Yahoo - ‘Homeless Jesus’ sculpture stirring the pot in North Carolina. This is truly a sad story for all the wrong reasons. It begins with an artist who creates a sculpture of Jesus as a homeless person sleeping on a bench. The sad part is that this upset some people who think they are Christians. One person is quoted as follows, "Jesus is not a vagrant, Jesus is not a helpless person who needs our help. We need someone who is capable of meeting our needs, not someone who is also needy." Yet, in the bible it says that there will be many who call his name and he will say he never knew them. They respond that they never got the chance to be with him and he responds that when you help the poor and others in pain, you are helping him. Christianity is a wonderful thing; but, too many people forgot what it means.
Not long ago I corresponded with a lady who, along with her brother, was donating to charity a very expensive car in honor of her father. The family is well off; but, they could have kept the money. While I am not a liberty to discuss the details of my correspondence with her, I was very impressed by the attitude and strength of her and her family and their willingness to contribute to their community and others. Christianity is not about dressing a certain way or what you do not do, it is about what you do do to help and love one another and somehow in America that has gotten lost for many. If you are not helping the poor and downtrodden then if you do meet Jesus he will tell you that he never knew you. If you are imperfect and care about and help the downtrodden then he will know you. It is not sin that keeps us from God anymore, Jesus fixed that. It is our failure to have good in us that keeps us from God. None are good completely, there are none good but God; but, there can be some good in us even if it is imperfect and that comes from loving our neighbor as ourselves not from loving God. Loving God is the natural consequence of loving others.
Huffington Post - Florida Restaurant Charging Customers For Obamacare Costs That Don't Exist Yet. The short of the story is that some imbecile in Florida is showing a tax on the bills at his restaurant for costs for Obamacare. We will ignore that the restaurant will not be required to provide healthcare for it's employees until 2015 and we will ignore the fact that charging it as a tax is both fraud and illegal for the company. What it is, is childish. They could have chosen to show the cost of the Iraq war on their bills, that has cost us trillions. Maybe they could show that as the "Killing People for No Reason if Foreign Countries" tax. What about the trillions of dollars we spent to bailout banks under Bush, maybe they cold call that the "Paying Off Banksters for Stealing Our Retirements" tax. The point is simple, we need to town down the hysteria and lies and deal with the reality.
Huffington Post - Utah Governor Rejects Full Medicaid Expansion, Will Seek Federal Grant To Cover Poor. The governor of Utah has said that they will not expand Medicaid in his state unless the federal government pays for it and that he will seek to get a grant from them to cover it. If you are not rich, you don't matter.
Now the heads up. I have a lot going on right now and for the next week, so I might not post much. My health is oddly fantastic and everything is good, I just have some things going on that might require my attention. I don't know how I feel about this next part. I will be retiring this year from my job. This is weighing heavily on my mind. My business sense is stronger than ever; but, I no longer have the fire in my belly for it. The game has lost any surprises and I am bored. When I do retire, I will also decide what to do with this blog. I am considering starting a new blog when I retire, one that actually uses my name, my real name. I am considering telling much more than I do now, things I know; but, cannot prove with documentation, things I have been told in person. If I do, I will not be able to tell the readers of this site because that would be unfair to the fact that I have allowed anonymous comments on this site and have not identified people in my life. THIS blog will always be as it has been, anonymous for all parties who wish to be so. That means that if I do start a new personalized blog, I cannot reference this one or allow this one to link to the new one. I don't know what I am going to do yet, that is the beauty of my current life, I don't have to decide what the next step is.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Tuesday, February 25, 2014
Happines or Rightousness
Righteousness leads to Joy. Joy does not necessarily lead to righteousness. If this is true then should we seek joy more than being better. Jesus said love your neighbor as you love yourself. He did not say love your neighbor; "but, don't let it get in the way of taking care of yourself first."
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Where Did the Quantitative Easing (QE) Money Go?
Over a year ago, the Federal Reserve began QE3 which involved the purchase of Treasury Bonds and Mortgage backed securities. The securities were bought from the mega banks, this is public knowledge and I have written about it before; but, I forgot to ask the next question. Banks had hundreds of billions of dollars in mortgages and mortgage backed securities that were considered "toxic" because the loans that backed up these things will not and cannot be paid by the people who took them out. What I am talking about is sub-prime and other mortgages that were taken out by people who lost their jobs, had anticipated an increase in their house valuations or had loans which started low and increased as their interest rates reset or adjusted up after the first few years.
Having said all that, someone recently brought up a brilliant question. What did the banks do with the hundreds of billions of dollars they received from the Federal Reserve after they sold their mortgages to them? What one person is claiming is that the banks used those funds to buy treasury bonds. When the housing market crashed, a friend and I had a communication with the head of real estate for the Rockefeller organization. The issue involved the purchase of a large number of houses valued at over a billion dollars and the Rockefeller organization wanted to purchase the collection of properties and their stated price was 35 cents on the dollar. The deal did not go through. That dollar amount is what stuck in my head, I concluded that they had a reason for the number had chosen. Now, here is the question, what discount did the federal reserve get when they purchased the same mortgages?
Why is this important? Well, lets start with this, private investors were only willing to pay 35 cents on the dollar. The fact that it was the Rockefeller organization is not surprising as the family had made untold amounts of their income during the depression after buying all the houses and then renting them out to the people they bought them from. It would make sense for the wealthy to buy properties during a down economy; but, they did not because the Federal Reserve did. We must assume that the Federal Reserve paid more than banks would have been willing to pay for the same properties. Why would they pay more than market rates?
Let me simplify. If you owned mortgage backed securities, you would only sell them to the highest bidder, yet, the highest bidder was consistently the Federal Reserve. Are they just suckers and didn't care what they paid for them? What if the Federal Reserve didn't buy them at a discount and bought them at their face value? What would that mean and why do it? Nobody pays a new car price to buy a used car unless that is a collectors car and toxic mortgages are not a collectors item. Why would the Federal Reserve overpay for mortgage backed securities?
This is where the question I had forgotten to ask comes in. Who did they pay and where was the money spent? An example would be JP Morgan. JP Morgan sold billions of dollars of mortgage backed securities to the Federal Reserve; but, where did the money go once it got to JP Morgan? If the person I heard was correct, the big banks used that money to buy treasury bonds. Sure some went to bonuses for bankers and some went out in dividends; but, the amount is miniscule compared to the total. If the person I heard is correct, the banks used that money to buy treasury bonds. This is also interesting as banks are now required to keep more hard assets and cash on hand, I bet that treasury bonds count too.
If we look a little deeper we begin to ask ourselves another question. What happens to the banks if the government defaults on those treasury bonds? A while back I wrote about how a European country (Italy or France as I recall) was selling government bonds with a negative interest rate. At the time it made no sense to most of us; but, the bonds were sold. If we want an example of a government default, all we have to do is look to Detroit. Bondholders got a haircut and pensioners got a 90% reduction in their payments. This is why state governments are looking to cut pensions, this is the game.
If states and local governments bought mortgage backed securities (as Detroit did)that were sold at inflated prices, why should the organizations that sold them to the governments be paid off when the bankruptcies in municipalities continue? If JP Morgan sold your state a billion dollars in mortgage backed securities and they lost 70% their value, while at the same time JP Morgan owned a billion dollars of your state's bonds, be paid for the state bonds at full value? Read that as many times as necessary to understand what I just asked.
JP Morgan sold mortgage backed securities to states, local municipalities and public pensions that it then bet against. They then took that money and bought state and local bonds. They expect the states and municipalities to pay them on the bonds at 100% and not have to pay the states and municipalities for the hundreds of billions of dollars they lost by buying the mortgage backed securities from them. The banks would like to see the difference paid for by raiding public pensions to pay them.
I will move onto other things now.
Yahoo - Reuters - Thirteen billboards, one paint-shop worker helped defeat union at VW plant in Chattanooga. My regular readers should be able to read the article and dissect the lies by themselves; but, I will give a quick shot at it. The title alone tells you the authors perspective, the UAW was defeated by a few billboards and ONE paint shop worker. It doesn't matter that the governor of the state told people that they would lose their jobs if they voted for collective bargaining and contracts with employees, it didn't matter that Volkswagen itself said that they were okay with unionization. Nope, it was someone in the paint shop that is responsible for people voting against having a united say in their salary negotiations. It does not matter if you are for or against unions, the question is whether or not the article and the statements are just garbage and propaganda. You can agree with the outcome; but, understand when you are being lied to.
Having said all that, someone recently brought up a brilliant question. What did the banks do with the hundreds of billions of dollars they received from the Federal Reserve after they sold their mortgages to them? What one person is claiming is that the banks used those funds to buy treasury bonds. When the housing market crashed, a friend and I had a communication with the head of real estate for the Rockefeller organization. The issue involved the purchase of a large number of houses valued at over a billion dollars and the Rockefeller organization wanted to purchase the collection of properties and their stated price was 35 cents on the dollar. The deal did not go through. That dollar amount is what stuck in my head, I concluded that they had a reason for the number had chosen. Now, here is the question, what discount did the federal reserve get when they purchased the same mortgages?
Why is this important? Well, lets start with this, private investors were only willing to pay 35 cents on the dollar. The fact that it was the Rockefeller organization is not surprising as the family had made untold amounts of their income during the depression after buying all the houses and then renting them out to the people they bought them from. It would make sense for the wealthy to buy properties during a down economy; but, they did not because the Federal Reserve did. We must assume that the Federal Reserve paid more than banks would have been willing to pay for the same properties. Why would they pay more than market rates?
Let me simplify. If you owned mortgage backed securities, you would only sell them to the highest bidder, yet, the highest bidder was consistently the Federal Reserve. Are they just suckers and didn't care what they paid for them? What if the Federal Reserve didn't buy them at a discount and bought them at their face value? What would that mean and why do it? Nobody pays a new car price to buy a used car unless that is a collectors car and toxic mortgages are not a collectors item. Why would the Federal Reserve overpay for mortgage backed securities?
This is where the question I had forgotten to ask comes in. Who did they pay and where was the money spent? An example would be JP Morgan. JP Morgan sold billions of dollars of mortgage backed securities to the Federal Reserve; but, where did the money go once it got to JP Morgan? If the person I heard was correct, the big banks used that money to buy treasury bonds. Sure some went to bonuses for bankers and some went out in dividends; but, the amount is miniscule compared to the total. If the person I heard is correct, the banks used that money to buy treasury bonds. This is also interesting as banks are now required to keep more hard assets and cash on hand, I bet that treasury bonds count too.
If we look a little deeper we begin to ask ourselves another question. What happens to the banks if the government defaults on those treasury bonds? A while back I wrote about how a European country (Italy or France as I recall) was selling government bonds with a negative interest rate. At the time it made no sense to most of us; but, the bonds were sold. If we want an example of a government default, all we have to do is look to Detroit. Bondholders got a haircut and pensioners got a 90% reduction in their payments. This is why state governments are looking to cut pensions, this is the game.
If states and local governments bought mortgage backed securities (as Detroit did)that were sold at inflated prices, why should the organizations that sold them to the governments be paid off when the bankruptcies in municipalities continue? If JP Morgan sold your state a billion dollars in mortgage backed securities and they lost 70% their value, while at the same time JP Morgan owned a billion dollars of your state's bonds, be paid for the state bonds at full value? Read that as many times as necessary to understand what I just asked.
JP Morgan sold mortgage backed securities to states, local municipalities and public pensions that it then bet against. They then took that money and bought state and local bonds. They expect the states and municipalities to pay them on the bonds at 100% and not have to pay the states and municipalities for the hundreds of billions of dollars they lost by buying the mortgage backed securities from them. The banks would like to see the difference paid for by raiding public pensions to pay them.
I will move onto other things now.
Yahoo - Reuters - Thirteen billboards, one paint-shop worker helped defeat union at VW plant in Chattanooga. My regular readers should be able to read the article and dissect the lies by themselves; but, I will give a quick shot at it. The title alone tells you the authors perspective, the UAW was defeated by a few billboards and ONE paint shop worker. It doesn't matter that the governor of the state told people that they would lose their jobs if they voted for collective bargaining and contracts with employees, it didn't matter that Volkswagen itself said that they were okay with unionization. Nope, it was someone in the paint shop that is responsible for people voting against having a united say in their salary negotiations. It does not matter if you are for or against unions, the question is whether or not the article and the statements are just garbage and propaganda. You can agree with the outcome; but, understand when you are being lied to.
Business News or Propoganda?
I was watching the is video about a new pizza chain on Fox Business News and I couldn't believe how biased it was. The pizza chain was created by a multimillionaire with experience with franchises, he was the founder of Wetzel's Pretzels and decided he wanted to create a new chain. He started by creating two stores and then expanded to 11 with plans to expand to 45 by the end of the year. He had a good idea, tested, worked it out and began franchising it. That in itself is a good story; but, what is really interesting is how the "reporter" approaches him and the story.
Lets start with this, about 23 seconds in the reporter says that "you can't tell us the economy is so bad". She then says, "so your not blaming the weather and your not blaming the economy, your doing as well as you would like to". After going over the large number of big time people who are looking to franchise the pizza company, the reporter then asks how increasing the minimum wage might affect him.
Fox - The recipe for pizza success.
I really want you to watch the short news story. At some point in time I will probably try the pizza and the owner of the company seems pleasant enough. He certainly has managed to get lots of investors because of his past track record. In fact after watching another article about his company on Good Morning America the number of stores going up is already around 200. That is a pretty good start for any franchise. What was intriguing was how she seemed to want to use the story, not to help his stores; but, to achieve a political view which he smartly chose not to get tricked into.
Having said all that, lets get back to the reporters perspective. She began by saying that you can't tell her the economy is bad because some people are making lots of money. I question who this reporter spends her time with, I am guessing it is with people that have lots of money. That is the saddest part, she may really not understand what life is like for people who make minimum wage. There was someone rich guy recently who complained that the poor in America are better off than 99% of the world's population and needed to stop whining. The person who said that clearly had no idea how bad things are for many.
In Australia, the richest woman in the world (she inherited the money from her father) said that Australians should be willing to work for $2 a day, currently they have a minimum wage of $16 an hour and by and large the country was not damaged by the international economic downturn. This same woman called for sterilizing everyone that makes under $100,000 a year. I guess some of the wealthiest actively want to see the western world become like some 3rd world nation except even more restrictive.
Lets start with this, about 23 seconds in the reporter says that "you can't tell us the economy is so bad". She then says, "so your not blaming the weather and your not blaming the economy, your doing as well as you would like to". After going over the large number of big time people who are looking to franchise the pizza company, the reporter then asks how increasing the minimum wage might affect him.
Fox - The recipe for pizza success.
I really want you to watch the short news story. At some point in time I will probably try the pizza and the owner of the company seems pleasant enough. He certainly has managed to get lots of investors because of his past track record. In fact after watching another article about his company on Good Morning America the number of stores going up is already around 200. That is a pretty good start for any franchise. What was intriguing was how she seemed to want to use the story, not to help his stores; but, to achieve a political view which he smartly chose not to get tricked into.
Having said all that, lets get back to the reporters perspective. She began by saying that you can't tell her the economy is bad because some people are making lots of money. I question who this reporter spends her time with, I am guessing it is with people that have lots of money. That is the saddest part, she may really not understand what life is like for people who make minimum wage. There was someone rich guy recently who complained that the poor in America are better off than 99% of the world's population and needed to stop whining. The person who said that clearly had no idea how bad things are for many.
In Australia, the richest woman in the world (she inherited the money from her father) said that Australians should be willing to work for $2 a day, currently they have a minimum wage of $16 an hour and by and large the country was not damaged by the international economic downturn. This same woman called for sterilizing everyone that makes under $100,000 a year. I guess some of the wealthiest actively want to see the western world become like some 3rd world nation except even more restrictive.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
All kinds of news and thoughts
Clearly I am feeling better than I have in the last couple of weeks, in fact I am almost feeling normal. I have been saving up articles for when I could explain myself better; but, have found that I saved too many so I will do an information dump.
Rolling Stone - The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet
. The author, Matt Taibbi, has just left Rolling Stone and he will be missed. He is one of the few true investigative journalists out there and I wish him well. In this article Mr. Taibbi shows how in the 1990s the big banks were allowed to purchase the industrial system and the self-regulationary groups it had created. Here is where I believe he missed the boat, while attacking the banks being allowed to buy the industrial cycle, he forgot that we had already outlawed companies from doing the exact same thing when we passed laws against monopolies.
Let me explain. During the early 1900s as the industrial revolution really took hold, companies such as the Rockefeller's Standard Oil was able to buy 95% of all the oil production in the United States and then used this power to force everyone to do what they wanted, they were able to coerce all the other companies to pay more than they should have and destroy companies that did not go along with them. This was true in steel production, the railroads and later in the utilities industry. The effect of the monopolies was to destroy competition which is the heart of capitalism. Eventually it got so bad that monopolies were outlawed. Now we have monopolies; but, they are created by the banks being allowed to do what industry was not allowed to do.
Rolling Stone - Matt Taibbi - Ex-Morgan Stanley Chief Jams Foot in Mouth, Complains of CEO Abuse. An example of another person complaining that by talking about corruption in the financial industry, we are picking on the poor CEOs that benefited from completely corrupting the financial system.
Business Insider - The 'Internet Of Things' Will Be Bigger Than The Smartphone, Tablet, And PC Markets Combined. Let me summarize this quickly, business is thrilled at the opportunity to observe everything you do so that they can market things to you and increase the costs to you based upon your individual usage, this is basically the use of the internet to destroy the capitalistic view of purchasing things in bulk as a community. The war that is being waged is against the individual. Here is how it will work. If you buy toilet paper every week, you will get a discount for buying a particular brand more than others. Sounds good, right? If you buy toiler paper once a month, you will get less of a discount. It is about targeted pricing and not targeted discounts. Why do you think all the large markets now give you Rewards discounts and offer you individualized coupons? It is also a violation of the Constitutional concept of treating all people the same. The consequence is even worse for the average American and destroys the idea of working as a group. What if, those who spend a $100,000 a year on groceries were given a 10% discount on everything they bought and everyone who spent less got no discount, who would be subsidizing whom? By the way, that is exactly the reason why Rewards cards were created.
Yahoo - AP - Minimum wage report puts Democrats on defensive. A report by the Congressional Budget Office claims that if we increase the minimum wage, roughly 25%, we will lose about half a million jobs. I guess those jobs will be outsourced to communist China because anything that makes a profit and has to be located here will continue to be located here. If you thought the report was accurate, lets make a deal. I want congress to promise me that if we don't increase the minimum wage, we will not outsource anymore jobs to communist China or allow more immigration. If we lose another 500,000 jobs then we should automatically double the minimum wage. That would be fair. The report is insincere in that it does not have the guts to follow it's own logic. If we eliminated any minimum wage and allowed people to work as slave labor, how many more jobs would we be able to create? What if we just went back to slavery, would we have more manufacturing jobs? Sure we would.
New York Times - The Bank Rescue, Five Years Later
. This is an amusing article, the author liked the bank bailouts and defends the stimulus program, both of which primarily benefited private industry; but, dislikes the Affordable Care Act. The author would prefer giving away your tax dollars to bail out the banks that destroyed the economy and the stimulus program that primarily benefited large construction companies by paying them to do "shovel ready" jobs that didn't need to be done in the first place more than requiring people who use medical services and pay nothing to have to have insurance.
New York Times - Outrage Over Wall St. Pay, but Shrugs for Silicon Valley?
. Yes, we should be mad about people taking money away from investors and our pensions for their making risky investments and going bankrupt at the expense of others and not be mad at people who created real products that we can use to save us time and money. We should not be mad at silicon valley computer and software designers for giving us useful products and being paid for it; but, we should be mad at Wall Street and the financial sector for stealing our money and giving us nothing in return. Here is a crazy capitalistic concept, what if we paid people based on how much they contributed to society and not on how much they steal from the rest of us and the damage they do?
intellihub - 8th international banker to die in a month jumps off building in China. One of the suicides involved a banker who shot himself in the head 8 or 9 times with a nail gun and it wasn't deemed suspicious. Another involved a man who had just e-mailed his girlfriend that he was headed home and then jumped off the 33rd floor of a JP Morgan building in London.
Yahoo - AP - NYSE stocks posting largest volume decreases. A 95% decrease in the amount of shares of stock being traded on the NYSE while prices increases means that the big investors are not trading, yet; but, it also means that the market prices are being manipulated. I think the end is near and we should question whom the bell tolls for.
Yahoo - Obama: Ukraine, Syria are not pieces on ‘some Cold-War chessboard’. Of course they are pieces in a game and the game is simple. Either the Ukraine will fall in line with Russia or come into the European Union. The people want to join the European Union and the elected officials want to put them back under the control of Russia. It really is that simple.
I don't like communism where you are not rewarded for your individual efforts and own nothing. I don't like fascism where corporations control everything and you are prevented from owning anything because someone else already owns it all. I don't like any system that denies you a chance to succeed because the game is already rigged, that just means a system where you are born into it a slave. I like the society we used to all believe in, the one where if you kept your nose clean, worked hard and helped the nation as a whole, you were rewarded individually, that is the true American dream. Oh, and if you were a good citizen you could retire with dignity and security because you had earned it.
Rolling Stone - The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet
. The author, Matt Taibbi, has just left Rolling Stone and he will be missed. He is one of the few true investigative journalists out there and I wish him well. In this article Mr. Taibbi shows how in the 1990s the big banks were allowed to purchase the industrial system and the self-regulationary groups it had created. Here is where I believe he missed the boat, while attacking the banks being allowed to buy the industrial cycle, he forgot that we had already outlawed companies from doing the exact same thing when we passed laws against monopolies.
Let me explain. During the early 1900s as the industrial revolution really took hold, companies such as the Rockefeller's Standard Oil was able to buy 95% of all the oil production in the United States and then used this power to force everyone to do what they wanted, they were able to coerce all the other companies to pay more than they should have and destroy companies that did not go along with them. This was true in steel production, the railroads and later in the utilities industry. The effect of the monopolies was to destroy competition which is the heart of capitalism. Eventually it got so bad that monopolies were outlawed. Now we have monopolies; but, they are created by the banks being allowed to do what industry was not allowed to do.
Rolling Stone - Matt Taibbi - Ex-Morgan Stanley Chief Jams Foot in Mouth, Complains of CEO Abuse. An example of another person complaining that by talking about corruption in the financial industry, we are picking on the poor CEOs that benefited from completely corrupting the financial system.
Business Insider - The 'Internet Of Things' Will Be Bigger Than The Smartphone, Tablet, And PC Markets Combined. Let me summarize this quickly, business is thrilled at the opportunity to observe everything you do so that they can market things to you and increase the costs to you based upon your individual usage, this is basically the use of the internet to destroy the capitalistic view of purchasing things in bulk as a community. The war that is being waged is against the individual. Here is how it will work. If you buy toilet paper every week, you will get a discount for buying a particular brand more than others. Sounds good, right? If you buy toiler paper once a month, you will get less of a discount. It is about targeted pricing and not targeted discounts. Why do you think all the large markets now give you Rewards discounts and offer you individualized coupons? It is also a violation of the Constitutional concept of treating all people the same. The consequence is even worse for the average American and destroys the idea of working as a group. What if, those who spend a $100,000 a year on groceries were given a 10% discount on everything they bought and everyone who spent less got no discount, who would be subsidizing whom? By the way, that is exactly the reason why Rewards cards were created.
Yahoo - AP - Minimum wage report puts Democrats on defensive. A report by the Congressional Budget Office claims that if we increase the minimum wage, roughly 25%, we will lose about half a million jobs. I guess those jobs will be outsourced to communist China because anything that makes a profit and has to be located here will continue to be located here. If you thought the report was accurate, lets make a deal. I want congress to promise me that if we don't increase the minimum wage, we will not outsource anymore jobs to communist China or allow more immigration. If we lose another 500,000 jobs then we should automatically double the minimum wage. That would be fair. The report is insincere in that it does not have the guts to follow it's own logic. If we eliminated any minimum wage and allowed people to work as slave labor, how many more jobs would we be able to create? What if we just went back to slavery, would we have more manufacturing jobs? Sure we would.
New York Times - The Bank Rescue, Five Years Later
. This is an amusing article, the author liked the bank bailouts and defends the stimulus program, both of which primarily benefited private industry; but, dislikes the Affordable Care Act. The author would prefer giving away your tax dollars to bail out the banks that destroyed the economy and the stimulus program that primarily benefited large construction companies by paying them to do "shovel ready" jobs that didn't need to be done in the first place more than requiring people who use medical services and pay nothing to have to have insurance.
New York Times - Outrage Over Wall St. Pay, but Shrugs for Silicon Valley?
. Yes, we should be mad about people taking money away from investors and our pensions for their making risky investments and going bankrupt at the expense of others and not be mad at people who created real products that we can use to save us time and money. We should not be mad at silicon valley computer and software designers for giving us useful products and being paid for it; but, we should be mad at Wall Street and the financial sector for stealing our money and giving us nothing in return. Here is a crazy capitalistic concept, what if we paid people based on how much they contributed to society and not on how much they steal from the rest of us and the damage they do?
intellihub - 8th international banker to die in a month jumps off building in China. One of the suicides involved a banker who shot himself in the head 8 or 9 times with a nail gun and it wasn't deemed suspicious. Another involved a man who had just e-mailed his girlfriend that he was headed home and then jumped off the 33rd floor of a JP Morgan building in London.
Yahoo - AP - NYSE stocks posting largest volume decreases. A 95% decrease in the amount of shares of stock being traded on the NYSE while prices increases means that the big investors are not trading, yet; but, it also means that the market prices are being manipulated. I think the end is near and we should question whom the bell tolls for.
Yahoo - Obama: Ukraine, Syria are not pieces on ‘some Cold-War chessboard’. Of course they are pieces in a game and the game is simple. Either the Ukraine will fall in line with Russia or come into the European Union. The people want to join the European Union and the elected officials want to put them back under the control of Russia. It really is that simple.
I don't like communism where you are not rewarded for your individual efforts and own nothing. I don't like fascism where corporations control everything and you are prevented from owning anything because someone else already owns it all. I don't like any system that denies you a chance to succeed because the game is already rigged, that just means a system where you are born into it a slave. I like the society we used to all believe in, the one where if you kept your nose clean, worked hard and helped the nation as a whole, you were rewarded individually, that is the true American dream. Oh, and if you were a good citizen you could retire with dignity and security because you had earned it.
Todays "Libertarians" are the true Fascists.
In both the United States and Britain there is a growing "popular" movement towards "libertarians" who are often also called independents. While these people run on popular singular issues or limited issues, their real belief system is quite undemocratic and would actually allow more of what has gone on in our financial and political systems.
The Daily Beast - The End of Republicans and Democrats (And Your Libertarian Future)
While the best example of this in England is UKIP (United Kingdom Independent Party), the American example would be Ron Paul. To disenfranchised Republicans this may sound like heresy; but, let me explain. Lets start with him in his own words.
YouTube - 3.2.12 Ron Paul on the Occupy Movement.
Mr. Paul is against American involvement in wars outside of the United States. He is also against bailing out banks and the Federal Reserve. Many of the left and right can agree on those things as do I mostly. Some of the other things he is against is government regulation and government "entitlements". Rather than limited government regulation as is called for by traditional Republicans, he is against just about all federal regulations. Well, the truth is that those regulations did not come overnight. The history of federal regulations started because people in one state did not care about what they sold to people in another state and this included allowing dead rats in our food supply. Read up on the history of the FDA and you can get an idea of just how bad things were in the beginning of the industrial age.
As a political philosophy, "libertarians" in America don't believe in being taxed or regulated and are more like Social Darwinists. In fact, there is almost no difference between libertarians and anarchists except that one is seen as left and the other seen as right. Neither believes in government. They hold the most simplistic of political philosophy, our ability to regulate and work together as a community with common interests, they do believe in the common good. No successful society has or will ever be built on these beliefs.
The extremist views found within the left and the right are both flawed in logic and history; however, our "middle" (traditional conservative and liberal) philosophies appear to have failed as we have allowed our government to be bought out by special interests. The famous Satanist Alister Crowley in his most famous book said that for the Satanist the whole of the law was to do as one wanted and both libertarians and anarchists pretty much agree. Both groups would legalize all drugs and despise the poor.
Our political understanding in America about the consequences has devolved to nothing and an overwhelmed nation seeks simple answers to correct what is clearly not working. Mr. Paul has stated that the problem with government is that it can make laws and because of that they get bought out to make bad laws. Following his statements and logic the solution is to have NO laws. So why do I call it Fascism, because it is actually worse than Fascism. A Fascist is merely a socialist that believes in government control to the benefit of the state and it's partners and sees the benefits for the state and business as more important than the benefits derived for the individual and society. The elimination of all commercial enterprise is Communism, the elimination of all government has no single name because no society has been suicidal enough to try it.
Here is the difference between Mr. Paul and traditional conservatives. A traditional conservative believes in capitalism; but, believes that there should be truth in lending if you will. A traditional conservative would be against people selling food as "organic" or cars as "new" that were not, they would be against lying in an agreement. In order to make sure that there were standards and rules to make sure that people had a true negotiated deal, they voted along with liberal to create organizations to make sure that weights and measures were standardized, regulated and followed. Mr. Paul would just eliminate governments from making sure these rules were met. While traditional conservatives want to go back to the 1950s, libertarians want to go back to the 1800s.
In the 1800s and early 1900s most people never went more than 20 miles from where they lived, lived in farming communities, knew everyone of their neighbors and knew who they traded with personally. If you cheated your neighbor and others knew about it you would be ignored and nobody would trade with you. I hate to wake them up; but, that doesn't happen much anymore and the multinational company that sells you food does not care about nor worry about your personal trade with them because they can just shift where they sell without any consequences. These companies are not just too big to fail, they are too big to care.
I don't think most people would agree with Mr. Paul if they understood his past voting record and the totality of his beliefs. I disagree with Mr. Paul because I believe in America as more than just a territorial area. I believe that we should have a government of people who choose to live in the country (and have the option of leaving if they so desire) and that the country should be by the people and for the people, the people being the key phrase.
I would love the opportunity to interview Mr. Paul and believe he would be honest enough and happy to answer my questions, I don't doubt the man's integrity or sincerity. Having said that, he has confused capitalism with democracy. While he may like Ayn Rand, I prefer Aristotle. Aristotle determined that the only right and best way to regulate society was by having the majority choose the rules, he took it for sake that all societies other than the most primitive always ended up with some having more control than others. He thought that power should be in the hands of the majority rather than a oligarch (small number of controllers) or a monarchy (single rulers by area).
While getting my Bachelor's degree in Political Science with multiple national and university awards and recognitions, I had a very special professor, he taught Political Philosophy. One day he was discussing Plato and Aristotle and I asked if he would define Plato as conservative and Aristotle as liberal, he said the terms did not apply and I have thought about his words for decades and long ago concluded he was correct. Today liberal means allowing people to do what they want and conservative means letting business do what it wants.
A community is a group of people that decides together and lives under the same rules and consequences. I believe in community because I believe the best government is the one that involves as many people who will have to live under the same rules making the rules.
The Daily Beast - The End of Republicans and Democrats (And Your Libertarian Future)
While the best example of this in England is UKIP (United Kingdom Independent Party), the American example would be Ron Paul. To disenfranchised Republicans this may sound like heresy; but, let me explain. Lets start with him in his own words.
YouTube - 3.2.12 Ron Paul on the Occupy Movement.
Mr. Paul is against American involvement in wars outside of the United States. He is also against bailing out banks and the Federal Reserve. Many of the left and right can agree on those things as do I mostly. Some of the other things he is against is government regulation and government "entitlements". Rather than limited government regulation as is called for by traditional Republicans, he is against just about all federal regulations. Well, the truth is that those regulations did not come overnight. The history of federal regulations started because people in one state did not care about what they sold to people in another state and this included allowing dead rats in our food supply. Read up on the history of the FDA and you can get an idea of just how bad things were in the beginning of the industrial age.
As a political philosophy, "libertarians" in America don't believe in being taxed or regulated and are more like Social Darwinists. In fact, there is almost no difference between libertarians and anarchists except that one is seen as left and the other seen as right. Neither believes in government. They hold the most simplistic of political philosophy, our ability to regulate and work together as a community with common interests, they do believe in the common good. No successful society has or will ever be built on these beliefs.
The extremist views found within the left and the right are both flawed in logic and history; however, our "middle" (traditional conservative and liberal) philosophies appear to have failed as we have allowed our government to be bought out by special interests. The famous Satanist Alister Crowley in his most famous book said that for the Satanist the whole of the law was to do as one wanted and both libertarians and anarchists pretty much agree. Both groups would legalize all drugs and despise the poor.
Our political understanding in America about the consequences has devolved to nothing and an overwhelmed nation seeks simple answers to correct what is clearly not working. Mr. Paul has stated that the problem with government is that it can make laws and because of that they get bought out to make bad laws. Following his statements and logic the solution is to have NO laws. So why do I call it Fascism, because it is actually worse than Fascism. A Fascist is merely a socialist that believes in government control to the benefit of the state and it's partners and sees the benefits for the state and business as more important than the benefits derived for the individual and society. The elimination of all commercial enterprise is Communism, the elimination of all government has no single name because no society has been suicidal enough to try it.
Here is the difference between Mr. Paul and traditional conservatives. A traditional conservative believes in capitalism; but, believes that there should be truth in lending if you will. A traditional conservative would be against people selling food as "organic" or cars as "new" that were not, they would be against lying in an agreement. In order to make sure that there were standards and rules to make sure that people had a true negotiated deal, they voted along with liberal to create organizations to make sure that weights and measures were standardized, regulated and followed. Mr. Paul would just eliminate governments from making sure these rules were met. While traditional conservatives want to go back to the 1950s, libertarians want to go back to the 1800s.
In the 1800s and early 1900s most people never went more than 20 miles from where they lived, lived in farming communities, knew everyone of their neighbors and knew who they traded with personally. If you cheated your neighbor and others knew about it you would be ignored and nobody would trade with you. I hate to wake them up; but, that doesn't happen much anymore and the multinational company that sells you food does not care about nor worry about your personal trade with them because they can just shift where they sell without any consequences. These companies are not just too big to fail, they are too big to care.
I don't think most people would agree with Mr. Paul if they understood his past voting record and the totality of his beliefs. I disagree with Mr. Paul because I believe in America as more than just a territorial area. I believe that we should have a government of people who choose to live in the country (and have the option of leaving if they so desire) and that the country should be by the people and for the people, the people being the key phrase.
I would love the opportunity to interview Mr. Paul and believe he would be honest enough and happy to answer my questions, I don't doubt the man's integrity or sincerity. Having said that, he has confused capitalism with democracy. While he may like Ayn Rand, I prefer Aristotle. Aristotle determined that the only right and best way to regulate society was by having the majority choose the rules, he took it for sake that all societies other than the most primitive always ended up with some having more control than others. He thought that power should be in the hands of the majority rather than a oligarch (small number of controllers) or a monarchy (single rulers by area).
While getting my Bachelor's degree in Political Science with multiple national and university awards and recognitions, I had a very special professor, he taught Political Philosophy. One day he was discussing Plato and Aristotle and I asked if he would define Plato as conservative and Aristotle as liberal, he said the terms did not apply and I have thought about his words for decades and long ago concluded he was correct. Today liberal means allowing people to do what they want and conservative means letting business do what it wants.
A community is a group of people that decides together and lives under the same rules and consequences. I believe in community because I believe the best government is the one that involves as many people who will have to live under the same rules making the rules.
Tuesday, February 18, 2014
Better Health and Arrogant People
The first part of this post is about me personally, the last part is about arrogant people, specifically some people on Wall Street. If you want, just skip down to the words Wall Street Arrogance in bold.
I had an interesting day. I saw my personal physician today. I had an adverse to some pills he had put me on a few weeks back and we changed the medication about 2 weeks ago. This was a follow up to how that worked out for me and a chance to review a whole bunch of blood tests I had taken at the time.
Back to the story. Anyways, we reviewed my test results and he actually thanked me. I had basically passed all the tests but one and the most important ones I did well on. He told me how amazing it was. I have to say I really like my doctor and have tried as much as I can to work with him on improving my numbers. I actually take the pills he has me on. I told him thank you and that I appreciated his concerns for my well being. I began seeing doctors again about a year or less. He then said something really funny, he said that when he met me he didn't think I had a year before I died.
When I began seeing him my blood pressure was categorized as a hypertensive emergency which basically means that I should have been in the middle of a heart attack. My original tests also showed that I had already suffered one heart attack which I had failed to see a doctor about. I was a very bad prospect as a patient. He showed me my history of test results and explained that the cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels should have begun causing severe organ breakdown that would have led to organ failure (I forget which organs). He told me that when I left his office the first time he almost cried because he thought I was going to die. Most people just plan a party for after I am gone.
While I have a choice of healthcare providers, I chose to go with a very large HMO called Kaiser Permanente. Some people love it and others don't; but, I have had it for 25 years because it was cheaper for my family of 5. I don't promote products on this site and don't provide links to products or other sites unless I am quoting them and don't intend to now. I just want to point out that I couldn't be happier with my doctor and truly believe I am getting the best care possible.
That is the bright side of today. I have been feeling really tired lately, I attributed this to the pills; but, it turns out that I failed one test regarding thyroid function. I don't really understand it; but, he said that there is no particular reason for it, some people's thyroids just work less well as they age. I was a little concerned; but, he said that if it turned out that was what was happening there was some simple medication to deal with it. I told him if that was what it was, I would take the pills because I cannot stand being tired all the time anymore. He then sent me off to get some more blood drawn and we shall see what the results are. I asked him about the lung x-ray that he sent me for in the last couple of weeks and he made a funny face and admitted that my lungs were clean "as always". I smoke and he sent me because of that. He wants me to stop smoking and I think it frustrates him that my lungs are so clean and I passed all my breathing tests with a clean bill of health.
I don't think he actually wants me to have lung problems, he just wants to catch it early and get me to stop smoking. I have often told him that I just need him to keep me around enough to see my granddaughter and retire (both will happen this year). He says his goal is to me have a long and healthy retirement and I actually believe him. I worked hard to get my medical benefits and if I had died 6 years ago my organization would have lost tens upon tens of millions because of the work I have done.
I have a relative who is a plumber and employees others. His company has under 50 employees and cannot afford to provide health insurance. He is incredibly traditionally conservative and said that he was happy that his employees had signed up for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) because they would be healthier and be able to show up for work more often. Imagine if we lived in a country where only the old got healthcare and the young workers did not. That is what we were headed to.
Wall Street Arrogance
New York Magazine - One-Percent Jokes and Plutocrats in Drag: What I Saw When I Crashed a Wall Street Secret Society. Firstly, the article's title is misleading, I don't care if they dress up in drag or even the fact that Wall Street has a secret society for the wealthy. What you need to walk away from the article understanding is how little they care about people who are not wealthy.
The article states that there was a skit making fun of the 99%, they were ridiculing Occupy Wall Street. The Occupy movement really upset and worried the bankers. In fact, the banks paid the NYPD for their overtime. The tea party was seen as merely an annoyance by people who could easily be co-opted. By having the media turn tea party supporters against the Occupy movement, the Republican party was able to use conservatives traditional biases against the left to prevent them from gaining enough support to take back the Republican party.
The real problem Wall Street has with both the tea party and the Occupy movement is the same. They are afraid that we will bring back true nationalism, a concern over this country. Anytime people in either movement are against sovereignty, it is because they are being led by outside sources or extremists. There is nothing wrong with believing in America and our sovereign right to decide how this country will be managed. Whether you are liberal or conservative, if you believe in America, you are the true enemy of the globalist agenda and their agenda is simple. Making maximum profits for a few who owe allegiance to no nation or group other than the oligarchy they seek to create.
I had an interesting day. I saw my personal physician today. I had an adverse to some pills he had put me on a few weeks back and we changed the medication about 2 weeks ago. This was a follow up to how that worked out for me and a chance to review a whole bunch of blood tests I had taken at the time.
Back to the story. Anyways, we reviewed my test results and he actually thanked me. I had basically passed all the tests but one and the most important ones I did well on. He told me how amazing it was. I have to say I really like my doctor and have tried as much as I can to work with him on improving my numbers. I actually take the pills he has me on. I told him thank you and that I appreciated his concerns for my well being. I began seeing doctors again about a year or less. He then said something really funny, he said that when he met me he didn't think I had a year before I died.
When I began seeing him my blood pressure was categorized as a hypertensive emergency which basically means that I should have been in the middle of a heart attack. My original tests also showed that I had already suffered one heart attack which I had failed to see a doctor about. I was a very bad prospect as a patient. He showed me my history of test results and explained that the cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels should have begun causing severe organ breakdown that would have led to organ failure (I forget which organs). He told me that when I left his office the first time he almost cried because he thought I was going to die. Most people just plan a party for after I am gone.
While I have a choice of healthcare providers, I chose to go with a very large HMO called Kaiser Permanente. Some people love it and others don't; but, I have had it for 25 years because it was cheaper for my family of 5. I don't promote products on this site and don't provide links to products or other sites unless I am quoting them and don't intend to now. I just want to point out that I couldn't be happier with my doctor and truly believe I am getting the best care possible.
That is the bright side of today. I have been feeling really tired lately, I attributed this to the pills; but, it turns out that I failed one test regarding thyroid function. I don't really understand it; but, he said that there is no particular reason for it, some people's thyroids just work less well as they age. I was a little concerned; but, he said that if it turned out that was what was happening there was some simple medication to deal with it. I told him if that was what it was, I would take the pills because I cannot stand being tired all the time anymore. He then sent me off to get some more blood drawn and we shall see what the results are. I asked him about the lung x-ray that he sent me for in the last couple of weeks and he made a funny face and admitted that my lungs were clean "as always". I smoke and he sent me because of that. He wants me to stop smoking and I think it frustrates him that my lungs are so clean and I passed all my breathing tests with a clean bill of health.
I don't think he actually wants me to have lung problems, he just wants to catch it early and get me to stop smoking. I have often told him that I just need him to keep me around enough to see my granddaughter and retire (both will happen this year). He says his goal is to me have a long and healthy retirement and I actually believe him. I worked hard to get my medical benefits and if I had died 6 years ago my organization would have lost tens upon tens of millions because of the work I have done.
I have a relative who is a plumber and employees others. His company has under 50 employees and cannot afford to provide health insurance. He is incredibly traditionally conservative and said that he was happy that his employees had signed up for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) because they would be healthier and be able to show up for work more often. Imagine if we lived in a country where only the old got healthcare and the young workers did not. That is what we were headed to.
Wall Street Arrogance
New York Magazine - One-Percent Jokes and Plutocrats in Drag: What I Saw When I Crashed a Wall Street Secret Society. Firstly, the article's title is misleading, I don't care if they dress up in drag or even the fact that Wall Street has a secret society for the wealthy. What you need to walk away from the article understanding is how little they care about people who are not wealthy.
The article states that there was a skit making fun of the 99%, they were ridiculing Occupy Wall Street. The Occupy movement really upset and worried the bankers. In fact, the banks paid the NYPD for their overtime. The tea party was seen as merely an annoyance by people who could easily be co-opted. By having the media turn tea party supporters against the Occupy movement, the Republican party was able to use conservatives traditional biases against the left to prevent them from gaining enough support to take back the Republican party.
The real problem Wall Street has with both the tea party and the Occupy movement is the same. They are afraid that we will bring back true nationalism, a concern over this country. Anytime people in either movement are against sovereignty, it is because they are being led by outside sources or extremists. There is nothing wrong with believing in America and our sovereign right to decide how this country will be managed. Whether you are liberal or conservative, if you believe in America, you are the true enemy of the globalist agenda and their agenda is simple. Making maximum profits for a few who owe allegiance to no nation or group other than the oligarchy they seek to create.
Monday, February 17, 2014
When Foreclosures Will Increase
We all know that there have been foreclosures across the United States; but, millions are still living in homes which they have not paid a mortgage for in a couple of years. Why haven't the banks foreclosed? The answer is because they have been busy selling their mortgages to the government and the Federal Reserve. That is what Quantitative Easing 3 has been about.
The big banks began giving loans to anyone and everyone knowing that they could not pay going back to 2001 or so. In 2007 it became apparent that people could not pay back their loans and that housing prices were unsustainable. The result was housing prices depreciating as much as 50%. Banks that were holding those loans went bankrupt and the government ended up having to take tax payer funds to bail them out. That is the starting point.
In order to take these loans off of the balance sheets of the banks, the Federal Reserve began buying the mortgage back securities from the banks. Now that they have purchased most of the mortgages, there is no longer a need to keep the market value up of these houses. When the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is adjusted down it will be taxes that pay them back.
In short, banks made bad loans, profited greatly from it and then sold those bad loans to the government and Federal Reserve. Once the Federal Reserve stops buying these mortgages it will be because all of this debt will now be on the government. At that point, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accelerate foreclosures and allow the balance sheet be be marked to market, to actually reflect the odds of getting paid back and the difference will be made up in taxes.
So, what does this mean for the housing market? Well, it means that home values will plummet again. This was hedged somewhat by the fact that most housing purchases in the past couple of years were paid for in cash by foreigners and hedge funds. QE3 was designed specifically to remove overpriced housing mortgages from the banks and with that now complete the tapering has begun. Once the tapering is complete the foreclosures can be completed and the real estate market values will adjust based on those who purchase those homes.
The big banks began giving loans to anyone and everyone knowing that they could not pay going back to 2001 or so. In 2007 it became apparent that people could not pay back their loans and that housing prices were unsustainable. The result was housing prices depreciating as much as 50%. Banks that were holding those loans went bankrupt and the government ended up having to take tax payer funds to bail them out. That is the starting point.
In order to take these loans off of the balance sheets of the banks, the Federal Reserve began buying the mortgage back securities from the banks. Now that they have purchased most of the mortgages, there is no longer a need to keep the market value up of these houses. When the balance sheet of the Federal Reserve is adjusted down it will be taxes that pay them back.
In short, banks made bad loans, profited greatly from it and then sold those bad loans to the government and Federal Reserve. Once the Federal Reserve stops buying these mortgages it will be because all of this debt will now be on the government. At that point, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accelerate foreclosures and allow the balance sheet be be marked to market, to actually reflect the odds of getting paid back and the difference will be made up in taxes.
So, what does this mean for the housing market? Well, it means that home values will plummet again. This was hedged somewhat by the fact that most housing purchases in the past couple of years were paid for in cash by foreigners and hedge funds. QE3 was designed specifically to remove overpriced housing mortgages from the banks and with that now complete the tapering has begun. Once the tapering is complete the foreclosures can be completed and the real estate market values will adjust based on those who purchase those homes.
One More Rant on American Anti-Americanism
Rasmussen Reports - Economic Fairness. They took a poll and concluded that 83% of us think it is important for everyone to have a chance to succeed. In a separate poll, the same site states, "53% Rate Economic Growth As More Important Than Economic Fairness". They did not ask about taking from the rich to give to the poor, you can read the poll, they asked how important economic fairness was compared to growth. Think about the word fairness, not gifts, not charity, fairness.
Yahoo - AP - After UAW defeat, can GOP fulfill promise of jobs?. So, there is a VW plant in Tennessee and it was going to vote on unionizing. Their senator said that if they voted against unionization they might not get more production and a second line of vehicles being made there. VW itself said that the vote would have no effect on their decision and in fact, it is the only VW plant that doesn't include formal employee representation in their own words.
VW didn't sell out American workers, our own representatives did and they did not do it to benefit VW. VW would have been satisfied to give American workers the same treatment it gives German workers. So who benefited? Not VW, not workers. Nope, the real intent was to prove to other companies that they could come to Tennessee and get to give American workers fewer benefits then they give to workers in their own countries. How is that pro-American? Their governor said that a pro-union vote would keep other companies from coming to their state.
American businesses and politicians are telling foreign countries that they will pimp out our citizens and offer even fewer benefits to Americans than foreign companies offer their own citizens and are willing to offer United States citizens.
True American liberals and conservatives believe we should do what is best for this country. They may differ on how and who should benefit and to what degree within this country; however, they believe we should do things that benefit this country. The wealthy and the politicians are growing against that philosophy. They are promoting benefiting a few in this country and don't worry about how it effects the country as a whole. Until we understand that, we will continue to fall into sides and work against our own best interests.
Let me give you a couple of links to show you how little our politicians think of our American way of life.
Huffington Post - Romney Seeks an America More Like China.
Yahoo - Daily Caller - Bachmann says US should be more like China.
Examiner.com - Elizabeth Warren: U.S. should be more like Communist China.
See the pattern yet? I didn't think Romney, Bachmann and Warren agreed on anything; but, apparently they all agree that America should be more like communist China. Left, right and middle they are all pitching the same garbage, that America should stop being as it is and emulate a totalitarian government that doesn't care about it's own people. My father was in the Korean war, his outfit was overrun by the Chinese who rushed their people at machine guns because they had more people than bullets.
In China if a politician were to sell industrial secrets to the United States, he would be killed. In the United States if one of our companies sells it's trade secrets and patents to China, it gets a tax deduction. Let me simplify, the people who have control over this nation believe we should be more like Communist China and less like "Socialist" Europe. Given the choice, I would prefer to see the country become more like Europe than China.
My political philosophy is pretty simple, lets work together and take care of America. How about, "America First"? What if our central mission as a nation was to make America strong, not individuals or other nations; but, working together to do what is best for this country. I come from a military family and I don't know one of them that risked their lives so that we could be more like communist China or the old Soviet Union.
What is the essence of communist China, again, not complicated. They believe in unregulated industry and a regulated population. Look around you, the individual is being more and more regulated and the industries have all become unregulated which has led to economic catastrophes and a loss of jobs. You don't have to be a genius to see this. It is the intentional destruction of America and our way of life for the benefit of a few who don't even care about this society as a whole.
America is not failing because of welfare, gay marriage, drug use, online gambling, single mothers, or all the other garbage that you are being told. It is failing because we are being sold out by those who have benefited the most from our nation. It is being sold out and it doesn't need to be. We gave away our industrial base, we could still produce steel and washing machines if we wanted to. Our workers are more than capable of turning screws and owning homes.
Half of the graduate college students in America are foreigners. I want you to think about that. Maybe it explains why our own companies want to change immigration laws to allow them to hire any foreigner they want who is educated. In the past, we created and supported colleges because we thought they would educate Americans.
Lets be real Americans. If you college is increasing the number of foreign students that it allows in, stop supporting them, stop sending them money and push for your state to stop supporting them with your tax dollars to educate foreign students. I am not against foreigners, far from it and am quite satisfied with allowing Mexicans who have been here for decades to become citizens. I am against subsidizing foreign nationals who do not intend to become Americans in their education in America.
Why is this not discussed more in the mainstream media. The answer is simple, they are controlled by those who don't give a rats rearend about this nation and a political class that feels the exact same way. Our failure that allows them to appeal to our emotional responses is what they rely on to push our hot buttons and misdirect the real discussion of what is best for this nation.
Yahoo - AP - After UAW defeat, can GOP fulfill promise of jobs?. So, there is a VW plant in Tennessee and it was going to vote on unionizing. Their senator said that if they voted against unionization they might not get more production and a second line of vehicles being made there. VW itself said that the vote would have no effect on their decision and in fact, it is the only VW plant that doesn't include formal employee representation in their own words.
VW didn't sell out American workers, our own representatives did and they did not do it to benefit VW. VW would have been satisfied to give American workers the same treatment it gives German workers. So who benefited? Not VW, not workers. Nope, the real intent was to prove to other companies that they could come to Tennessee and get to give American workers fewer benefits then they give to workers in their own countries. How is that pro-American? Their governor said that a pro-union vote would keep other companies from coming to their state.
American businesses and politicians are telling foreign countries that they will pimp out our citizens and offer even fewer benefits to Americans than foreign companies offer their own citizens and are willing to offer United States citizens.
True American liberals and conservatives believe we should do what is best for this country. They may differ on how and who should benefit and to what degree within this country; however, they believe we should do things that benefit this country. The wealthy and the politicians are growing against that philosophy. They are promoting benefiting a few in this country and don't worry about how it effects the country as a whole. Until we understand that, we will continue to fall into sides and work against our own best interests.
Let me give you a couple of links to show you how little our politicians think of our American way of life.
Huffington Post - Romney Seeks an America More Like China.
Yahoo - Daily Caller - Bachmann says US should be more like China.
Examiner.com - Elizabeth Warren: U.S. should be more like Communist China.
See the pattern yet? I didn't think Romney, Bachmann and Warren agreed on anything; but, apparently they all agree that America should be more like communist China. Left, right and middle they are all pitching the same garbage, that America should stop being as it is and emulate a totalitarian government that doesn't care about it's own people. My father was in the Korean war, his outfit was overrun by the Chinese who rushed their people at machine guns because they had more people than bullets.
In China if a politician were to sell industrial secrets to the United States, he would be killed. In the United States if one of our companies sells it's trade secrets and patents to China, it gets a tax deduction. Let me simplify, the people who have control over this nation believe we should be more like Communist China and less like "Socialist" Europe. Given the choice, I would prefer to see the country become more like Europe than China.
My political philosophy is pretty simple, lets work together and take care of America. How about, "America First"? What if our central mission as a nation was to make America strong, not individuals or other nations; but, working together to do what is best for this country. I come from a military family and I don't know one of them that risked their lives so that we could be more like communist China or the old Soviet Union.
What is the essence of communist China, again, not complicated. They believe in unregulated industry and a regulated population. Look around you, the individual is being more and more regulated and the industries have all become unregulated which has led to economic catastrophes and a loss of jobs. You don't have to be a genius to see this. It is the intentional destruction of America and our way of life for the benefit of a few who don't even care about this society as a whole.
America is not failing because of welfare, gay marriage, drug use, online gambling, single mothers, or all the other garbage that you are being told. It is failing because we are being sold out by those who have benefited the most from our nation. It is being sold out and it doesn't need to be. We gave away our industrial base, we could still produce steel and washing machines if we wanted to. Our workers are more than capable of turning screws and owning homes.
Half of the graduate college students in America are foreigners. I want you to think about that. Maybe it explains why our own companies want to change immigration laws to allow them to hire any foreigner they want who is educated. In the past, we created and supported colleges because we thought they would educate Americans.
Lets be real Americans. If you college is increasing the number of foreign students that it allows in, stop supporting them, stop sending them money and push for your state to stop supporting them with your tax dollars to educate foreign students. I am not against foreigners, far from it and am quite satisfied with allowing Mexicans who have been here for decades to become citizens. I am against subsidizing foreign nationals who do not intend to become Americans in their education in America.
Why is this not discussed more in the mainstream media. The answer is simple, they are controlled by those who don't give a rats rearend about this nation and a political class that feels the exact same way. Our failure that allows them to appeal to our emotional responses is what they rely on to push our hot buttons and misdirect the real discussion of what is best for this nation.
A Growing Trend in Anti-Americanism Amongst Wealthy Americans
The attack in America is not on the 1%, it is on the rest of us and it is cynical and unrelenting. In it's most foul form, it seeks to pit Americans against one another while exporting the wealth of this nation to others. Lincoln famously said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." A nation is a community of people working together for the best of themselves and the community as a whole.
Over the past couple of years, since the economic crash, there has been a steady stream of wealthy people saying really undemocratic and anti-American things. In part, this thinking is what caused the crash. The economic crash was caused by people who saw an opportunity to make billions of dollars at the expense of the nation and the vast majority of us. When J.P. Morgan and others began selling mortgage backed derivatives that they knew had no intrinsic value and then betting on them to fail, we are seeing the real depth of the perversity of some.
Lets review some recent articles and see if we can find any trends.
The Weekly Standard - Chamber CEO: U.S. Needs More Low-Skill Immigration Since Americans Are Not 'Qualified" or 'Willing' to Do Such Work.
The Fresno Bee - A steady flow of talented, industrious immigrants can fuel a booming economy
. His real intent can be found in his words, "Many studies have concluded that the greatest percentage of job growth in the United States through 2020 is expected in low- and moderate-skilled jobs that cannot be automated or outsourced." What is funny is that this is coming from the CEO of the "United States Chamber of Commerce" and he makes it clear that he is not interested in creating jobs for Americans.
Business Insider - Millionaire VC: Rich People Like Me Should Get More Votes. The person who made this claim is retired venture capitalist Tom Perkins. Following his philosophy, women who worked at home would have been denied the vote in the 1950s. While his statement is simply ignorant, there is something much deeper going on that he is expressing. It is not just a disdain for those who are not wealthy, it is a disdain for the concept of an American society.
Reuters - Rich shouldn’t have to pay taxes, Santorum backer says.
Politico - Why the rich are freaking out. One of the best lines from the article is this, "“Life is hard enough, and I think this constant lecturing on ethics and on integrity by many stakeholders is probably the most frustrating part of the equation. Because I don’t think there are many people who are perfect,” Sergio Ermotti, chief executive of UBS AG, told The Wall Street Journal. “We are far from being perfect … but it’s not going to be very helpful to be constantly bashing banks.” Here is a bank executive complaining that they are being asked to be ethical and have integrity, think about that for a moment.
Yahoo - Reuters - Foreign banks bracing for tough U.S. Fed capital rules. Basically the article complains, ever so slightly, that the Federal Reserve is making foreign banks inside the United States follow the same rules for capitalization as American banks. My answer is much simpler, don't allow foreign banks in the United States as they have little to no stake in the outcome here.
Americans used to invest in America and we used to think that was a good thing. Our industrial base was very patriotic and our banks were American local banks that invested in their community with our money and they saw it as the communities money because it relied on small depositors to put money into the banks that was then loaned to local businesses and residents. During the financial crisis the Federal Reserve gave hundreds of billions of dollars in loans to foreign nations and foreign banks which was all backed up by our taxes.
I particularly enjoy reading extremists revisionist history. Lets start with a couple of minor facts. Firstly, this nation was not created as capitalistic. In fact, it was a fricking colony of England and they received much of our wealth through taxes and fees. We did all the hard work and shipped the profits off to Britain. Secondly, this nation was heavily invested in slavery. That is a great one, so democratic. Actually, something that was really cynical in the original Constitution was that southern states were given representation in congress based on the number of slaves they had (although I think each slave was counted as 3/4ths of a human or so) even though those slaves could not vote. I should also point out that the original Articles of Confederation allowed states to place tariffs on goods from other states, they didn't even have free trade.
One of the articles above has an idiot claim that people like Steve Jobs did so much for America. Wait, not one Apple product is manufactured in America, he outsourced about a million jobs. "Steve" jobs are primarily Chinese communist jobs. Do you remember when conservatives used to fight communism? Now they fund it by outsourcing our jobs there. Will we be outsourcing our jobs to North Korea next? Why not outsource our jobs to the Taliban? I find it amazingly hypocritical of some on the right claiming that President Obama is a communist and how bad socialism is while sending our jobs over to communist China.
Over the past couple of decades American companies have outsourced 27 million jobs to communist China. This is ironic in that it just about matches the number of unemployed in America. Our representatives in congress that should be the most supportive of America voted in the laws that promoted sending jobs to communist China and allowing these companies to not pay taxes here. Real patriots.
There is a lot of talk right now about immigration "reform" (probably the most abused word in English anymore). The "right" is saying it is about illegal Mexican aliens; but, the real game is to bring in Chinese immigrants. If you go back to the article I linked to above, you see that the person is arguing that we need to bring in more educated people and reform immigration rules to allow that. Many in the tech industry are calling for this because they can get highly educated people on the cheap by trading them immigration status. Why aren't the "conservatives" discussing this?
Both the left and right and mainstream media are selling you a divide and conquer and slogan filled line of propaganda as they work together to strip this nation of the fruits of our parents labor. The real issue is not income inequality in the United States, it is about selling out the American citizen. A traitor is someone who works against the interests of their own nation, their own community, that is what the word means.
When an American company sends jobs to communist China, how would you describe them? I am disgusted by those who claim to be patriotic and conservative that also support sending 27 million American manufacturing jobs to communist China. I don't care about gay marriage, legalizing marijuana or online poker half as much as I care about the true destruction of America and see those other issues as distractions. Your life has been ruined and the lives of your children by the destruction of our industrial base by "conservatives". They are not conservative, they are business people who only care about a profit and not about this nation. Don't get me wrong, the true entrepreneurs still exist, they are small businessman.
The best part of the Republican party at present is the Tea Party and even though I tend towards the Occupy philosophy, I agree with the Tea party sentiment more than the Mitt Romney anything for a buck philosophy. Real conservatives believe in this nation. Now, here is what the 1% are really afraid of, once the Tea Party figures out that they are being manipulated by the Republicans and that the Occupy movement and them have agreement on nationalism as opposed to globalism, they will work together and change the rules to favor this nation. That is the real fear and explains why they are for bringing in immigrants from China and the outsourcing of jobs.
Here is a great little excerpt from a movie called Network, it was made in 1976 and is truer more today then it even was then. YouTube - "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". What some people are worried about is that we will say, "I'm a human being... My life has value".
In the linked article above from Politico there is a wonderful sentence. "Ken Langone, a wealthy investor and co-founder of Home Depot, recently told CNBC that the Catholic Church in New York might see a decline in donations if Pope Francis did not tone down his comments about the dangers of economic inequality." Wow. I have a lot of disagreements with the Catholic church; but, they believe themselves to represent God's beliefs and I support their attempt. By the way, Mr. Langone claims to be a Catholic, yet, he seems to believe that the church should base it's policy on what is economically popular. I grew up Catholic and am pretty sure that they are supposed to follow the words of the Pope and not chastise him.
People should be able to see the obvious. Imagine that during the cold war an American company decided to build a automotive manufacturing company in the Soviet Union and gave Russia their patents? Think about how crazy that sounds. Liberals and conservatives would have flipped out and certainly not give tax benefits to them for doing so. Yet, that is what we have done in China and nobody seems to get it or complain.
Here is the key. The United States could become some sort of European socialist country or go into some sort of neo-capitalist utopia and it won't make much of a difference if we send all of our jobs overseas. A dead capitalist and a dead socialist look the same. We need to fix this country and make our laws work for this country, if we do that we can argue later over how to distribute wealth.
Over the past couple of years, since the economic crash, there has been a steady stream of wealthy people saying really undemocratic and anti-American things. In part, this thinking is what caused the crash. The economic crash was caused by people who saw an opportunity to make billions of dollars at the expense of the nation and the vast majority of us. When J.P. Morgan and others began selling mortgage backed derivatives that they knew had no intrinsic value and then betting on them to fail, we are seeing the real depth of the perversity of some.
Lets review some recent articles and see if we can find any trends.
The Weekly Standard - Chamber CEO: U.S. Needs More Low-Skill Immigration Since Americans Are Not 'Qualified" or 'Willing' to Do Such Work.
The Fresno Bee - A steady flow of talented, industrious immigrants can fuel a booming economy
. His real intent can be found in his words, "Many studies have concluded that the greatest percentage of job growth in the United States through 2020 is expected in low- and moderate-skilled jobs that cannot be automated or outsourced." What is funny is that this is coming from the CEO of the "United States Chamber of Commerce" and he makes it clear that he is not interested in creating jobs for Americans.
Business Insider - Millionaire VC: Rich People Like Me Should Get More Votes. The person who made this claim is retired venture capitalist Tom Perkins. Following his philosophy, women who worked at home would have been denied the vote in the 1950s. While his statement is simply ignorant, there is something much deeper going on that he is expressing. It is not just a disdain for those who are not wealthy, it is a disdain for the concept of an American society.
Reuters - Rich shouldn’t have to pay taxes, Santorum backer says.
Politico - Why the rich are freaking out. One of the best lines from the article is this, "“Life is hard enough, and I think this constant lecturing on ethics and on integrity by many stakeholders is probably the most frustrating part of the equation. Because I don’t think there are many people who are perfect,” Sergio Ermotti, chief executive of UBS AG, told The Wall Street Journal. “We are far from being perfect … but it’s not going to be very helpful to be constantly bashing banks.” Here is a bank executive complaining that they are being asked to be ethical and have integrity, think about that for a moment.
Yahoo - Reuters - Foreign banks bracing for tough U.S. Fed capital rules. Basically the article complains, ever so slightly, that the Federal Reserve is making foreign banks inside the United States follow the same rules for capitalization as American banks. My answer is much simpler, don't allow foreign banks in the United States as they have little to no stake in the outcome here.
Americans used to invest in America and we used to think that was a good thing. Our industrial base was very patriotic and our banks were American local banks that invested in their community with our money and they saw it as the communities money because it relied on small depositors to put money into the banks that was then loaned to local businesses and residents. During the financial crisis the Federal Reserve gave hundreds of billions of dollars in loans to foreign nations and foreign banks which was all backed up by our taxes.
I particularly enjoy reading extremists revisionist history. Lets start with a couple of minor facts. Firstly, this nation was not created as capitalistic. In fact, it was a fricking colony of England and they received much of our wealth through taxes and fees. We did all the hard work and shipped the profits off to Britain. Secondly, this nation was heavily invested in slavery. That is a great one, so democratic. Actually, something that was really cynical in the original Constitution was that southern states were given representation in congress based on the number of slaves they had (although I think each slave was counted as 3/4ths of a human or so) even though those slaves could not vote. I should also point out that the original Articles of Confederation allowed states to place tariffs on goods from other states, they didn't even have free trade.
One of the articles above has an idiot claim that people like Steve Jobs did so much for America. Wait, not one Apple product is manufactured in America, he outsourced about a million jobs. "Steve" jobs are primarily Chinese communist jobs. Do you remember when conservatives used to fight communism? Now they fund it by outsourcing our jobs there. Will we be outsourcing our jobs to North Korea next? Why not outsource our jobs to the Taliban? I find it amazingly hypocritical of some on the right claiming that President Obama is a communist and how bad socialism is while sending our jobs over to communist China.
Over the past couple of decades American companies have outsourced 27 million jobs to communist China. This is ironic in that it just about matches the number of unemployed in America. Our representatives in congress that should be the most supportive of America voted in the laws that promoted sending jobs to communist China and allowing these companies to not pay taxes here. Real patriots.
There is a lot of talk right now about immigration "reform" (probably the most abused word in English anymore). The "right" is saying it is about illegal Mexican aliens; but, the real game is to bring in Chinese immigrants. If you go back to the article I linked to above, you see that the person is arguing that we need to bring in more educated people and reform immigration rules to allow that. Many in the tech industry are calling for this because they can get highly educated people on the cheap by trading them immigration status. Why aren't the "conservatives" discussing this?
Both the left and right and mainstream media are selling you a divide and conquer and slogan filled line of propaganda as they work together to strip this nation of the fruits of our parents labor. The real issue is not income inequality in the United States, it is about selling out the American citizen. A traitor is someone who works against the interests of their own nation, their own community, that is what the word means.
When an American company sends jobs to communist China, how would you describe them? I am disgusted by those who claim to be patriotic and conservative that also support sending 27 million American manufacturing jobs to communist China. I don't care about gay marriage, legalizing marijuana or online poker half as much as I care about the true destruction of America and see those other issues as distractions. Your life has been ruined and the lives of your children by the destruction of our industrial base by "conservatives". They are not conservative, they are business people who only care about a profit and not about this nation. Don't get me wrong, the true entrepreneurs still exist, they are small businessman.
The best part of the Republican party at present is the Tea Party and even though I tend towards the Occupy philosophy, I agree with the Tea party sentiment more than the Mitt Romney anything for a buck philosophy. Real conservatives believe in this nation. Now, here is what the 1% are really afraid of, once the Tea Party figures out that they are being manipulated by the Republicans and that the Occupy movement and them have agreement on nationalism as opposed to globalism, they will work together and change the rules to favor this nation. That is the real fear and explains why they are for bringing in immigrants from China and the outsourcing of jobs.
Here is a great little excerpt from a movie called Network, it was made in 1976 and is truer more today then it even was then. YouTube - "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore". What some people are worried about is that we will say, "I'm a human being... My life has value".
In the linked article above from Politico there is a wonderful sentence. "Ken Langone, a wealthy investor and co-founder of Home Depot, recently told CNBC that the Catholic Church in New York might see a decline in donations if Pope Francis did not tone down his comments about the dangers of economic inequality." Wow. I have a lot of disagreements with the Catholic church; but, they believe themselves to represent God's beliefs and I support their attempt. By the way, Mr. Langone claims to be a Catholic, yet, he seems to believe that the church should base it's policy on what is economically popular. I grew up Catholic and am pretty sure that they are supposed to follow the words of the Pope and not chastise him.
People should be able to see the obvious. Imagine that during the cold war an American company decided to build a automotive manufacturing company in the Soviet Union and gave Russia their patents? Think about how crazy that sounds. Liberals and conservatives would have flipped out and certainly not give tax benefits to them for doing so. Yet, that is what we have done in China and nobody seems to get it or complain.
Here is the key. The United States could become some sort of European socialist country or go into some sort of neo-capitalist utopia and it won't make much of a difference if we send all of our jobs overseas. A dead capitalist and a dead socialist look the same. We need to fix this country and make our laws work for this country, if we do that we can argue later over how to distribute wealth.
Saturday, February 15, 2014
A Bunch of Links
Yahoo - AP - Yellen rebuffs Fed critics and pleases investors. 5 hours of testimony and she said nothing other than that she was following the same playbook as her predecessors. People are unsure what she will do with the taper and I will tell you exactly what she will do, she will stop it when unemployment hits 6.5%. That means very soon.
Market Watch - Morgan Stanley’s ex-CEO: Stop ‘beating up’ on Blankfein and Dimon. The message from the financial media is simple, stop being mad and complaining about the people who destroyed the worlds economy and fixed all the financial markets.
Fox News - John Podesta, key player in administration’s regulation drive, also helped UN develop radical new global agenda. One world, one world, one world.
Market Watch - Morgan Stanley’s ex-CEO: Stop ‘beating up’ on Blankfein and Dimon. The message from the financial media is simple, stop being mad and complaining about the people who destroyed the worlds economy and fixed all the financial markets.
Fox News - John Podesta, key player in administration’s regulation drive, also helped UN develop radical new global agenda. One world, one world, one world.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Electronic Currencies and Banks
I was unable to sleep last night and began watching some videos about the economy and such. That alone should have put me to sleep; but, alas it did not. As I was watching the videos a thought began developing, something I wrote about a long time ago.
Firstly, the United States Postal Service is seeking to become a sort of overnight bank for those who do not have bank accounts. Personally, I think this is fine and with the elimination of physical cash could provide a real service for a minimal rate. In England payday loans have a yearly interest rate in the thousands, in the United States the payday loan services charge interest in the hundreds and these fees are charged to the poorest, those who need payday loans. Combine this with the fact that our financial system is completely rigged and dishonest and you start having a big problems as we have been miss-allocating capital from productive use (creating jobs and businesses) into non-productive inflation in asset bubbles.
Let me put this in more easy to understand terms. If you own a home and the re-sale value of the house increases you would probably be pretty happy. The truth is that when housing prices rise quicker than incomes, you are worse off. Perhaps not immediately; but, you and future generations will pay a price as we are seeing now as it causes housing as a percentage of your income to skyrocket and take back all the increases that you saw in your house value.
I am going to move on and discuss what I see coming. Most people see banks as a place where they keep their money until they need it. Traditionally, these banks would then lend out some of your deposits to your neighbors and friends so that they could buy houses and cars and as they paid the bank back it would give you interest on your deposit. Banks acted like the stock exchange for the small guy, a way to invest in small things and get a return on that investment. It was in everyone's best interest to see a relatively stable economy and community.
In the 1980's worldwide the traditional banking system completely changed. During this time banks stopped being regulated and were allowed to do whatever they wanted with your deposit. In addition, you ceased getting a return on your savings while the banks were making more money than ever before and keeping it for themselves. All the risk was on the average depositor but he received nothing in exchange for it.
I don't know that most people will understand what I am talking about; but, it is one of the most important things I have ever written if you want to understand what happened and where we are headed and most importantly out options for the future. We are headed to a cashless society and one that will allow you, the average person, to make your deposits where you want and have them treated as investments rather than free capital for someone else to profit off of.
If we go to an all electronic banking system, why would I need a building with a safe to hold my money? The value banks still provide to the average person is that they process payments across the nation for you. Could you imagine having to go to New York every month, in person, just to hand cash to your mortgage company. We created checks to avoid that situation; but, prior to that you just walked into your local bank and paid your mortgage in cash each month. Banking was local for most people.
With electronic payments, you don't even need a check and can do the transaction on your own, it requires little if any effort from the bank as the payment is automated. Bitcoin is a good example of the future, though Bitcoin itself is unsustainable. Bitcoin does not require there to be banks. An electronic currency that self regulates. Electronic currencies do not require banks and in the future all countries will be going electronic.
If we have an all electronic currency, why would we need banks? The reason is because sometimes we have to pool together our savings so that investments in our future and one another can be done. Lets say you want to start a plumbing company, you need to have enough to buy a truck or van, purchase supplies and possibly even rent some office space. If you don't have the money, you need to borrow it and then pay people or banks back and give them some return to make it worth their while. Without banks who would be lending out sufficient funds to allow entrepreneurs to invest in the nation, in productive business?
Some are attempting to go to "Crowd Sourcing" where you go begging for money on the internet and it is an interesting approach though I am not aware of people being able to get a return on their investments. The "Veronica Mars" movie was crowdsourced and raised like $5 million dollars; but, the "investors" could not be promised to profit from their investment if the movie does well, it was really just a gift.
Imagine if you could invest directly in a movie. You favorite actor comes out and says that he is going to make the next great Western if everyone gives him $10. If I thought the movie made sense, I would give them $10 just to see it made. If the movie then made a profit, you would get your $10 back plus profit. True capitalism. Can you imagine the effect that would have on the movies that got made? Imagine that the same movie made no profit and lost money because the movie was horrible and cost to much, would you invest in that actor again? The problem with all of this is that you don't see a return on your investment fast enough to pay your bills when you live paycheck to paycheck. I need liquidity, the ability to pay bills regularly and not wait to cash out investments.
So what am I saying? With an all electronic currency, I can invest my money in business rather than bank accounts that don't pay me for using my money. I can get a return on my capital; but, I still need to keep enough in readily assessable cash to pay my ongoing costs as they arise. The highest valued stock, in history, is Berkshire Hathaway. One share of that stock has gone for as much as $150,000, it has also increased in value at roughly 25% for 40 years straight. It is a great investment; but, if you have all your money in it, you have no money to pay your monthly bills and it would make no sense to sell a share each month to pay your rent.
Now lets go back to the United States Postal Service, if they facilitated the electronic payments and were not holding your savings, where would you want to risk you excess capital? What if your neighbor could come to you and all the other neighbors and say, "Look, you all know me, I take care of my house, my kids don't get in trouble and I think we need a grocery store in the neighborhood. If you lend me the money, I will build one and I will pay you back plus let you share in my profits." If you trusted and liked the person, you might invest in his idea. That was the concept of traditional banking with local banks. We pooled our money together and lent it to people who we thought were good investments and would pay us back. It promoted community and responsibility. Foreclosure was unheard of and if it did happen everyone in town knew why you couldn't pay your bills, they knew your wife died and you were fired because you had come apart over it.
In capitalism, investment, risk should be tied to getting a return and responsibility by all parties involved. We got away from that and completely annihilated it with elimination of some very simple banking laws. That happened in the 1980's and has led to the downfall of the world's economy. At it's most fundamental, what I have just written is the most important truth fundamental to our current situation.
What if when I bought a car, I was investing in that car company? What if the car company had an interest in making sure I got a good return on my investment? What if when I bought a $20,000 car, $5,000 of it was a stock purchase and the manufacturer knew that, how would it change how they build and made cars? That is capitalism.
Investment and commitment have to go hand in hand for their to be self-regulation. With an all electronic currency, how would this best be achieved? Who holds the savings, who would be best to hold them? You certainly don't need the type of banks we have now and they will be gone soon enough. If the type of banks we have today held your money and invested it in whatever and kept all the profits then with an all electronic currency, why not just invest it yourself and get a return on your investment? Why have a savings account when you can invest your capital directly and actually get a return on it?
I watched a video of George Soros and Paul Krugman, an investor and an economist, both participants in the Council on Foreign Relations, a globalist foundation. Mr. Krugman is an economist and argues for helping the poor; but, limited government control over finances. He has been called a leftist for this. Mr. Soros takes a different approach, he believes that there should be international control over finances so that all can benefit and believes that the poor should benefit too.
We are going into a future of globalism and they are arguing over whether or not there should be regulation over it. That is the essence of the discussion. The alternative is to eliminate banks, you don't have to regulate what does not exist. I think the bankers know this and they certainly know electronic currencies are coming. Electronic currencies don't need to be created by banks, nations can do it and then central banks go bye bye.
Lets go back to my car example. What if for every car you bought, 25% of your cost was in buying stock in the manufacturer. Would you buy more or fewer foreign cars and what would you expect from them? True capitalism is connecting risk with responsibility and with return. Communism is defined as "take what you need and give what you can". Sounds good but it destroys the concept of investment, of risk and responsibility. True capitalism is based on benefiting to the degree that you have contributed.
Firstly, the United States Postal Service is seeking to become a sort of overnight bank for those who do not have bank accounts. Personally, I think this is fine and with the elimination of physical cash could provide a real service for a minimal rate. In England payday loans have a yearly interest rate in the thousands, in the United States the payday loan services charge interest in the hundreds and these fees are charged to the poorest, those who need payday loans. Combine this with the fact that our financial system is completely rigged and dishonest and you start having a big problems as we have been miss-allocating capital from productive use (creating jobs and businesses) into non-productive inflation in asset bubbles.
Let me put this in more easy to understand terms. If you own a home and the re-sale value of the house increases you would probably be pretty happy. The truth is that when housing prices rise quicker than incomes, you are worse off. Perhaps not immediately; but, you and future generations will pay a price as we are seeing now as it causes housing as a percentage of your income to skyrocket and take back all the increases that you saw in your house value.
I am going to move on and discuss what I see coming. Most people see banks as a place where they keep their money until they need it. Traditionally, these banks would then lend out some of your deposits to your neighbors and friends so that they could buy houses and cars and as they paid the bank back it would give you interest on your deposit. Banks acted like the stock exchange for the small guy, a way to invest in small things and get a return on that investment. It was in everyone's best interest to see a relatively stable economy and community.
In the 1980's worldwide the traditional banking system completely changed. During this time banks stopped being regulated and were allowed to do whatever they wanted with your deposit. In addition, you ceased getting a return on your savings while the banks were making more money than ever before and keeping it for themselves. All the risk was on the average depositor but he received nothing in exchange for it.
I don't know that most people will understand what I am talking about; but, it is one of the most important things I have ever written if you want to understand what happened and where we are headed and most importantly out options for the future. We are headed to a cashless society and one that will allow you, the average person, to make your deposits where you want and have them treated as investments rather than free capital for someone else to profit off of.
If we go to an all electronic banking system, why would I need a building with a safe to hold my money? The value banks still provide to the average person is that they process payments across the nation for you. Could you imagine having to go to New York every month, in person, just to hand cash to your mortgage company. We created checks to avoid that situation; but, prior to that you just walked into your local bank and paid your mortgage in cash each month. Banking was local for most people.
With electronic payments, you don't even need a check and can do the transaction on your own, it requires little if any effort from the bank as the payment is automated. Bitcoin is a good example of the future, though Bitcoin itself is unsustainable. Bitcoin does not require there to be banks. An electronic currency that self regulates. Electronic currencies do not require banks and in the future all countries will be going electronic.
If we have an all electronic currency, why would we need banks? The reason is because sometimes we have to pool together our savings so that investments in our future and one another can be done. Lets say you want to start a plumbing company, you need to have enough to buy a truck or van, purchase supplies and possibly even rent some office space. If you don't have the money, you need to borrow it and then pay people or banks back and give them some return to make it worth their while. Without banks who would be lending out sufficient funds to allow entrepreneurs to invest in the nation, in productive business?
Some are attempting to go to "Crowd Sourcing" where you go begging for money on the internet and it is an interesting approach though I am not aware of people being able to get a return on their investments. The "Veronica Mars" movie was crowdsourced and raised like $5 million dollars; but, the "investors" could not be promised to profit from their investment if the movie does well, it was really just a gift.
Imagine if you could invest directly in a movie. You favorite actor comes out and says that he is going to make the next great Western if everyone gives him $10. If I thought the movie made sense, I would give them $10 just to see it made. If the movie then made a profit, you would get your $10 back plus profit. True capitalism. Can you imagine the effect that would have on the movies that got made? Imagine that the same movie made no profit and lost money because the movie was horrible and cost to much, would you invest in that actor again? The problem with all of this is that you don't see a return on your investment fast enough to pay your bills when you live paycheck to paycheck. I need liquidity, the ability to pay bills regularly and not wait to cash out investments.
So what am I saying? With an all electronic currency, I can invest my money in business rather than bank accounts that don't pay me for using my money. I can get a return on my capital; but, I still need to keep enough in readily assessable cash to pay my ongoing costs as they arise. The highest valued stock, in history, is Berkshire Hathaway. One share of that stock has gone for as much as $150,000, it has also increased in value at roughly 25% for 40 years straight. It is a great investment; but, if you have all your money in it, you have no money to pay your monthly bills and it would make no sense to sell a share each month to pay your rent.
Now lets go back to the United States Postal Service, if they facilitated the electronic payments and were not holding your savings, where would you want to risk you excess capital? What if your neighbor could come to you and all the other neighbors and say, "Look, you all know me, I take care of my house, my kids don't get in trouble and I think we need a grocery store in the neighborhood. If you lend me the money, I will build one and I will pay you back plus let you share in my profits." If you trusted and liked the person, you might invest in his idea. That was the concept of traditional banking with local banks. We pooled our money together and lent it to people who we thought were good investments and would pay us back. It promoted community and responsibility. Foreclosure was unheard of and if it did happen everyone in town knew why you couldn't pay your bills, they knew your wife died and you were fired because you had come apart over it.
In capitalism, investment, risk should be tied to getting a return and responsibility by all parties involved. We got away from that and completely annihilated it with elimination of some very simple banking laws. That happened in the 1980's and has led to the downfall of the world's economy. At it's most fundamental, what I have just written is the most important truth fundamental to our current situation.
What if when I bought a car, I was investing in that car company? What if the car company had an interest in making sure I got a good return on my investment? What if when I bought a $20,000 car, $5,000 of it was a stock purchase and the manufacturer knew that, how would it change how they build and made cars? That is capitalism.
Investment and commitment have to go hand in hand for their to be self-regulation. With an all electronic currency, how would this best be achieved? Who holds the savings, who would be best to hold them? You certainly don't need the type of banks we have now and they will be gone soon enough. If the type of banks we have today held your money and invested it in whatever and kept all the profits then with an all electronic currency, why not just invest it yourself and get a return on your investment? Why have a savings account when you can invest your capital directly and actually get a return on it?
I watched a video of George Soros and Paul Krugman, an investor and an economist, both participants in the Council on Foreign Relations, a globalist foundation. Mr. Krugman is an economist and argues for helping the poor; but, limited government control over finances. He has been called a leftist for this. Mr. Soros takes a different approach, he believes that there should be international control over finances so that all can benefit and believes that the poor should benefit too.
We are going into a future of globalism and they are arguing over whether or not there should be regulation over it. That is the essence of the discussion. The alternative is to eliminate banks, you don't have to regulate what does not exist. I think the bankers know this and they certainly know electronic currencies are coming. Electronic currencies don't need to be created by banks, nations can do it and then central banks go bye bye.
Lets go back to my car example. What if for every car you bought, 25% of your cost was in buying stock in the manufacturer. Would you buy more or fewer foreign cars and what would you expect from them? True capitalism is connecting risk with responsibility and with return. Communism is defined as "take what you need and give what you can". Sounds good but it destroys the concept of investment, of risk and responsibility. True capitalism is based on benefiting to the degree that you have contributed.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Some Stupid Non-Believers Accept Anything That Seems to Contradict the Bible
I read this article and it is just too stupid to be believed, yet, it is all over the internet. Yahoo - Appearance of camels in Genesis called sign of authors' distance from history. The author is a complete fool and I would be more than willing to explain that to them.
The article says that camels were not domesticated until long after mentioned in the bible. The article says, "They believe camels were not domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean until the 10th century B.C." Really, how retarded is that. They claim that the bible was written after camels were domesticated. Really, how amusing. The researchers believe camels were not domesticated until 100 years before Jesus appeared or roughly 3,000 years ago. Just for reference, it is believed that horses were domesticated over 5,000 years ago. Having said that, it is generally accepted that camels were domesticated around the same time.
These articles that I quote are not aimed at Christians, they are aimed at non-believers. There true intent is to keep people away from belief. They are also meaningless.
Whether or not God exists is the most fundamental question one can ask oneself. The question is so simple, are you the greatest intelligence in the universe or is there a greater intelligence, a greater being, one that knows all that can be known for any given moment.
The article says that camels were not domesticated until long after mentioned in the bible. The article says, "They believe camels were not domesticated in the eastern Mediterranean until the 10th century B.C." Really, how retarded is that. They claim that the bible was written after camels were domesticated. Really, how amusing. The researchers believe camels were not domesticated until 100 years before Jesus appeared or roughly 3,000 years ago. Just for reference, it is believed that horses were domesticated over 5,000 years ago. Having said that, it is generally accepted that camels were domesticated around the same time.
These articles that I quote are not aimed at Christians, they are aimed at non-believers. There true intent is to keep people away from belief. They are also meaningless.
Whether or not God exists is the most fundamental question one can ask oneself. The question is so simple, are you the greatest intelligence in the universe or is there a greater intelligence, a greater being, one that knows all that can be known for any given moment.
The Meaning of Gay Marriage - Two Opposing Perspectives
Recently, I was invited to a gay wedding. I shall be attending, health permitting. I have known the young man for many years and think it is always an honor to be allowed to share special events with friends. When I told my parents I was getting married, my mother told me she couldn't attend because I was not getting married in a Catholic church, I reminded her that I had left the Catholic church. In the end she did in fact show up and was quite pleasant and supportive at the event.
I am a fairly conservative Christian and know many who believe that gay marriage is the beginning of the end for the world, this is worse than naive as it prevents them from seeing the real challenges that face us. We are being destroyed by war and greed. We have had plenty of wars before gay marriage and greed is based on selfishness. I also know gays who believe that if gay marriage is legal, somehow they will be accepted and they are also wrong. The reaction to gay marriage should make that clear.
You should ask yourself why two gay atheists would want to have a marriage ceremony. Remove all your emotions and ask the simplest question. When straight people get married we ask why and if they should commit to one another. Anymore when we go to weddings we ask if the couple will stay together for long. I used to believe marriage was for life, I got over that when my wife left me for another man. More than her leaving me, the way the government had control over her leaving me was what really surprised me. I was told by an attorney in Panama that in Panama you have to see a therapist for a year before you are allowed to divorce. In Arabia the rules are even harsher.
I couldn't sleep tonight and ended up thinking about the coming wedding that I have been invited to. It made me pause, I wondered if they understood what the meaning of this ceremony is. For those who were wondering, I do not perform any "legal" marriage for anyone and don't intend to. I am willing to speak at a wedding but do not believe that I need the governments permission to recognize that two people have made a life long commitment and that is what marriage is. I leave it up to God to determine if they should have committed to one another.
I have wondered why the divorce rate is so high (80%) for gay couples, couples that had been together for 20 years got married and then suddenly divorced within 2 or 3 years. I think they had assumed that if they conformed to societies rituals and expectations in the are of marriage that somehow they would be supported and accepted by society and that is clearly wrong. In their attempt to please others many missed what marriage is really about and that is about committing to one another.
For my conservative friends I ask a question. If gay people go get a license to be gay and together what do you fear they will do differently? Are you afraid they will keep having sex? I think they have continued having sex for millions of years. For my gay friends the question is harder. What do you think changes when you have the ceremony? The truth is that most gay people don't believe their lives will change in anyway when they have the ceremony other than they think they will somehow be accepted more and they won't.
I like the actress Kristen Bell, I think she is amusing. She and her husband did not want to get "married" until gays could get married; but, they were in a completely committed and sexual relationship. They were already married; but, assumed it was the governments approval that made it a marriage. Marriage is a lifelong commitment that you make in your heart and follow. I would ask them a simple question, the fact that they did not have a government license to be "married", would they have accepted each other sleeping with others or making commitments that effected them both without discussing it and coming to some sort of agreement?
"Government" sanctioned divorce is not divorce. Divorce occurs the moment one partner in a lifelong commitment defaults on their commitment, it is a bankruptcy if you will. It occurs when one party says that they cannot or will not meet their commitments. When you go to court and get divorced the only question is who will pay for what. My judge summed it up very well during our divorce when he said that the outcome was not about justice, it was about the law.
I am a fairly conservative Christian and know many who believe that gay marriage is the beginning of the end for the world, this is worse than naive as it prevents them from seeing the real challenges that face us. We are being destroyed by war and greed. We have had plenty of wars before gay marriage and greed is based on selfishness. I also know gays who believe that if gay marriage is legal, somehow they will be accepted and they are also wrong. The reaction to gay marriage should make that clear.
You should ask yourself why two gay atheists would want to have a marriage ceremony. Remove all your emotions and ask the simplest question. When straight people get married we ask why and if they should commit to one another. Anymore when we go to weddings we ask if the couple will stay together for long. I used to believe marriage was for life, I got over that when my wife left me for another man. More than her leaving me, the way the government had control over her leaving me was what really surprised me. I was told by an attorney in Panama that in Panama you have to see a therapist for a year before you are allowed to divorce. In Arabia the rules are even harsher.
I couldn't sleep tonight and ended up thinking about the coming wedding that I have been invited to. It made me pause, I wondered if they understood what the meaning of this ceremony is. For those who were wondering, I do not perform any "legal" marriage for anyone and don't intend to. I am willing to speak at a wedding but do not believe that I need the governments permission to recognize that two people have made a life long commitment and that is what marriage is. I leave it up to God to determine if they should have committed to one another.
I have wondered why the divorce rate is so high (80%) for gay couples, couples that had been together for 20 years got married and then suddenly divorced within 2 or 3 years. I think they had assumed that if they conformed to societies rituals and expectations in the are of marriage that somehow they would be supported and accepted by society and that is clearly wrong. In their attempt to please others many missed what marriage is really about and that is about committing to one another.
For my conservative friends I ask a question. If gay people go get a license to be gay and together what do you fear they will do differently? Are you afraid they will keep having sex? I think they have continued having sex for millions of years. For my gay friends the question is harder. What do you think changes when you have the ceremony? The truth is that most gay people don't believe their lives will change in anyway when they have the ceremony other than they think they will somehow be accepted more and they won't.
I like the actress Kristen Bell, I think she is amusing. She and her husband did not want to get "married" until gays could get married; but, they were in a completely committed and sexual relationship. They were already married; but, assumed it was the governments approval that made it a marriage. Marriage is a lifelong commitment that you make in your heart and follow. I would ask them a simple question, the fact that they did not have a government license to be "married", would they have accepted each other sleeping with others or making commitments that effected them both without discussing it and coming to some sort of agreement?
"Government" sanctioned divorce is not divorce. Divorce occurs the moment one partner in a lifelong commitment defaults on their commitment, it is a bankruptcy if you will. It occurs when one party says that they cannot or will not meet their commitments. When you go to court and get divorced the only question is who will pay for what. My judge summed it up very well during our divorce when he said that the outcome was not about justice, it was about the law.
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Shriley Temple is Dead, the end must be near.
I woke up and am in shock. The great Shirley Temple has passed away. I don't even know how to explain to people alive today the impact she had on generations of Americans. I am incapable.
Ms. Temple-Black was the ultimate iconic figure. She gave people hope during the great depression and made faces smile. Watching her films will not explain her impact. She was as big as the Beatles when people needed hope. Goodbye Ms. Temple and thanks for all the hope you brought us.
Ms. Temple-Black was the ultimate iconic figure. She gave people hope during the great depression and made faces smile. Watching her films will not explain her impact. She was as big as the Beatles when people needed hope. Goodbye Ms. Temple and thanks for all the hope you brought us.
Lots of Financial Stuff and Some History To Remember
YouTube - Why Is America in Decline? Chris Hedges on the U.S. Empire & Death of the Liberal Class (2012). A very long video by a fascinating person who explains what is happening in the world. He hits upon many issues I have discussed in the past and I am not going to bother summarizing. It is just a link.
Yahoo - Reuters - Stronger Pacific winds explain global warming hiatus: study. We all know global warming is a lie by now.
Yahoo - New York Times - Chinese Official Made Job Plea to JPMorgan Chase Chief. It speaks for itself.
Market Watch - U.S. to suspend pension, retirement funding: Lew.
Bloomberg - Housing Bubble -- or Bunk?. This article from 2005 was by "Market Specialists" and it denied that a nationwide housing market could collapse. It attempts to claim that housing price collapses can only occur if unemployment rises or wages drop while ignoring the fact that wages had not risen and all the increases in employment were in the housing industry.
Mortgage News Daily - Housing Bubble To Bust? FDIC Certainly Hopes Not. Another article from 2005 before the bust. An FDIC report that said that nationwide housing bubbles just don't happen and that is true, unless they are intentional.
Washington Post - Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust. Again in 2005, our most trusted economists lying to us. The head of the federal reserve said there was NO housing bubble.
Bloomberg - Fed Officials Saw Housing Bubble in 2005, Didn't Alter Policy. Get it, they lied back in the day because they did see what was coming and their own documents prove it.
The Economist - The Global Housing Bubble. The housing bubble was global as this article from 2005 describes; but, Bernanke and others said that all real estate bubbles were local, they lied.
CBS - Housing Bubble Is A Local Matter.
Now, if they lied to you about the housing bubble why do you trust them when they say the economy is okay today? You cannot trust these people and that is, in the end, the saddest thing of all. They no longer care if we believe them. Please do not ask me how to avoid the coming economic problems, ask me how we recover from it in the best way possible and avoid marching in the direction that those in charge want us to so they can take even more advantage of us.
Yahoo - Reuters - Stronger Pacific winds explain global warming hiatus: study. We all know global warming is a lie by now.
Yahoo - New York Times - Chinese Official Made Job Plea to JPMorgan Chase Chief. It speaks for itself.
Market Watch - U.S. to suspend pension, retirement funding: Lew.
Bloomberg - Housing Bubble -- or Bunk?. This article from 2005 was by "Market Specialists" and it denied that a nationwide housing market could collapse. It attempts to claim that housing price collapses can only occur if unemployment rises or wages drop while ignoring the fact that wages had not risen and all the increases in employment were in the housing industry.
Mortgage News Daily - Housing Bubble To Bust? FDIC Certainly Hopes Not. Another article from 2005 before the bust. An FDIC report that said that nationwide housing bubbles just don't happen and that is true, unless they are intentional.
Washington Post - Bernanke: There's No Housing Bubble to Go Bust. Again in 2005, our most trusted economists lying to us. The head of the federal reserve said there was NO housing bubble.
Bloomberg - Fed Officials Saw Housing Bubble in 2005, Didn't Alter Policy. Get it, they lied back in the day because they did see what was coming and their own documents prove it.
The Economist - The Global Housing Bubble. The housing bubble was global as this article from 2005 describes; but, Bernanke and others said that all real estate bubbles were local, they lied.
CBS - Housing Bubble Is A Local Matter.
Now, if they lied to you about the housing bubble why do you trust them when they say the economy is okay today? You cannot trust these people and that is, in the end, the saddest thing of all. They no longer care if we believe them. Please do not ask me how to avoid the coming economic problems, ask me how we recover from it in the best way possible and avoid marching in the direction that those in charge want us to so they can take even more advantage of us.
Monday, February 10, 2014
Why Must They All Lie
Yahoo - Reuters - AOL CEO sorry for 'distressed babies' remark; reverses retirement plan. Now this has been all over the news; but, I think the real point is being missed. The CEO said that the reason AOL needed to cut contributions to their 401k plans was because of the cost of health insurance, specifically because of 2 distressed babies. This is at the same time that his company has seen it's greatest profit in years.
Here is where once again the media has failed us. What would have been the savings from cutting the 401k contributions as compared to what the "increased" costs in healthcare were? Pretty simple question and very basic; but, no reporters have apparently asked it. Another failure of the media is to talk about real wages. While companies have barely maintained wages, they have cut benefits. The fact is that wages have not kept up with inflation; but, in addition benefits have gone away that is a reduction in real compensation for your work and efforts. American workers are being paid (salary and compensation) less in real dollars (adjusted for inflation) then in a whole lot of decades and the work is the same.
I just had a thought. It is as capitalistic as they come. What if we rewarded people based on their contribution? This would include taking care of people who are incapable of contributing, just like I paid to feed my children, a community approach. So, if a company has 1,000 workers and the company increases in profit, as a margin, shouldn't all involved benefit to the same extent? A ten percent increase in profits could result in a ten percent across the board increase in returns. That would include labor, investors, bond holders, whoever had a stake in the outcome. That incentives everyone to do better in their role.
By the way, if you have an hour or two to kill, this is a great video. YouTube - Why Is America in Decline? Chris Hedges on the U.S. Empire & Death of the Liberal Class (2012).
Here is where once again the media has failed us. What would have been the savings from cutting the 401k contributions as compared to what the "increased" costs in healthcare were? Pretty simple question and very basic; but, no reporters have apparently asked it. Another failure of the media is to talk about real wages. While companies have barely maintained wages, they have cut benefits. The fact is that wages have not kept up with inflation; but, in addition benefits have gone away that is a reduction in real compensation for your work and efforts. American workers are being paid (salary and compensation) less in real dollars (adjusted for inflation) then in a whole lot of decades and the work is the same.
I just had a thought. It is as capitalistic as they come. What if we rewarded people based on their contribution? This would include taking care of people who are incapable of contributing, just like I paid to feed my children, a community approach. So, if a company has 1,000 workers and the company increases in profit, as a margin, shouldn't all involved benefit to the same extent? A ten percent increase in profits could result in a ten percent across the board increase in returns. That would include labor, investors, bond holders, whoever had a stake in the outcome. That incentives everyone to do better in their role.
By the way, if you have an hour or two to kill, this is a great video. YouTube - Why Is America in Decline? Chris Hedges on the U.S. Empire & Death of the Liberal Class (2012).
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Should We Shoot Looters?
I am sure we all remember New Orleans after the Katrina disaster. At the time people were breaking into stores to get food as none of the food that the governments had promised was being delivered. The response from the President an other government officials was to call for the shooting of looters. The number one priority was to prevent looting. While there is more than one definition of "looting", in terms of generally accepted understanding and when you get to shoot looters, it refers to stealing from others during an emergency.
The concern about looting during an emergency is that society will devolve, that lawlessness will become rampant and all order will be lost. I was in Los Angeles during the riots when there was looting going on and it was pretty sad and scary to see. It was also one of the few times I ever carried a gun on me other than when I was target shooting. I had driven into Los Angeles to make sure my elderly grandmother was okay because there had been some looting near her home.
Now here is where the media, government and the financial industry are all hypocrites. If J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, HSBC, RBS and many other banks decided to fix the financial markets during the economic collapse, were they guilty of looting? The banks colluded to fix markets and even took millions in bonuses for having done it. All order has been lost in the financial markets. Heck, even extremist right wingers like Ron Paul would agree with me on this. If a libertarian like Ron Paul believes that Glass Steagel should be the law and that banks should not be able to gamble with our deposits, then why is this allowed to continue?
At a time of our greatest need and challenge, our corporations and financial industry are looting our future. They are also planning on and beginning to loot our retirements and pensions and it is a concerted effort. I don't have a problem with conservatives or liberals, I just can't find any anymore. Conservatives and liberals in America used to worry about the country and not the profit of just a few.
It is claimed that the world has $700 or so trillion dollars in debt and that the annual GDP of the world is about $70 trillion. What would have happened if we had let the big banks fail and not have bailed them out? The answer is, a lot of the debt would have just disappeared. The banks would have defaulted on each other and the depositors equally. We can look to Iceland and see how true this is, they didn't bail out the banks. They lost some money and then made it back without being hampered by debts they did not create.
How is it that a child who was born today is assumed to have $25,000 in debt? What did he buy? How is it that it is assumed that you or I am in any way responsible for hundreds of trillions in debt, I didn't borrow the money? Heck, after getting divorced I paid off all our debt. Should I be held responsible for looters? I believe in capitalism; but, I don't believe in insider trading and thievery. When criminals work together to steal money we call it racketeering. When banks collude to steal money we call it malfeasance, a word most people don't even understand.
Now lets get specific. Back in the 1970s my father told me about the largest theft of all time by the mafia. They created an insurance company and took in over a billion (big at the time) in revenue while not putting enough money aside to pay claims and then tried to claim bankruptcy. They were prosecuted under RICO or racketeering laws and got to go to jail. How is this any different than what the banks and AIG did?
Here is where to look. We as a nation have debt because we spent more than we took in from taxes. A very simple equation. I didn't vote on that and I believe most people are against the government spending more than it takes in. All sort of Republicans claim they are against deficit spending; but, gosh darn-it somehow they continue voting for it. They try and blame it on welfare; but, honestly look at the money they vote to spend on corporations and projects that only benefit their districts. The Democrats are no better and the reason for both parties is the same. It benefits the banks when we deficit spend. I will make it simple, the wars we are waging have cost us trillions of dollars, if we stopped them all tomorrow, do you really believe we would take the savings and pay off the debt or continue to deficit spend? This should be easy if you know history and about the Vietnam war.
The concern about looting during an emergency is that society will devolve, that lawlessness will become rampant and all order will be lost. I was in Los Angeles during the riots when there was looting going on and it was pretty sad and scary to see. It was also one of the few times I ever carried a gun on me other than when I was target shooting. I had driven into Los Angeles to make sure my elderly grandmother was okay because there had been some looting near her home.
Now here is where the media, government and the financial industry are all hypocrites. If J.P. Morgan, Citigroup, HSBC, RBS and many other banks decided to fix the financial markets during the economic collapse, were they guilty of looting? The banks colluded to fix markets and even took millions in bonuses for having done it. All order has been lost in the financial markets. Heck, even extremist right wingers like Ron Paul would agree with me on this. If a libertarian like Ron Paul believes that Glass Steagel should be the law and that banks should not be able to gamble with our deposits, then why is this allowed to continue?
At a time of our greatest need and challenge, our corporations and financial industry are looting our future. They are also planning on and beginning to loot our retirements and pensions and it is a concerted effort. I don't have a problem with conservatives or liberals, I just can't find any anymore. Conservatives and liberals in America used to worry about the country and not the profit of just a few.
It is claimed that the world has $700 or so trillion dollars in debt and that the annual GDP of the world is about $70 trillion. What would have happened if we had let the big banks fail and not have bailed them out? The answer is, a lot of the debt would have just disappeared. The banks would have defaulted on each other and the depositors equally. We can look to Iceland and see how true this is, they didn't bail out the banks. They lost some money and then made it back without being hampered by debts they did not create.
How is it that a child who was born today is assumed to have $25,000 in debt? What did he buy? How is it that it is assumed that you or I am in any way responsible for hundreds of trillions in debt, I didn't borrow the money? Heck, after getting divorced I paid off all our debt. Should I be held responsible for looters? I believe in capitalism; but, I don't believe in insider trading and thievery. When criminals work together to steal money we call it racketeering. When banks collude to steal money we call it malfeasance, a word most people don't even understand.
Now lets get specific. Back in the 1970s my father told me about the largest theft of all time by the mafia. They created an insurance company and took in over a billion (big at the time) in revenue while not putting enough money aside to pay claims and then tried to claim bankruptcy. They were prosecuted under RICO or racketeering laws and got to go to jail. How is this any different than what the banks and AIG did?
Here is where to look. We as a nation have debt because we spent more than we took in from taxes. A very simple equation. I didn't vote on that and I believe most people are against the government spending more than it takes in. All sort of Republicans claim they are against deficit spending; but, gosh darn-it somehow they continue voting for it. They try and blame it on welfare; but, honestly look at the money they vote to spend on corporations and projects that only benefit their districts. The Democrats are no better and the reason for both parties is the same. It benefits the banks when we deficit spend. I will make it simple, the wars we are waging have cost us trillions of dollars, if we stopped them all tomorrow, do you really believe we would take the savings and pay off the debt or continue to deficit spend? This should be easy if you know history and about the Vietnam war.
Saturday, February 8, 2014
Money Stuff
CNBC - NY probing banks for possible forex manipulation. I am waiting to find out what markets are not fixed.
Wall Street Journal - Shift Social Security’s start-up costs. More lies to see if they can steel your retirement funds.
Wall Street Journal - Shift retirement plans away from employers. There was a time when people went to work for companies because they offered a retirement plan. Wall Street has concluded that the only way to avoid that is to destroy all pensions.
Honolulu Civil Beat - Hawaii Lawmakers Agree to Pension Reform for New Hires. I love it, the word reform used to mean that you were going to improve a situation, now it is used to explain why you are taking things away. George Orwell would be thrilled.
Mail Online - Get ready for the real-life RoboCops: NYPD tests Google Glass to help foot patrol officers fight crime
. The article quotes some people who are trying to convince you that it will not be used for facial recognition. It is a lie, it will be used for it.
Yahoo - Business Insider - All American Credit Cards Will Disappear In 2015 And Be Replaced With This New Tech. So, very soon all of your credit and debit cards will carry a microchip, why is this not surprising, I have only been writing about this for 6 years.
Yahoo - AP - What's for dinner? The farm bill has a big impact. Now the fact that we are reducing food stamp benefits while increasing how much we give to agribusiness is annoying enough; but, watching "reporters" spin the story is sickening. The clown that wrote this article claims that by giving money to multi-billion dollar agribusiness will somehow cause food prices to go down. It won't and hasn't yet. The only price savings that will be seen will be on exports to other countries. This article is some of the most disgusting kiss up to the industry that I have seen.
The Motley Fool - Stock Market Warning Signs: Record $444.9 Billion of Debt Is Now Invested in the Market. This is scary, a half a trillion dollars in stock investments is borrowed money. The great depression was partly caused by people borrowing money that they couldn't pay back to bet on the market. If the market burps then those debts go unpaid and everything crumbles.
The problems of this world are not there because people are imperfect, they are there because we have a corrupt system. The system is one that benefits those in charge and penalizes those who are not. A system that promotes corruption and insider trading is the death toll for a society.
Wall Street Journal - Shift Social Security’s start-up costs. More lies to see if they can steel your retirement funds.
Wall Street Journal - Shift retirement plans away from employers. There was a time when people went to work for companies because they offered a retirement plan. Wall Street has concluded that the only way to avoid that is to destroy all pensions.
Honolulu Civil Beat - Hawaii Lawmakers Agree to Pension Reform for New Hires. I love it, the word reform used to mean that you were going to improve a situation, now it is used to explain why you are taking things away. George Orwell would be thrilled.
Mail Online - Get ready for the real-life RoboCops: NYPD tests Google Glass to help foot patrol officers fight crime
. The article quotes some people who are trying to convince you that it will not be used for facial recognition. It is a lie, it will be used for it.
Yahoo - Business Insider - All American Credit Cards Will Disappear In 2015 And Be Replaced With This New Tech. So, very soon all of your credit and debit cards will carry a microchip, why is this not surprising, I have only been writing about this for 6 years.
Yahoo - AP - What's for dinner? The farm bill has a big impact. Now the fact that we are reducing food stamp benefits while increasing how much we give to agribusiness is annoying enough; but, watching "reporters" spin the story is sickening. The clown that wrote this article claims that by giving money to multi-billion dollar agribusiness will somehow cause food prices to go down. It won't and hasn't yet. The only price savings that will be seen will be on exports to other countries. This article is some of the most disgusting kiss up to the industry that I have seen.
The Motley Fool - Stock Market Warning Signs: Record $444.9 Billion of Debt Is Now Invested in the Market. This is scary, a half a trillion dollars in stock investments is borrowed money. The great depression was partly caused by people borrowing money that they couldn't pay back to bet on the market. If the market burps then those debts go unpaid and everything crumbles.
The problems of this world are not there because people are imperfect, they are there because we have a corrupt system. The system is one that benefits those in charge and penalizes those who are not. A system that promotes corruption and insider trading is the death toll for a society.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Just Some More Lies From the Media
My9NJ.com - Vein Scan Payment System Launched. So some young people created an app that lets you verify your identity using a vein scan of your palm. Now, New Jersey is looking to expand it's use. The best part of the video is where the person claims that you don't have to use the technology if you don't want to. They completely ignore the fact that you will have to use it in the future.
Huffington Post - JPMorgan Exec Blythe Masters To Advise Wall Street Regulator. This shows just how corrupt our government is. The head of commodities for J.P. Morgan is going to advise government regulators on overseeing the commodities market. This is at the same time that J.P. Morgan is getting out of the commodities market as I had previously written about. She was in charge of the group at J.P. Morgan that was manipulating the commodities market.
YouTube - The Young Turks - A Great Way To Save USPS, But Will It Happen?. I know I just wrote about USPS wanting to become a bank for people that don't have bank accounts; but, I liked this video presentation.
YouTube - The Young Turks - John Elway, Don't Give Me Your BS On Social Safety Nets. It really irks me how some people are so selfish and self-centered. Social Security is not a gift, we pay into it. Unemployment Insurance is just that, insurance and we pay into it in case we someday need it, it is not a gift. The hypocrisy goes deep, we have just reduced food stamps; but, will not support raising the minimum wage. I personally have not made the minimum wage in 30 years, in fact, I make way above it and even with alimony and fees and blah, blah, blah, I still take home enough to have food and a roof over my head (although I no longer own the roof and rent). Lets look at this in easy to understand terms. Would you rather live in Canada which has nationalized healthcare and takes care of it's poor or in Mexico? What do we wish to become?
YouTube - The Young Turks - The Daily Show Exposes 'Retarded' CEO Comments. I have grown increasingly disappointed in Mr. Schiff, his fiscal beliefs are simply stupid. He believes that we should eliminate the minimum wage and a reporter asked him if he would be good with people making $2 an hour, she could have said $2 a day and his answer would have been the same. He said he was good with that. She asked who he thought might only deserve $2 an hour and he said the mentally retarded.
YouTube - The Young Turks - Income Inequality ROCKS, says 'Shark Tank' Host Kevin O'Leary. 85 people in the whole world own as much as the bottom half of the population or roughly 3.5 BILLION people. By the way, many of those 85 people inherited their wealth and did nothing to create it.
If I were young, I would be screaming and yelling about the raw deal you are being given. The media tries to say it was the baby boomers or the illegal aliens or the Chines or whoever. Nope, it is the 85 people that have everything. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates actually made their money, not inherited wealth, personal brilliance and hard work and risk. I don't begrudge them what they have earned and admire them; but, I do begrudge people who have lied and cheated and stolen like J.P. Morgan.
There is a statistic being thrown around by a number of neo-conservatives that around 45% of the people don't pay income tax. It is the dumbest statistic that one could use. How many two year old's pay taxes? How many homeless pay income tax when they don't have an income other than what they can beg or recycle cans for? Anyone with a working class or middle class job knows that they are paying taxes and should know that they pay a higher percentage in taxes than the wealthy.
Personally, I am for a flat income tax. It could be 10% or 15% or whatever. If you make a $100,000, you pay $10,000. If you make $1,000,000 then you pay $100,000. Simple and requires no accountants. You pay as you benefit from society. Oddly enough I believe many on the far right would agree with me, though many would prefer to end income tax. Our taxes have given literally trillions in dollars to banks and other companies and they often pay $0 in taxes. Personally, I would rather feed the homeless than see my tax dollars go to bankers who ruined this economy and then used our taxes to pay themselves multi-million dollar bonuses. Does that make me a Communist, a liberal or a left winger? When did rationality and concern for the country as a whole stop being patriotic? Do you know what you call it when one person or a small family owns everything, you call it a monarchy.
UPDATE: You know what? Mr. Schiff could not have angered me more. What an idiot. To say that mentally retarded people are only worth $2.00 an hour really irks me. Actually, the mentally retarded do excellent at a number of jobs, especially jobs that require repetitious activity. When I was young and needed a job, I went to work in a cabinet making factory. Two employees, me and the owner. At the end of the first day, I got a 20% raise. I quit the job at the end of a week or two even though I was offered another raise. You will love the reason I quit. I spoke to the owner and said that we could hire people with mental deficiencies, get a tax break and that they made great employees. I thought they could do the simple things in assembly. As a craftsman I was assembling things that anyone could have. My value was in the use of the tools and my precision which saved on waste product. He told me he didn't want to be around retards and I quit. I didn't want to be around people like him who didn't care about others.
I believe we should match people to their abilities and wants. I met a young man once with a unique situation, he cannot see how the pieces fit together to achieve a goal. At least that is how it was explained to me and you know what, he is an amazing young man, very talented, very polite and very intentionally amusing. I have been thinking about what job would he best suited to for years. I thought about it and thought about it and concluded that he would be perfect for someone who was creating assembly lines and wanted to know what the smallest part of the job was that anyone could do. People pay a lot of money to create assembly lines and I have met some of them. What would having someone like him be worth when it could save you millions in design costs and redesign costs? I bet he would deserve more than $2 an hour; but, they would still only want to pay him that. They are not concerned about the value we contribute, they are concerned about how little they can give in return.
I think we need to create a situation where people can succeed, where the average person can get a fair return on their work investment. I have worked for over 40 years and gave up my health to do so. I did it because I thought it was best for my family. Economics is about supply and demand and there is no longer a demand for humans because of robotics and technology. They no longer need people like me and you, or so they think.
Huffington Post - JPMorgan Exec Blythe Masters To Advise Wall Street Regulator. This shows just how corrupt our government is. The head of commodities for J.P. Morgan is going to advise government regulators on overseeing the commodities market. This is at the same time that J.P. Morgan is getting out of the commodities market as I had previously written about. She was in charge of the group at J.P. Morgan that was manipulating the commodities market.
YouTube - The Young Turks - A Great Way To Save USPS, But Will It Happen?. I know I just wrote about USPS wanting to become a bank for people that don't have bank accounts; but, I liked this video presentation.
YouTube - The Young Turks - John Elway, Don't Give Me Your BS On Social Safety Nets. It really irks me how some people are so selfish and self-centered. Social Security is not a gift, we pay into it. Unemployment Insurance is just that, insurance and we pay into it in case we someday need it, it is not a gift. The hypocrisy goes deep, we have just reduced food stamps; but, will not support raising the minimum wage. I personally have not made the minimum wage in 30 years, in fact, I make way above it and even with alimony and fees and blah, blah, blah, I still take home enough to have food and a roof over my head (although I no longer own the roof and rent). Lets look at this in easy to understand terms. Would you rather live in Canada which has nationalized healthcare and takes care of it's poor or in Mexico? What do we wish to become?
YouTube - The Young Turks - The Daily Show Exposes 'Retarded' CEO Comments. I have grown increasingly disappointed in Mr. Schiff, his fiscal beliefs are simply stupid. He believes that we should eliminate the minimum wage and a reporter asked him if he would be good with people making $2 an hour, she could have said $2 a day and his answer would have been the same. He said he was good with that. She asked who he thought might only deserve $2 an hour and he said the mentally retarded.
YouTube - The Young Turks - Income Inequality ROCKS, says 'Shark Tank' Host Kevin O'Leary. 85 people in the whole world own as much as the bottom half of the population or roughly 3.5 BILLION people. By the way, many of those 85 people inherited their wealth and did nothing to create it.
If I were young, I would be screaming and yelling about the raw deal you are being given. The media tries to say it was the baby boomers or the illegal aliens or the Chines or whoever. Nope, it is the 85 people that have everything. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates actually made their money, not inherited wealth, personal brilliance and hard work and risk. I don't begrudge them what they have earned and admire them; but, I do begrudge people who have lied and cheated and stolen like J.P. Morgan.
There is a statistic being thrown around by a number of neo-conservatives that around 45% of the people don't pay income tax. It is the dumbest statistic that one could use. How many two year old's pay taxes? How many homeless pay income tax when they don't have an income other than what they can beg or recycle cans for? Anyone with a working class or middle class job knows that they are paying taxes and should know that they pay a higher percentage in taxes than the wealthy.
Personally, I am for a flat income tax. It could be 10% or 15% or whatever. If you make a $100,000, you pay $10,000. If you make $1,000,000 then you pay $100,000. Simple and requires no accountants. You pay as you benefit from society. Oddly enough I believe many on the far right would agree with me, though many would prefer to end income tax. Our taxes have given literally trillions in dollars to banks and other companies and they often pay $0 in taxes. Personally, I would rather feed the homeless than see my tax dollars go to bankers who ruined this economy and then used our taxes to pay themselves multi-million dollar bonuses. Does that make me a Communist, a liberal or a left winger? When did rationality and concern for the country as a whole stop being patriotic? Do you know what you call it when one person or a small family owns everything, you call it a monarchy.
UPDATE: You know what? Mr. Schiff could not have angered me more. What an idiot. To say that mentally retarded people are only worth $2.00 an hour really irks me. Actually, the mentally retarded do excellent at a number of jobs, especially jobs that require repetitious activity. When I was young and needed a job, I went to work in a cabinet making factory. Two employees, me and the owner. At the end of the first day, I got a 20% raise. I quit the job at the end of a week or two even though I was offered another raise. You will love the reason I quit. I spoke to the owner and said that we could hire people with mental deficiencies, get a tax break and that they made great employees. I thought they could do the simple things in assembly. As a craftsman I was assembling things that anyone could have. My value was in the use of the tools and my precision which saved on waste product. He told me he didn't want to be around retards and I quit. I didn't want to be around people like him who didn't care about others.
I believe we should match people to their abilities and wants. I met a young man once with a unique situation, he cannot see how the pieces fit together to achieve a goal. At least that is how it was explained to me and you know what, he is an amazing young man, very talented, very polite and very intentionally amusing. I have been thinking about what job would he best suited to for years. I thought about it and thought about it and concluded that he would be perfect for someone who was creating assembly lines and wanted to know what the smallest part of the job was that anyone could do. People pay a lot of money to create assembly lines and I have met some of them. What would having someone like him be worth when it could save you millions in design costs and redesign costs? I bet he would deserve more than $2 an hour; but, they would still only want to pay him that. They are not concerned about the value we contribute, they are concerned about how little they can give in return.
I think we need to create a situation where people can succeed, where the average person can get a fair return on their work investment. I have worked for over 40 years and gave up my health to do so. I did it because I thought it was best for my family. Economics is about supply and demand and there is no longer a demand for humans because of robotics and technology. They no longer need people like me and you, or so they think.
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Unemployment the numbers
Well "they" have just published the fact that 331,000 people lost their jobs last month. Read the older blogs and ask yourself why anyone should be surprised that people got laid off after the holidays. It happens every year. "They" say the good news is that they thought 340,000 would lose their jobs. Don't you understand how little Wall Street cares about you? They are worried about bonuses and not about jobs; but, they have missed the real game. Unemployment just dipped and is probably under 6.5% which means no more free money and no more taper. ROFL.
Finance, Pensions and the Post Office
I have been having some medical issues for the past couple of months and my doctor recently changed my medications and has assured me I will be better within a few days. As I am feeling better, I will write more.
Let's start with Katrina and what happened in New Orleans. In New Orleans people starved and were not helped, a lot different from what happened when New York and New Jersey had their equally difficult hurricane. On Long Island people complained they didn't have electricity and their food was going bad, in New Orleans they went without water and food. There is a big difference. Why were the two situations treated so differently?
Washington Post - Puerto Rico bonds downgraded to junk levels. Standard and Poors (one of the big four rating agencies) has downgraded Puerto Rico's bonds to junk level, this is one of the same companies who rated sub-prime mortgage derivatives to AAA, who cares what they say, they are liars. Ignore the rating and ask yourself who is going to make money from downgrading Puerto Rico's bonds. The effect of the rating will be to force Puerto Rico to pay more in interest on it's bonds.
Fox News - AP - Missouri attorney general challenges California egg law. Basically, California passed a law that said you could not sell eggs in the state unless the chickens had a certain size cage to live in. Now, I am no animal rights activist and enjoyed some chicken just tonight. I am more than happy to eat chicken and always want the best price I can get. Oddly enough, I also prefer to buy cage free chicken and am willing to pay more for it. Same for the eggs I buy. I love animals and own my dog; but, I don't like to see birds in cages. I think the ability to fly should not be stopped. I might eat a dove if it was all I had; but, I wouldn't cage it just to look at it. My opinion.
The real question regarding this law is whether or not one state can impose it's laws on another. That is the real issue, not the question of how animals are treated. The Constitution said that one state could not restrict interstate commerce against another. The original purpose of this was to prevent states from taxing goods from other states more than they taxed their own goods. Should California, which has the strongest rules regarding pollution in the nation, be allowed to say that you cannot sell products here unless the other state's factories have met the same standards even though their state does require them to?
A different result might be available if California required all egg producers and chicken producers to say on their packaging that they tortured animals to bring the food to them. That would not violate the interstate commerce laws. California is a state and not a nation.
Yahoo - New York Times - Welcome Relief for Homeowners, Then the Tax Bill. If you had your home foreclosed upon then you should read this. I lost my home years ago so it does not effect me for many reasons.
Yahoo - Reuters - U.S. service sector growth, hiring improves in January. This article claims that there has been more hiring. One reason why employment statistics are garbage is very simple. If I am fired, go on unemployment and then get a job the following month. How many people switch jobs each year? Think about it when you consider these numbers. Does it really mean that a new job was created?
Huffington Post - Post Office Banking Could Be the Start of Something Big. Keep an eye on this story. Firstly, I admire the post office and all it has done. It was created by Benjamin Franklin and changed the world and certainly contributed to America becoming what it was. They have not given up on finding ways to keep going and I tip my hat to them. Now, as for their becoming a bank, that is very interesting. They wish to provide banking services to those who don't currently have them. This, while not mentioned, is necessary if we are going to go to an all electronic currency. There has to be a way for the homeless and illegal aliens to have access to currency. Keep an eye on how this plays out.
Ourfuture.org - The Plot Against Our Pensions. If you have a pension or hope to get social security, read the article and understand what is going on.
Finally, Don Rickles is possibly the greatest stand up comic of all times. I have never laughed as hard as I did once when he was doing improvisation. YouTube - David Letterman June 18, 2013 Don Rickles, full interview. One of my favorite comedians is Rodney Dangerfield, always amusing and always scripted. YouTube - Rodney Dangerfield - The Tonight Show.
Let's start with Katrina and what happened in New Orleans. In New Orleans people starved and were not helped, a lot different from what happened when New York and New Jersey had their equally difficult hurricane. On Long Island people complained they didn't have electricity and their food was going bad, in New Orleans they went without water and food. There is a big difference. Why were the two situations treated so differently?
Washington Post - Puerto Rico bonds downgraded to junk levels. Standard and Poors (one of the big four rating agencies) has downgraded Puerto Rico's bonds to junk level, this is one of the same companies who rated sub-prime mortgage derivatives to AAA, who cares what they say, they are liars. Ignore the rating and ask yourself who is going to make money from downgrading Puerto Rico's bonds. The effect of the rating will be to force Puerto Rico to pay more in interest on it's bonds.
Fox News - AP - Missouri attorney general challenges California egg law. Basically, California passed a law that said you could not sell eggs in the state unless the chickens had a certain size cage to live in. Now, I am no animal rights activist and enjoyed some chicken just tonight. I am more than happy to eat chicken and always want the best price I can get. Oddly enough, I also prefer to buy cage free chicken and am willing to pay more for it. Same for the eggs I buy. I love animals and own my dog; but, I don't like to see birds in cages. I think the ability to fly should not be stopped. I might eat a dove if it was all I had; but, I wouldn't cage it just to look at it. My opinion.
The real question regarding this law is whether or not one state can impose it's laws on another. That is the real issue, not the question of how animals are treated. The Constitution said that one state could not restrict interstate commerce against another. The original purpose of this was to prevent states from taxing goods from other states more than they taxed their own goods. Should California, which has the strongest rules regarding pollution in the nation, be allowed to say that you cannot sell products here unless the other state's factories have met the same standards even though their state does require them to?
A different result might be available if California required all egg producers and chicken producers to say on their packaging that they tortured animals to bring the food to them. That would not violate the interstate commerce laws. California is a state and not a nation.
Yahoo - New York Times - Welcome Relief for Homeowners, Then the Tax Bill. If you had your home foreclosed upon then you should read this. I lost my home years ago so it does not effect me for many reasons.
Yahoo - Reuters - U.S. service sector growth, hiring improves in January. This article claims that there has been more hiring. One reason why employment statistics are garbage is very simple. If I am fired, go on unemployment and then get a job the following month. How many people switch jobs each year? Think about it when you consider these numbers. Does it really mean that a new job was created?
Huffington Post - Post Office Banking Could Be the Start of Something Big. Keep an eye on this story. Firstly, I admire the post office and all it has done. It was created by Benjamin Franklin and changed the world and certainly contributed to America becoming what it was. They have not given up on finding ways to keep going and I tip my hat to them. Now, as for their becoming a bank, that is very interesting. They wish to provide banking services to those who don't currently have them. This, while not mentioned, is necessary if we are going to go to an all electronic currency. There has to be a way for the homeless and illegal aliens to have access to currency. Keep an eye on how this plays out.
Ourfuture.org - The Plot Against Our Pensions. If you have a pension or hope to get social security, read the article and understand what is going on.
Finally, Don Rickles is possibly the greatest stand up comic of all times. I have never laughed as hard as I did once when he was doing improvisation. YouTube - David Letterman June 18, 2013 Don Rickles, full interview. One of my favorite comedians is Rodney Dangerfield, always amusing and always scripted. YouTube - Rodney Dangerfield - The Tonight Show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)