will Rogers of the financial world. He used to say such things at his stockholder meetings, where tens of thousands come to savor his homilies and celebrate their own good fortune--a kind of Woodstock for people who dig money more than sex, drugs and rock n roll. His fans love to party with the iconic multi-billionaire from Omaha with the sparkle in his eyes. The guy makes people feel proud to be Americans and capitalists, big and small.
Buffett's reputation is as a straight shooter. For years he had only contempt for fantasy finance securities that contain nothing but air and risk. He was among the first to see that if we let toxic securities like synthetic collateralized debt obligations run wild, we'd soon be engulfed in a financial crisis. (For an easy- to- read account of these "financial weapons of mass destruction" please see The Looting of America.)
But times have changed. Today, Buffett is all about the bottom line. He's taken to defending the biggest shysters in the country--and argues that his own questionable derivatives should be shielded from government regulators.
If this were just about Warren Buffett, it wouldn't be worth giving him more ink. But his betrayal comes at a time when Congress is finally realizing that most of us are truly upset with Wall Street's looting of America. While big bank profits and bonuses are reaching record highs, April's unemployment statistics show that there are over 29 million of us without work or forced into part-time jobs. The BLS U6 jobless rate is at 17.1 percent.
There's a genuine populist upsurge that might force the Senate to pass legislation that would bust up the largest banks, reintroduce Glass-Steagall, control dangerous derivatives and provide consumer financial protection. Buffett has decided instead to lend his credibility to defend Wall Street against Main Street. (Hey Warren, how about that high speed trading that tore the stock market apart yesterday. Are you for that too?)
[corruption! Ole!- Costick67]
Apparently something happened on the way to the bank--or actually, on the way to the bank bailout. Good old Mr. Buffett is no dummy. When he saw the Goldman Sachs alumni and groupies in government (like Henry Paulson at Treasury and Tim Geithner at the Fed) shoveling billions (not millions) of taxpayer dollars into Goldman, one of the richest financial institutions in history, he knew where next to put his own money. (Bob Kuttner's Presidency in Peril provides a virtual yearbook of Goldman Sachs graduates now in top government posts.)
The government, led by Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs CEO, pumped $10 billion of TARP money into Goldman Sachs at 5 percent interest. But the oracle of Omaha, put in $5 billion and got 10 percent interest plus extra goodies if the stock price rose. Now that's a smart businessman.
Mr. Buffett also knew that Goldman Sachs would probably snag lots more ($12.9 billion, in fact) in bailout funds via AIG, which had insured billions of Goldman's toxic assets--including a bristling arsenal of financial weapons of mass destruction. Goldman Sachs was going to get a free ride on two colossal bad bets. One bet was on complex derivatives that turned bad and festered on its balance sheet. It had been a big gamble for Goldman to hold those assets, but the returns (while they lasted) and the upfront fees were just too juicy to resist. Goldman's second big bet was that AIG was sound enough to insure those risky derivatives against default. Wrong again. Had AIG gone into bankruptcy, Goldman Sachs would have received pennies on the dollar for their bad bets. Hey, that's capitalism, isn't it? Well, maybe once upon a time.
Fortunately for Goldman, their old colleagues who were now in control of the government purse strings decided that AIG was way too big to fail. So we bailed them out to the tune of about $180 billion. But the Goldman Sachs alumni went one step further. They allowed AIG to pay off its debts in full to Goldman Sachs: $12.9 billion went straight to the company's bottom line and bonus pool. And pass those interest payments over to Mr. Buffett! If the journalists around Buffett weren't so awestruck by his wealth and rock star status they might've asked him: Is this capitalism too?
So here's Mr. Buffett holding a big fat slice of Goldman Sachs, and now the SEC comes busting in, accusing the bank of fraud. Goldman Sachs is charged with loading up investors with a package of financial transactions called Abacus that it knew amounted to toxic junk--thus enabling a hedge fund friend, John Paulson (no relation to Henry), to make a billion by betting against the Abacus deal. What kind of toxic junk are we talking about? The very same synthetic collateralized debt obligations that Buffett once called "financial weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway and its delirious stockholders are now the proud owners of said weapons.
So what does Mr. Buffett do? The plain speaking dude from the Great Plains takes a stand--in defense of Goldman Sachs and its CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Then he steps smack into the financial cow pie by endorsing the Abacus financial weapons of mass destruction.
"I don't have a problem with the Abacus transaction at all, and I think I understand it better than most."
You betcha. Those darn critters are really kind of cute--when they're paying off big time for Berkshire Hathaway.
Buffett didn't stop there. He's lobbying hard on Capitol Hill to protect his own special derivatives, which he developed just before the crash. The financial reform Congress is considering would require companies like Berkshire to set aside large sums to cover potential losses on their risky investments. But if Buffett gets his way, the legislation will include a provision to "largely exempt existing derivatives contracts from the proposed rules," reports the Wall Street Journal. "The change thus would aid Berkshire, which has a $63 billion derivatives portfolio, according to Barclays Capital." [neither bull nor bear, but poisonous blowupfish- Costick67]
In other words, Mr. Buffett is following in the footsteps of AIG, which made hundreds of billions of bets without posting collateral. But what the heck, Warren is as good as gold, isn't he?
Since Buffett says he understands these shady financial products "better than most," maybe he can explain to us what economic value his special derivatives added to our economy. I can hear echoes of Claude Raines in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" It sure is and Mr. Buffett is now making himself quite at home at the poker tables. It seems casino capitalism is fine with him after all, even if it's a criminal scam.
I hope Buffett's fans realize that their dividends and capital gains are partly derived from taxpayer bailouts and from those financial weapons of mass destruction Buffett used to denounce. You know, the ones that blew up the global economy and put tens of millions of Americans out of work?
Maybe it's time to hold our billionaires to account, even the nice ones.
Les Leopold is the executive director of the Labor Institute and Public Health Institute in New York, and author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance Destroyed Our Jobs, Pensions, and Prosperity—and What We Can Do About It (Chelsea Green, 2009).
-----end of story
Does that look like a man who's bullish on America, or one who's looking to bleed it dry? The bull's gonna gore the country. Gore! Get it?
Anyway, Peter Schiff called Warren Buffett's bluff.
Buffet seems to think that in these doldrums, he has to help cheer up the US.
He says, 'I'm bullish on America' 'Uh...Ya. Buy US stocks and dollars'
ACTUALLY, he's also bullish on Goldman and derivatives, now, and on government protection.
(see below)
Meanwhile, Buffett's investing in transport! Which means that he thinks oil costs are going to skyrocket.
Other's (like India) are buying gold, on a large scale, which is what wise guys do when currencies (like the dollar) and stocks are due to fall, and inflation is going to rise.
Save your money folks. and canned food
-Costick67 (8^P
watch and learn:
the seer of omaha, is gonna see more money:
from Les Leopold on alternet
Let’s Hold Benedict Arnold Billionaire Warren Buffett Accountable
Buffett taken to defending the biggest shysters in the country -- and argues that his own questionable derivatives should be shielded from government regulators.
May 9, 2010 |
The derivatives genie is now well out of the bottle, and these instruments will almost certainly multiply in variety and number until some event makes their toxicity clear. Central banks and governments have so far found no effective way to control, or even monitor, the risks posed by these contracts. In my view, derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal. (Berkshire Hathaway annual report, 2002)
Those were some wise words from Warren Buffett, the Will Rogers of the financial world. He used to say such things at his stockholder meetings, where tens of thousands come to savor his homilies and celebrate their own good fortune--a kind of Woodstock for people who dig money more than sex, drugs and rock n roll. His fans love to party with the iconic multi-billionaire from Omaha with the sparkle in his eyes. The guy makes people feel proud to be Americans and capitalists, big and small.
Buffett's reputation is as a straight shooter. For years he had only contempt for fantasy finance securities that contain nothing but air and risk. He was among the first to see that if we let toxic securities like synthetic collateralized debt obligations run wild, we'd soon be engulfed in a financial crisis. (For an easy- to- read account of these "financial weapons of mass destruction" please see The Looting of America.)
But times have changed. Today, Buffett is all about the bottom line. He's taken to defending the biggest shysters in the country--and argues that his own questionable derivatives should be shielded from government regulators.
If this were just about Warren Buffett, it wouldn't be worth giving him more ink. But his betrayal comes at a time when Congress is finally realizing that most of us are truly upset with Wall Street's looting of America. While big bank profits and bonuses are reaching record highs, April's unemployment statistics show that there are over 29 million of us without work or forced into part-time jobs. The BLS U6 jobless rate is at 17.1 percent.
There's a genuine populist upsurge that might force the Senate to pass legislation that would bust up the largest banks, reintroduce Glass-Steagall, control dangerous derivatives and provide consumer financial protection. Buffett has decided instead to lend his credibility to defend Wall Street against Main Street. (Hey Warren, how about that high speed trading that tore the stock market apart yesterday. Are you for that too?)
[corruption! Ole!- Costick67]
Apparently something happened on the way to the bank--or actually, on the way to the bank bailout. Good old Mr. Buffett is no dummy. When he saw the Goldman Sachs alumni and groupies in government (like Henry Paulson at Treasury and Tim Geithner at the Fed) shoveling billions (not millions) of taxpayer dollars into Goldman, one of the richest financial institutions in history, he knew where next to put his own money. (Bob Kuttner's Presidency in Peril provides a virtual yearbook of Goldman Sachs graduates now in top government posts.)
The government, led by Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs CEO, pumped $10 billion of TARP money into Goldman Sachs at 5 percent interest. But the oracle of Omaha, put in $5 billion and got 10 percent interest plus extra goodies if the stock price rose. Now that's a smart businessman.
Mr. Buffett also knew that Goldman Sachs would probably snag lots more ($12.9 billion, in fact) in bailout funds via AIG, which had insured billions of Goldman's toxic assets--including a bristling arsenal of financial weapons of mass destruction. Goldman Sachs was going to get a free ride on two colossal bad bets. One bet was on complex derivatives that turned bad and festered on its balance sheet. It had been a big gamble for Goldman to hold those assets, but the returns (while they lasted) and the upfront fees were just too juicy to resist. Goldman's second big bet was that AIG was sound enough to insure those risky derivatives against default. Wrong again. Had AIG gone into bankruptcy, Goldman Sachs would have received pennies on the dollar for their bad bets. Hey, that's capitalism, isn't it? Well, maybe once upon a time.
Fortunately for Goldman, their old colleagues who were now in control of the government purse strings decided that AIG was way too big to fail. So we bailed them out to the tune of about $180 billion. But the Goldman Sachs alumni went one step further. They allowed AIG to pay off its debts in full to Goldman Sachs: $12.9 billion went straight to the company's bottom line and bonus pool. And pass those interest payments over to Mr. Buffett! If the journalists around Buffett weren't so awestruck by his wealth and rock star status they might've asked him: Is this capitalism too?
So here's Mr. Buffett holding a big fat slice of Goldman Sachs, and now the SEC comes busting in, accusing the bank of fraud. Goldman Sachs is charged with loading up investors with a package of financial transactions called Abacus that it knew amounted to toxic junk--thus enabling a hedge fund friend, John Paulson (no relation to Henry), to make a billion by betting against the Abacus deal. What kind of toxic junk are we talking about? The very same synthetic collateralized debt obligations that Buffett once called "financial weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway and its delirious stockholders are now the proud owners of said weapons.
So what does Mr. Buffett do? The plain speaking dude from the Great Plains takes a stand--in defense of Goldman Sachs and its CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Then he steps smack into the financial cow pie by endorsing the Abacus financial weapons of mass destruction.
"I don't have a problem with the Abacus transaction at all, and I think I understand it better than most."
You betcha. Those darn critters are really kind of cute--when they're paying off big time for Berkshire Hathaway.
Buffett didn't stop there. He's lobbying hard on Capitol Hill to protect his own special derivatives, which he developed just before the crash. The financial reform Congress is considering would require companies like Berkshire to set aside large sums to cover potential losses on their risky investments. But if Buffett gets his way, the legislation will include a provision to "largely exempt existing derivatives contracts from the proposed rules," reports the Wall Street Journal. "The change thus would aid Berkshire, which has a $63 billion derivatives portfolio, according to Barclays Capital." [neither bull nor bear, but poisonous blowupfish- Costick67]
In other words, Mr. Buffett is following in the footsteps of AIG, which made hundreds of billions of bets without posting collateral. But what the heck, Warren is as good as gold, isn't he?
Since Buffett says he understands these shady financial products "better than most," maybe he can explain to us what economic value his special derivatives added to our economy. I can hear echoes of Claude Raines in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" It sure is and Mr. Buffett is now making himself quite at home at the poker tables. It seems casino capitalism is fine with him after all, even if it's a criminal scam.
I hope Buffett's fans realize that their dividends and capital gains are partly derived from taxpayer bailouts and from those financial weapons of mass destruction Buffett used to denounce. You know, the ones that blew up the global economy and put tens of millions of Americans out of work?
Maybe it's time to hold our billionaires to account, even the nice ones.
Les Leopold is the executive director of the Labor Institute and Public Health Institute in New York, and author of The Looting of America: How Wall Street's Game of Fantasy Finance Destroyed Our Jobs, Pensions, and Prosperity—and What We Can Do About It (Chelsea Green, 2009).
-----end of story
Does that look like a man who's bullish on America, or one who's looking to bleed it dry? The bull's gonna gore the country. Gore! Get it?
producer/traders & small businesses vs capitalists
Human life is now too derivative, so to speak.We have forgotten what it means to be human.
How did our ancestors survive?
Did they need stock markets?
F%&*k no!
People are now in societies and countries,
so we need a system to organise
Did they need stock markets?
F%&*k no!
People are now in societies and countries,
so we need a system to organise
how people should be classed and taxed.
and it should reflect basic human activity as the priority.
grow an apple, baby-sit a kid, fix a bike.
The bankers have just about ruined the basic way of life.
Of course, we've all trundled onto the consumerist bandwagon.
Time to get off that, Billy Saul!
So, how do we re-organise life?:and it should reflect basic human activity as the priority.
grow an apple, baby-sit a kid, fix a bike.
The bankers have just about ruined the basic way of life.
Of course, we've all trundled onto the consumerist bandwagon.
Time to get off that, Billy Saul!
the common goods
the production of commodities,
capital-heavy production or
the worst-of-all:
the capitalists. Let's sort this out:
the capitalists. Let's sort this out:
level 1
They knew how to sew, knit, fix, work, plan and enjoy life.
They were producer traders, including family farms.
Recycling and green small businesses.
That's the basic economic status.
If you're an employee, you offer your work and produce stuff. You trade that for pay.
This level should not be taxed or regulated too much.
They are allowed to trade freely with neighbours, thus avoiding taxes all together. This is a habit that modern societies have all but forgotten, but they're gonna come back to it when they realise that they can save tax money.
They could build houses for each other.*
level 2
Small businesses, retail or manufacturing
and farmers, who only use up to 10 (or pick a number) of employees.
They don't have much invested.
They just want to add to their income by selling what they produce.
They don't have much in the way of loans because
they don't want to become Donald of the Trumps.
They are also a vital part of the economy.
If they sell, they have to be inspected for quality,
but there should also be a government/private Wiki
for knowledge about how to be green and minimise waste.
How to share equipment and help each other.
F^%&*k the market models.
These types of businesses should not be taxed very high, but higher than level 1.
and farmers, who only use up to 10 (or pick a number) of employees.
They don't have much invested.
They just want to add to their income by selling what they produce.
They don't have much in the way of loans because
they don't want to become Donald of the Trumps.
They are also a vital part of the economy.
If they sell, they have to be inspected for quality,
but there should also be a government/private Wiki
for knowledge about how to be green and minimise waste.
How to share equipment and help each other.
F^%&*k the market models.
These types of businesses should not be taxed very high, but higher than level 1.
level 3
Professional classes, lawyer, accountants
Public employees, except upper management.
Large store and factory owners, especially when they take out huge loans.
Bank employees, multinational corporation employees.
These folks are in the money economy.
Small real estate investors, especially if they take out loans.
They use loans and huge paychecks to
buy up everything in sight, pushing up prices.
Their work is largely made up of promoting consumption.
These folks should be taxed much more highly than levels 1 & 2 combined.
They live and die by money.
The idea is to cool these social-climbers down.
'Development' is a misnomer. Their gain is everybody else's loss.
* from Alternet , an economist who won a Nobel for NOT screwing poor people
Her idea is for people to cooperate in commons.
Yes mag- Beth Orton
Public employees, except upper management.
Large store and factory owners, especially when they take out huge loans.
Bank employees, multinational corporation employees.
These folks are in the money economy.
Small real estate investors, especially if they take out loans.
They use loans and huge paychecks to
buy up everything in sight, pushing up prices.
Their work is largely made up of promoting consumption.
These folks should be taxed much more highly than levels 1 & 2 combined.
They live and die by money.
The idea is to cool these social-climbers down.
'Development' is a misnomer. Their gain is everybody else's loss.
level 4- paraiah class
stock brokers
bankers
money traders
the independently wealthy
upper management
boards of directors
internationally trading/traded limited companies.
non-domiciled people.
Speculators of real estate.
folks with off-shore bank accounts.
and other large tax dodgers.
have I missed anybody?
These guys survive by killing off other businesses
and taking away, rather than giving work to the lower classes,
and are into the derivative nature of
the money economy. They tell us we need growth
in exports solely because we have to pay off their loans
and government loans.
The same reason may be behind the invasion of Iraq.
They know government ministers and get inside info.
They solely benefit from mass, globalised consumption.
When rich countries give aid to the poor, these bastards and their
companies benefit, due to the strings attached.
When they IMF raids an economy, these guys buy up essential services and
suck them dry, jacking up the prices,
like when Bolivians were banned from gathering rain water,
so that level-4s could get rich selling them water.
they should be strictly-controlled, highly-taxed,
and placed under national quarantine,
so that they cannot screw poor people of the 3rd world.
they should also have a heavy consumption tax. That way, they can't
stash their money away. Put it back to work.
Otherwise, these folks only provide for themselves and are in fact a drain on society.
I'll just start with global pollution & banking crises, and rest my case.
-Costick67 (8^Pstock brokers
bankers
money traders
the independently wealthy
upper management
boards of directors
internationally trading/traded limited companies.
non-domiciled people.
Speculators of real estate.
folks with off-shore bank accounts.
and other large tax dodgers.
have I missed anybody?
These guys survive by killing off other businesses
and taking away, rather than giving work to the lower classes,
and are into the derivative nature of
the money economy. They tell us we need growth
in exports solely because we have to pay off their loans
and government loans.
The same reason may be behind the invasion of Iraq.
They know government ministers and get inside info.
They solely benefit from mass, globalised consumption.
When rich countries give aid to the poor, these bastards and their
companies benefit, due to the strings attached.
When they IMF raids an economy, these guys buy up essential services and
suck them dry, jacking up the prices,
like when Bolivians were banned from gathering rain water,
so that level-4s could get rich selling them water.
they should be strictly-controlled, highly-taxed,
and placed under national quarantine,
so that they cannot screw poor people of the 3rd world.
they should also have a heavy consumption tax. That way, they can't
stash their money away. Put it back to work.
Otherwise, these folks only provide for themselves and are in fact a drain on society.
I'll just start with global pollution & banking crises, and rest my case.
* from Alternet , an economist who won a Nobel for NOT screwing poor people
Her idea is for people to cooperate in commons.
Yes mag- Beth Orton
The Woman Who Just Might Save the Planet and Our Pocketbooks
What if our economy was not built on competition? Nobel Prize winner Elinor Ostrom talks about her work on cooperation in economics.
March 14, 2010 |
For one thing, she is the first woman to receive the prize. Her Ph.D. is in political science, not economics (though she minored in economics, collaborates with many economists, and considers herself a political economist). But what makes this award particularly special is that her work is about cooperation, while standard economics focuses on competition.
Fran Korten, YES! Magazine’s publisher, spent 20 years with the Ford Foundation making grants to support community management of water and forests in Southeast Asia and the United States. She and Ostrom drew on one another’s work as this field of knowledge developed. Fran interviewed her friend and colleague Lin Ostrom shortly after Ostrom received the Nobel Prize.
Fran Korten: When you first learned that you had won the Nobel Prize in Economics, were you surprised?
Elinor Ostrom: Yes. It was quite surprising. I was both happy and relieved.
Fran: Why relieved?
Elinor: Well, relieved in that I was doing a bunch of research through the years that many people thought was very radical and people didn’t like. As a person who does interdisciplinary work, I didn’t fit anywhere. I was relieved that, after all these years of struggle, someone really thought it did add up. That’s very nice.
And it’s very nice for the team that I’ve been a part of here at the Workshop. We have had a different style of organizing. It is an interdisciplinary center—we have graduate students, visiting scholars, and faculty working together. I never would have won the Nobel but for being a part of that enterprise.
Fran: It’s interesting that your research is about people learning to cooperate. And your Workshop at the university is also organized on principles of cooperation.
Elinor: I have a new book coming out in May entitled Working Together, written with Amy Poteete and Marco Janssen. It is on collective actions in the commons. What we’re talking about is how people work together. We’ve used an immense array of different methods to look at this question—case studies, including my own dissertation and Amy’s work, modeling, experiments, large-scale statistical work. We show how people use multiple methods to work together.
Fran: Many people associate “the commons” with Garrett Hardin’s famous essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons.” He says that if, for example, you have a pasture that everyone in a village has access to, then each person will put as many cows on that land as he can to maximize his own benefit, and pretty soon the pasture will be overgrazed and become worthless. What’s the difference between your perspective and Hardin’s?
for more, check Alternet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
