Obama's you-beaut new economic suit

 
[update]

-=*=-

Off-shoring jobs creates unemployment, long-term or short-term into lower-paid jobs.

Increasing productivity = getting more output from same or fewer workers or paying workers less in total - or both.

Increasing unemployment (US reported ~9% but more likely closer to 20%) shows direction. Increasing numbers onto food-stamps (~46mio), ditto.

With less income, people have less to spend (der...)

Purchases down mean increased profits can only come from wider margins.

Unless the workers' share goes up, the spiral-down will not stop, just cannot stop.

In a $14trio economy, $1trio spent on bombs-for-export = 7%, which when exploded remove that 'value' from the planet, along with all the innocent 'collateral' lives = murder. This 7% = outright loss, possibly 'compensated' for only if the US can 'harvest' much of the target countries' oil-income (Iraq, Libya (Iran next?), Afghanistan = pipelines, all = US hegemony targeted *at* Russia & China, *for* Israel.)

Of Obama's recent one-time $400bio economy goosing-proposal, only about $150bio is considered 'new' = might create things = 1% possible gain. Compare that to the 7% outright, year-on-year loss...

What else? The only other US exports I can see are from Boeing (more CO2 to f**k the planet's climate) and Microsoft (this article is being written on a lovely PC made in China, almost *crippled* by W7 = total s**t compared to XP, itself hardly problem-free.) Apple makes squillions on marking-up Chinese-made *toys* like iPods (an 8GB 'touch' sells for $10 less than my new netbook), iPhones (Yuppie-toys) & iPads (ditto but as a PC = very expensive, very poor joke.)

Oh, yeah, one other export = neoliberal economics (plus globalisation, supply-side, economic rationalism etc., Wall St. = casino; un-taxing the rich whilst strangling all less-well off = predator economics) - which is ruining the economies of most of rest of the world, as they 'ape' the 'great' US - idiots all.

-=*=-

More of the same?

The 2001 aggressive invasion of Afghanistan (Nuremberg-class), followed by the 2003 aggressive invasion of Iraq (also Nuremberg-class) did not help the US, nor any of its snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on (SQSH-Os) like the UK (and Aus, but Aus has mountains of minerals - for now). So why has the US+NATO, mainly F+UK, now done 'more of the same' = aggressive invasion (Nuremberg-class) to Libya?

US-aggressive-war is clearly (mainly, see hegemony + Israel above) only for $s - but the 1st two outrages did *not* appreciably better the economies of the attacker-countries, so what's up? Mainly-US predator economics seemingly can't live *without* war, but doesn't appear to benefit much *with* war either - more idiots.

Bush (the elder) called Reaganomics "voodoo," because (one thinks) he (+ advisors) could not understand how it might work. But now (been getting evidence all along; some was seen in advance), we have *proof* that it *doesn't* work - because most Western countries are descending into debt and other economic crises = chaos, suggested remedy = austerity (à la IMF SAPs - Perkins' "Economic Hit Man"), building & reinforcing a downward spiral. Looks to me like *no-one* understands it, even the head economist of the ECB has resigned in violent disagreement.

The proof is easy: IF neoliberalism worked THEN no crises. Hmmm?

-=*=-
^
Update 13:13; PS

There's an old expression: "Taxation is theft."

It *certainly* is, unless the money raised, every cent, is spent *responsibly*, on things which bring true benefit to the whole community, like water, sewage, electricity, public transport, roads, phones etc. - all the things capitalism failed at or didn't want 'back in the days,' and which means never to the benefit of anyone who does not strictly need 'community assistance.' Should be clear enough.

Just as "Taxation is theft" - except under strict conditions, so too "Privatisation is theft," where the benefit is *not* strictly to the entire community, exactly as for taxation.

Generally speaking, neoliberalism has skewed the taxation system to the benefit of one certain 'special interest' group = the mostly already (obscenely) rich. Privatisation has worked in exactly the same direction, adding costs (interest, bizarre 'management' fees and obscene CEO payments - whilst reducing employment), effectively robbing the community of egalitarian assets, whilst increasing the cost of the services - water, elec., etc. as above, at the same time reducing the availability (less or no preventative maintenance); if medicine for profit (privatising Medibank, say, or Medicare) - then it's approaching a Crime Against Humanity, and *is* a CAH if/when the poor simply cannot pay.

Again the proof is easy: The rich have made themselves filthy-richer.

THEN consider the 'democratic covenant,' whereby we, the people 'allow' representatives to 'govern' us, also, as for taxation, to the strict benefit of the *entire* community.

The representatives - from both 'sides' - bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic - have presided over the implementation of neoliberalism across 'the West,' with the consequences we can see, and some of us anticipated from '1st sight,' having been Thatcherism + Reaganism, morphed to neoliberalism and its fellow-travellers.

The representatives have put themselves beyond democracy, repeat bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic, and have thus turned themselves into both tyrants and our, we the people's enemy.

[«back»]

Declining Household Income
Real household income has fallen by about 10 percent since the start of the last recession, with a greater decline after the recession ended.

grinding our democracy (as mortally wounded as it is) -> *all* the way down into the dust

The mining industry does not fear the MRRT; they are continuing to expand, also as they continue to ship 83% of their obscenely fat profits o/s = the (BIG) lions' share our patrimony gone, lost to us forever.

Citizens have been assured that they will not lose from the carbon tax, but the world will lose big-time if excess CO2 emissions are not reversed ASAP.

Abbott, Hockey, Pine & Co will cripple medicare & flog off medibank, re-introduce a more savage SerfChoices and discover a 'massive budget black hole' which will 'force' = enable them to sink Aus into austerity. If Cameron is doing it to England, Merkel wants to do it to Greece, why shouldn't Abbott want to do it to Aus? He/they will; it's a 'natural' part of neoliberalism = rip the people off, and depress their conditions.

Keep dreaming, pro-Liberal 'rebels' = rabble, just like in Libya.

Yes, you will be 'free' of Labor, this will assassinate them for a generation. But like a dog chasing a car, you don't know what to do (= will have done to you), when you catch it.

After the hung-parliament election, we watched Abbott's month-long tantrum in awe, then watched him + the Libs spit about great, big, new taxes, now the desperation of the Thomson pursuit.

What do they really want; put cui bono into reverse; what is Labor doing that's sooo bad? The Libs' pressure leaves no time to govern = actually run the country; this is worse than the Murdoch-led "Get Whitlam at any price" jihad. Problem for the Libs is that their haste is unseemly, and their methodology deeply injurious...

Lib = Lab in many ways; our democracy is mortally wounded by a) the deliberate dumbing down of the (risible) 'debate,' b) the deliberate lies told by most politicians, and c) the arrogance and out of controledness of representatives once elected, see this:

"Many federal politicians who have spoken about the views of their constituents on gay marriage say they resent being told how to do their job."

Allow me to remind them that their job is to implement the will of the majority while protecting all minorities, *not* just doing as they please. That's in the democratic covenant; representatives acting independent of their electorates' collective wishes are breaking the democratic law = are being outlaws. Tumbrels.

As corrupt as both sides are, nothing quite matches the viciousness of the Libs, they and neoliberalism have far more in common that just a similar name.

Abbott's next wail: "Rinse her blood off my toga!"

Amoral political thug.

it's the oil, stupid! well, of course it was plus US hegemony, as usual via bombs

.. the pen ...

  .. is mightier ...

    .. than the sword (so they say - proof, please)

Musing, 1: I term myself a seeker of truth and an advocate for justice. I explain this in terms of inner-equilibrium; lies and injustice make me feel bad, so I try to minimise these bad feelings by pointing out the more egregious examples (come in, Sisyphus.)

Musing, 2: There is a tendency to favour 'the underdog,' it 'connects' with (M1) above. In the recent rape of Libya, Gaddafi was definitely at a disadvantage, but I favoured him for other reasons, including a) anyone opposing 'the great Satan' must be far more correct than not, b) Libya had the highest HDI in Africa and c) the Great Man-Made River ... "a network of pipes that supplies water to the Sahara Desert in Libya, from the Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System fossil aquifer. It is the world's largest irrigation project."

Gaddafi built it for 'his' people; no loans, not neo-liberalised. Yet.

"Today, high oil revenues and a small population give Libya one of the highest GDPs per capita in Africa and have allowed the Libyan state to provide an extensive level of social security, particularly in the fields of housing and education."

Now, change that to "Until the US+NATO bombardment ..."

-=*=-

Apart from the 120 or so cruise missiles, seemingly 'hastily' fired due to Sarkozy jumping the gun, the US took a low-profile (but high-power, 'back-room' directing) part in the 2nd oily "shock'n whore" in eight years (over 5 mths = slow-motion), but the damage - so far not shown to us - is, I expect, roughly comparable. A Gaddafi spokesperson was heard, 'they smashed everything. Everything.' Enough from me, get much more here:

Middle East
Aug 26, 2011
THE ROVING EYE
Sweet crude of mine
By Pepe Escobar
  «Meanwhile, from Benghazi to European capitals, the dancing is to the tune of a Guns 'n Roses megahit, now rebranded Sweet Crude of Mine. France and Germany are already pressing the "NATO rebels" leadership for juicy deals, Italy starts today (Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is meeting Jalil in Milan) and the Brits and the Americans are about to join the fray.» 
[atimes/Escobar]

Comment: Sad. Outrageous. That this tolerated is beyond me; the level of immorality of the US+NATO (F+UK et al.) and the un-protesting world is truly shocking. Words fail me.

gratuitous greed cretinous competition recipe for downright disaster

.. a crime ...

  .. is a crime ...

    .. is a crime, ad infinitum

-=*=-

Preamble; Balzac: Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime oublié, parce qu'il a été proprement fait.

wikiquote: The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is a crime forgotten, for it was properly done.

Me: The secret of great fortunes without apparent cause is some cunning, undiscovered crimes.

Discussion: Although "oublié" translates as "forgotten," it can't be correct since that contradicts "secret." Same with "proprement," a properly-done crime is an *initially* successful execution; the cunning[1] comes in with the undiscovered = permanent invisibility of the exploit. Also, one could replace "is" with "may be," conceding some (tiny) allowance for luck (since 'good management' would contradict "without apparent cause").

Note: Whatever; but a crime is a crime, discovered or not. End preamble.
 
[update 1, update 2]

-=*=-

Background: When I 1st heard 'greed is good,' I nearly had an attack of the vapours: How dare they?!! Then I heard that it came from an Hollywood film, as if that might be some sort of excuse. Well, we do know that Hollywood + TV portray all possible perversions over time, and here is a quote:

  «I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! The point is, ladies and gentlemen, that greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms: greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA. Thank you very much.» 
[wikiquote/Gordon_Gekko]

Comment: That worked out well, didn't it? The USA bit, I mean.

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Aug 17, 2011
Ben's promises are empty
By Martin Hutchinson
  «There are two opposing positions on government spending stimulus: the Keynesian position that it stimulates economic growth generally and the Austrian position that by crowding out the private sector it substitutes less efficient for more efficient use of resources and hence retards growth.» 
[atimes/Hutchinson]

Comment: A nice, illustrative summary. Another extract is needed:

  «The Keynesian theory of fiscal stimulus, under which random government spending stimulates the economy, is bolstered by one enormous hidden advantage: Keynesians designed the principal measure of economic output, gross domestic product - or GDP.
Unlike private-sector output, which is measured by what markets are actually prepared to pay for something, government output is measured purely on a cost basis, with no accounting for that output's value. Thus if a dozy government wastes $1 billion on rubbish of no value, GDP is said to be increased by $1 billion. Naturally, with that kind of "cooking the books", stimulus can appear to stimulate.
It would be grossly unfair to say that no government output had any value. Indeed the most basic functions of government, national security and the preservation of order, often have a value far in excess of their cost, as sufferers from last week's British riots have discovered.» 
[ibid.]

Comment: Now we start to see bias writ large; "random government spending," ... "if a dozy government wastes $1 billion on rubbish of no value..." There's another error here, namely a purported dollar for dollar GDP increase; this ignores the multiplier. I saw an estimate of 1.5 recently, on the low side (I learnt about 2.5), but possible if spending 'leaks' into imports (from off-shore - exactly where lots of jobs went). One more extract:

  «Nevertheless, many government functions have far less value than their cost; if this were not the case, they would already be provided by the free market, without any government intervention at all. Naturally, those government functions carried out as a result of an unplanned "stimulus" to boost an economy out of recession will tend to be less valuable than average, since if a need for them had been seen earlier they would already have been included in the annual budget.» 
[ibid.]

Comment: As usual, fallacious arguments may contain true bits, like the bit starting with: "It would be grossly unfair" - but that is both a debating trick and a method of smuggling in more bias ("most basic;" see 'thuggish' below), then "if a need for them had been seen earlier" is outright misleading; often stimulus program-items have long languished in bottom-drawers, for the lack of budget priority.

Comment: Another attribute of the erring ideology (of the anti-government spending mob), is that they tend to condemn govt. as a whole (apart from their 'pet favourites,' like ever more thuggish police and the Pentagon's ultra-expensive toys and murdering for spoil military 'adventures,' and supporting criminal Zs.) Another also, Obama's 'stimulus' spending went mostly to bail-out the banks who caused the GFC and to supporting otherwise unsupportable entities like GM - rather than on useful infrastructure, say, whereby the hapless workers get jobs + $s they spend 100% of (multiplier), and afterwards, the country has 'something in the hand' - as with TVA, or national highway system, etc..

Backing up a bit, we see this: "crowding out the private sector it substitutes less efficient ..." - a, if not the, key argument; too bad that it too is fallacious. It's a govt. function to provide needed services that the private sector *won't* take on, and the argument is self-destroyed by the private sector's feral lust to privatise govt. entities. See Chicago's parking meters.

Swish! - Occam's razor-time.

If we date neoliberalism to Thatcher(1979+)/Reagan(1981+), she of "TINA!" and "there is no such thing as society," and he of "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," we can see not much else but decline; a decline in the people's wages, conditions and service-deliveries, accompanied by the (mostly already) rich getting (ever more obscenely) richer. Recall that we don't do coincidences, and even if we some day might, this poor -> poorer and rich -> richer ain't one, not by a looong chalk. It may be that neoliberalism grew out of Friedman's monetarism, the 'Chicago School,' 'Harvard Boys' or any/all those & more, but wherever (the hell) it came from, what we *do not* hear much of is a) argument against it, let alone b) ways to correct its failures. Because fail it has, most spectacularly. Looks to me like most if not all the economic theories now in vogue are failing. Risk management? Sure, and there goes another stock-exchange crash. (US) house-prices? Crashing. Unemployment? Through the roof, along with medical costs, most other costs (privatised electricity, petrol, say. What was that Rupert? Iraq war = $20,- oil? Bah, and apologist/supporters of crime are considered equally guilty, via the 'accessory' mechanism.)

Another quote from Reagan: "I believe there are legitimate government functions." Bewdy; me too, mate; and those functions have to be properly funded. Problem is that government spending has become an 'easy' target; far too easy, any fool can (promise to) cut taxes, look no further than Abbott.

Swish! - Occam's razor again.

My point; fazit #1: Greed was *never* good (however as a 'driver,' it might work for some). Certainly, it is *not* anywhere near the top of the Darwinian pyramid, recall that human civilisation got its biggest boost with farming = collective, cooperative efforts. Cooperation is clearly preferable to confrontation - the latter being the only neoliberal menu item on offer to us, we the sheople. The ideal, so-called 'free' markets are as good as never free; see the "What's in it for me" voter-seduction/begging, and the myriad exceptions demanded via the lobbyocracy = corrupt political process. Our politicians lie to us, conduited and *actively assisted* by the venal MSM, incl. 'our' AusBC. Doing anything 'for profit' is a virtual guarantee of getting profit ahead of performance, they'll even tell you 'by law;' their task being to produce 'shareholder value' above all else - possibly deadly, if the for profit service is medicine. (No money or credit card? Sorry; and try not to get blood on our carpet on your way out.)

Swish! - Occam's razor, the last for now.

The calls for austerity, heard from almost every corner, are illustrating the bankruptcy of thought 'in power.' Like the old one about crims; Q: Why do they try to rob banks? A: Because that's where the money is. Which, coincidentally, is where lots of rich keep their dough. Wanna 'balanced budget?' - Tax the rich. Hard, but fair[2].

-=*end*=-
^
Update 110822, 08:18; PS Ah, yes. The moral aspect ... in the 1st instance, any moral condemnation, however 'well'-deserved, will bring nothing (but must be made, loud & clear), since the shadowy true rulers order mass-slaughters [Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.] and not only tolerate vile crime, they actually encourage it [Israel, etc.]; they will in turn only respond to force. Speaking of Libya, the rogue-regimes of the US (300mio), France (65mio) & England (50mio) must feel inordinately proud of themselves, having laid waste to Libya (6.5mio) in almost exactly 5 months. Well done US+NATO, a certain Reich would be more than impressed; you have 'well'-earned the next number up (=4th) ...

[«back»]

-=*=-
^
Update 110822, 15:21; PPS I had to do a bit on Libya this morning, as my entry into mourning on Libya's behalf. Wiki: "Libya had the highest HDI in Africa;" since the UN+NATO destroyed Gaddafi (plus his society) for *nothing but $s*, the 'Libyan in the street' may expect some 'slight' fall in general living standards. Oh! Recall Thatcher: "... there is no such thing as society" - especially after such a "shock'n whore;" could be likened to shooting camels from a helicopter - but here it was hi-tech NATO against relatively peaceful, after the US 120 cruise missile assault, essentially unarmed Arabs.

...

But I should get back to the greed/crime theme; switching to another atimes article's concluding remarks:

  «Wall Street was the enabler, but Main Street was the addict. Americans stopped saving as long as home prices rose; when home prices started to fall, they started saving again.
...
That is why the national narrative that Westen proposes is ill-informed, innumerate, vituperous, malicious and false. American households levered a $6 trillion net inflow of foreign savings during the decade 1998 through 2007 into a bubble that benefited them far more than it did Wall Street. The impact of the bubble on the household balance sheet exceeds the growth in real-estate assets, moreover, because most small business expansion followed the housing bubble.
Americans, as I argued on August 2 (The collapse of America's middle class Asia Times Online, August 2) must adapted to a technology-driven global economy, after a decade and a half of riding the crest of the savings tsunami that flooded American markets during the bubble years.» 
[atimes,Spengler]

Comment: Phew! Strong words (repeat; "ill-informed, innumerate, vituperous, malicious and false"); talk about bad manners, then blaming the victim. The theme morphs from the govt. planning (more the lack of, or outright error of) to the sheople, their relationship to business, the economy & and here, house-prices. The people must adapt (as if they had some choice), the people are to be *blamed* for housing inflation, blah, blah. Spengler also blames 'cheap imported $s,' causing another near-attack of the vapours. So-called 'cheap imported $s' are also implicated in Aus, but there is a vast difference; for the US they are printed $s being pushed back (nothing much else to do with them), in Aus they are sought after. In both cases, the interest leaves the country, but single-dwelling purchasers cannot benefit (until the final cash-out, perhaps). In the US 'no-doc' (=toxic) loans were a big factor, in Aus it was primarily Howard/Costello's ½CGT, plus the exhortation to 'create wealth.'

Swish! - Occam's still around.

My point; fazit #2: I've no doubt at all, that the 'Wall St. Wizards' think their greed is justified, even inside the law - or at the very least, know that there are no cops on their tail. Law is a construct anyway, and with the law-makers in Wall St.'s pockets, the law can be anything they want it to be. No one talks about justice or morals (except me'n me mates perhaps); but the simple fact is that the rich, mostly already so, just can't get enough, and what they're grabbing is from us, we the sheople (zero-sum 'game').

[«back»]

Ref(s):

[1] cunning  -adj. (-er, -est) 1 deceitful, clever, or crafty. 2 ingenious (cunning device). ... cunningly adv. [Old Norse: related to *can1] [POD]

[2] fair1  -adj. 1 just, equitable; in accordance with the rules. [ibid.] 

capitalism's showcase the stock exchange is a gambling-den

.. infested ...

  .. by speculators ...

    .. and outright swindlers

Thesis/Subtitle: Total failure of our so-called 'leadership' & economic system..
 
[update 1, update 2 (a bewdy).]

-=*=-

Trigger article:

Shares resume slide on US, Europe financial fears
Online business reporter Michael Janda
Updated August 19, 2011 18:59:14
  «More than $40 billion was wiped off the value of the market - the 3.5 per cent sell-off driven by a combination of weak US economic data and initial moves by Germany and France to introduce a financial transactions tax.
...
The net result of overnight action was a widespread return to the view that the US and Europe would double-dip into recession.
...
ANZ posted $4.2 billion in underlying profits for the nine months to June, a rise of 16 per cent on the previous year, but its profit growth had slowed in the third quarter due to consumer caution about borrowing.
...
ANZ's shares slipped 4.5 per cent to $19.50, while its main rivals posted falls between 2.9 and 3.6 per cent.» 
[AusBC/'news']

Comment 1: Oh, dear! 'The market' is crashing - again? No, still.

Comment 2: Note "introduce a financial transactions tax;" it's always amused me that 'the pundits' offer some reason for 'market' movements - as if they could divine the mood of the (investor/speculator) masses (imagine eye-shades, smoky back-rooms), but this one additionally illustrates a propaganda technique, namely pointing the finger at something they don't like, laying the ground-work: “Well, just proposing xx caused a mini-market-melt-down, so we'd better not have any of that!”

Comment 3: The perverse reaction (= falling stock price) resulting from a +ve report (namely a 16% profit-rise as compared to last year) - illustrates the *irrationality* of the (investor/speculator) 'players.'

-=*=-

It gets worse. The 'transactions tax' is aimed largely at computer-trading, whereby computer programs written by the self-termed 'masters of the financial universe' monitor 'the market' (sometimes by outright illegal means, like seeing a big buy/sell order before execution, then trading in advance = insider-trading), exploiting any and all 'market' movements (sometimes quite small), with the clear intention of capitalising on those movements - and, note, thus 'skimming' any potential profit from more conventional trades. So far, (not) so good.

Then we get a few more true nasties, namely short-selling (including the 'naked' variety), and various 'derivatives' - like the CFDs I mentioned here. These nasties are more or less bets, noting that even if 'minimal,' a bet is still a bet = gambling.

More on betting; they say on the one hand, that the EU is coming under pressure, and on the other that speculators are active, not quite making the connection, namely that speculators are gambling against EU countries (PIIGS), and thus the EU itself - actually making an EU-crash more likely. What I don't know and can't imagine, is who these speculators are making their bets with; i.e. who are the mugs taking on the losing side of the bets?

Actually, we can sometimes see such mugs at work; both the Japanese & Swiss 'authorities' have made recent steps to 'protect' their currencies, in direct contradiction of so-called 'free market' theory, and especially in the Swiss case, an impossible task - 7mio Swiss trying to 'fight' the speculators from 300mio US & 500mio EU? Hopeless.

A neoliberal 'article of faith' is that 'the market' is all-knowing; apart from being an obvious absurdity on its face, the irrationality mentioned above disproves it. In like manner, most of neoliberalism can be disproved - yet our so-called 'leadership' continues to push the erring neoliberal ideology upon us, we the long-suffering sheople.

It only takes a moment's reflection on the growing numbers of unemployed, the similarly growing numbers in poverty, and the growing numbers lacking health-insurance (all especially so in the US), the general fear almost everywhere (keywords jobs! Jobs! Jobs!), the deliberately caused house-price inflation (Howard/Costello's ½CGT, say) - to see that since Thatcher/Reagan, things have been getting seriously buggered.

-=*=-

It gets even worse. The lessons learnt from 1929++, the measures developed to recover from the resulting depression, and the measures developed to prevent a recurrence of both have *deliberately* been ignored, negated and/or dismantled.

The stock market and associated banksters, plus a few other hangers-on (insurance, real-estate manipulators) form what's called the FIRE-sector. It is this sector which is *deliberately* destroying our economy, via depredations such as globalisation (= wage depression/job emigration), in addition to their erring neoliberal ideology (privatisations, down-sizing, leaning&meaning) and other terms like 'supply-side' and 'economic rationalism.' Starting sometime before/around/with Thatcher/Reagan, the rich via their agents have pushed the economy further towards a cliff, making life hell for the average wo/man in the street. All deliberate, all planned - with the connivance and active assistance of our so-called political 'leadership' - from both of the mainly two-party 'sides,' noting that bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic. In fact, these people doing us wrong, all mentioned in this paragraph - are our, we the sheople's enemies.
^
Update 110820, 10:51; PS It's not all doom & gloom; some 'people of substance' can see what's wrong, and offer ways out. But 1st, a little aside: There are two words one should be reluctant to deploy, namely 'unbelievable' and 'unacceptable.' Although it may be 'scarcely believable' that such villainy as neoliberalism could be forced upon us by our so-called 'leaders' = 'representatives,' it is nevertheless happening - and besides, believing is defined as 'accepting in the absence of evidence.' Although having neoliberalism forced upon us is definitely not acceptable, it's up to us, we the people to stop it. Sooo, here is a little reading-list containing both back-up for what I have written above (= substantiation), and practical suggestions to 'improve' the world's economic performance. To pre-empt a bit, allow me to repeat one of my 'moral planks,' namely 'do no harm,' and remind that we're all in this together; if a greedy minority were to destroy our world's comfortable life-support system, it's down the tor-let for us all. I locate the error to before/around/with Thatcher/Reagan; apart from "TINA!" (but there always was and still is), Thatcher said: "... there is no such thing as society" (but there is, ditto). Too many 'followed' Thatcher/Reagan, it's a big part of why we're in such a mess. And note that when the mess comes home to roost (recent London riots, say), the reaction from Cameron is the same as all along from our rulers, namely more and vicious repression - again, obviously wrong. The list, publ-time-ordered:

September 6, 2009
How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?
By PAUL KRUGMAN
  «When it comes to the all-too-human problem of recessions and depressions, economists need to abandon the neat but wrong solution of assuming that everyone is rational and markets work perfectly.» 
[nyt/Krugman]

Comment: Plus, factor in greed and fraud, and note that if criminals can get away with theft, they will = restore proper regulation, and totally ostracise all immorality.

America for Sale: An Exclusive Excerpt from Matt Taibbi’s New Book on the Economic Meltdown
  «Our cash-strapped country is auctioning off its highways, ports and even parking meters, finding eager buyers ...» 
[rollingstone/Taibbi]

Comment: "Cash-strapped" primarily because of tax-cuts, and those mainly off the rich. Any idiot can perform or promise tax-cuts - as Abbott shows us, ad nauseam. The problem is that there are *required* services which cannot be cut; *someone* (= the 'neoliberal' user, as opposed to the community) has to pay, which ignores egalitarian processes, extra unemployment and the introduced interest and gross management payouts; privatise to 'for profit' and expect profit before performance, possibly 'deadly' when it's medicine.

Why Banks Aren't Lending: The Silent Liquidity Squeeze
Friday 15 July 2011
  «Alone among states, North Dakota had the wherewithal to keep credit moving to small businesses when they needed it most. BND's business lending actually grew from 2007 to 2009 (the tightest months of the credit crisis) by 35 percent.» 
[truth-out/Brown]

Comment: Truly intriguing; fiat $s are 'printed' at no cost but are loaned out at interest; if the state collects that interest it can use it to pay for *required* services and simultaneously provide the $s for the borrowers to pay their interest-bill, a 'balanced' circulation is possible and an inflation-rate of *zero* targeted, at the same time as lightening the tax 'burden.' May sound like magic, but works very well, for the fortunate North Dakotans. Yes, this implies nationalising the banks - and defeating rogue banksters' depredations at a stroke. No bad thing.

The Market Has Spoken: Austerity Is Bad for Business
by Ellen Brown
August 6, 2011
  «The budget crisis is an artificial one, and the current “solution” will only guarantee a deeper recession and more widespread suffering. Rather than obsessing over deficits and debt, the government needs to turn its focus to jobs, sales and quality of life.» 
[globalresearch/Brown]

Comment: The smart-arse US (plus snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on) are attempting to defeat some of the immutable laws of the universe, such is their hubris. Of course, it's a fools' errand, but they have the guns - which implies armed theft; pretty close, and see my 'the world's worst terrorists.' Economically, they have in their sights welfare $s = socialism, treated as communism = a disease (in their minds, and as one 'economic argument' they point to Stalin's and/or Pol Pot's murdering and no, that makes no sense at all); other targets are Marx, Fordism & JMK = Keynesian theories. Austerity is not just bad for business, it is guaranteed to make things far, far worse - and is a condemnation of those who are trying to force it, being IMF, the target's own politicians or externals like Merkel & Sakozy et al.. The only viable countervailing solution to austerity may be tumbrels for the push-perpetrators.

Economic Hubris - Fixing the economy: We got it wrong
by Prof. James K. Galbraith
August 15, 2011
  «To go further, let's admit that our problem is not budget deficits or public debt — not now and not later. Let's agree that cutting Social Security and Medicare — inflicting pointless pain on the elderly — will not help. Let's build a new financial system to serve public purpose and private business. And let's start to act on our actual needs and problems: jobs, foreclosures, public investments, energy security and climate change.» 
[globalresearch/Galbraith(son)]

Comment: Sound words.

August 19 - 21, 2011
Guard-Dogs for the Banks
The Case Against Rating Agencies
By MICHAEL HUDSON
  «To acquiescence in such economically destructive financial behavior is the opposite of fiscal responsibility. Cutting federal taxes and Social Security payments to obtain a more positive S&P “opinion” would give banks an ability to “pull the plug” and force privatization and anti-labor austerity plans by refraining from rolling over the U.S. debt – and cutting taxes Tea-Party style rather than funding spending by taxation on a pay-as-you-go-basis.» 
[counterpunch/Hudson]

Comment: As usual; one should read all of the citations through - I did; not all may be pertinent and/or correct - but it's better than nothing, and nothing would be far better than neoliberalism - which is killing our economies, for all except the rich, super-rich & the obscenely rich.

The obvious place to start is to tax those rich back to reality, and restore social justice - even if that gets up the greedies' collective nose & bugger Reagan, Thatcher and all such neoliberal tyrants.

[«back»]
^
Update 110820, 14:21; PPS Examine this 'just in' one, at your leisure:

Titanic Battle or Insider Trading?
The S&P Downgrade and the Bilderbergers: All Part of the Plan?
by Ellen Brown
August 18, 2011
  «The latest bet was made on July 21 on trades of 5,370 ten-year Treasury futures and 3,100 Treasury bond futures, reported ETF Daily News.
Now the investor’s gamble seems to have paid off after Standard and Poor’s issued a credit rating downgrade from AAA to AA+ last Friday.
Whoever it is stands to earn a 1,000 per cent return on their money, with the expectation that interest rates will be going up after the downgrade.
...
The Securities Exchange Commission announced on August 8 that it is investigating the downgrade. According to the Financial Times, the move is part of a preliminary examination into potential insider trading.
Whatever can be said about the first two weeks of August, their market action was unprecedented, unnatural, and bears close observation.» 
[globalresearch/Brown]

Comment: Have to laugh; includes/extends themes above + here, here, here & here. Note the word "bet," and the possible return; again one poses the Q: Who takes up the losing side of such bets, why, and in this case, how can they possibly pay up? Tip: Never gamble, if you can't afford to lose.

After you've read it all, make you go 'hmmm?'

[«back»]

the world's worst terrorists mostly infest the middle east as aggressive invaders, murdering for spoil

 .. Afghanistan - pipelines ...

  .. Iraq, Libya - oil ...

    .. Israel - soil

Thesis/Subtitle: If the boot fits, wear it.
 
[update]

-=*=-

The definitions of invade[1] and aggression[2] could not be clearer; IF some armed entity crosses a border inbound and proceeds to plunder, pillage, ransack, loot etc. the hapless target country, THEN there is neither excuse nor other words for it, it's criminal on the Nuremberg scale.

It's what the Zionists did and are still doing to Palestine following UNGA181; latest after Plan Dalet and the Deir Yassin massacre, the world community should have intervened and banished the aggressively invading Zionists back to whence they came. Elementary justice demands that be done.

It's what the US plus sycophants did and are still doing to Afghanistan following 9/11 (itself a whole topic of its own; three towers can *not* fall unassisted - no, not jet-planes, but pre-planted explosives); the US intent was even pre-publicised: 'Carpet of gold or bombs!'

It's what the US plus sycophants UK + Aus et al. did and are still doing to Iraq following a lying 'WMD' propaganda campaign.

It's what the US plus NATO sycophants F + UK et al. did and are still doing to Libya following an half-arsed 'revolution' and a lying 'protect civilians' propaganda campaign.

Fazit: There is no effective international law - the proof is obvious.

There are only smash and grab criminals (US, Z rogue regimes plus snivelling quisling sycophants) murdering for spoil.

The big question is Q: Why is this tolerated?

-=*end*=-
^
Update 110820, 08:15; PS Israeli terrorism did not end on Nakba Day, but has been relatively constant since the alien invading Zionists 'invented' modern terrorism; see outrages like King David Hotel bombing (91 people were killed and 46 were injured) and USS Liberty (killed 34 and wounded more than 170 crew members). Today we hear on our morning radio news bulletin that the IDF is performing revenge attacks on the hapless ELO/Os trapped in the open-air prison that is Gaza. The Zs are a primitive bunch, self-proclaimed victims of persecution who have now completely assumed the mantle of their persecutors; they have transformed themselves from victims to perpetrators of evil. What one can do is a total BDS against Israel, and it would not harm to inform any/all Js of your acquaintance that IL behaviour is depravedly criminal, and (repeat) that the aggressively invading Zionists and descendants should leave Palestine to return to whence they came, and revest all improperly alienated land & property = *all* of IL. That the UN, US, UK et al. do not terminate IL criminality and grant justice to IL's victims is a mark of utter corruption.

[«back»]

-=*=-

Ref(s):

[1] invade  v. (-ding) (often absol.) 1 enter (a country etc.) under arms to control or subdue it. 2 swarm into. 3 (of a disease) attack. 4 encroach upon (a person's rights, esp. privacy).  invader n. [Latin vado vas- go] [POD]

[2] aggression  n. 1 unprovoked attacking or attack. 2 hostile or destructive behaviour. [Latin gradior gress- walk] [ibid.]
 

'making' $s sounds good like turning lead into gold

.. investing ...

  .. or gambling ...

    .. with your savings

Thesis/Subtitle: Money doesn't grow on trees - does it?

-=*=-

Trigger article:

ASIC seeks more disclosure on CFDs
Finance reporter Alicia Barry
Updated August 12, 2011 15:54:25
  «The corporate regulator is cracking down on providers of complex financial products called 'contracts for difference'.
CFDs, as they are known, allow investors to effectively bet on the price movement of a financial asset, without owning a share of that asset.
...
On a separate issue of financial market control, the corporate regulator says its not going to follow Europe's lead and ban short selling to reduce market volatility.
Short selling allows investors to effectively make bets on the price of stocks falling.» 
[AusBC/'news']

Comment 1: Note the keyword: "Bet" = risk a sum of money on the result of a race, contest, etc. [POD]

Comment 2: 'Short selling' is where an 'investor' borrows a stock from someone then sells it to some 3rd, in the 'hope' (expectation?) that the price will fall, so the investor can buy the stock back and return it, pocketing the difference (less the cost of the borrowing, typically the interest on the 'value' of the borrowed stock, but as low as the interest on the deposit made with the original owner, if that owner allows 'deposit only' borrowing, aka a sort of 'leveraging.') The risk the investor takes is if the stock goes up; the hoped-for profit turns to loss, again the difference in price, plus the borrowing-costs. Another name for 'short selling' is speculation. It helps the speculator, of course, if the fall in price is assured = no risk! (Like insider-trading, say.) No discussion here of where any 'profit' might came from, i.e. who loses.

The next step is 'naked short selling,' whereby the borrowing is omitted and what's exchanged is nothing but a promise to deliver some 'asset;' if the turn-around is fast enough, no actual asset is needed. Naked short selling looks like CFDs and probably is not just 'like' but actually is; note that one of the ways to bamboozle people is to give some shonky racket a fancy, complicated name.

Observation 1: This story tells us that the ASIC allows gambling on the stock exchange.

Observation 2: This story also tells us, based on the timing, that gambling had a non-trivial part in the latest stock exchange crash; not stated is if gambling was all or part of the cause, or 'merely' all or part side-effect.

Observation 3: Gambling is deliberate exposure to risk; not something that I wish to have associated with my savings = part of our family's life support system.

-=*=-

More? - CFDs are 'derivatives,' not 'real' = physical things, but 'things based on things,' i.e. derived, hence the name. Easy? Well, the next step is to consider not just derivatives, but the 'money' used to trade them, as also 'not real' therefore virtual, and the fact that total derivative trading is estimated at some figure like 500Trio = orders of magnitude more than the GDP of the entire world, then this might explain why 'the Fed' stopped publishing the M3 statistic; it was becoming 'polluted' with some of these 'virtual $s.'

A big part of the recent GFC were 'derivatives gone wrong,' and one part-solution was the bank bailouts; those plus other 'fiddles' (the QEs, say, but more and not so visible) - are reputed to have 'pumped' something in the order of 15Trio into 'the financial system,' effectively replacing lost bets made largely in virtual $s - by 'real' $s, putting real in quotes because the Fed merely created the 15Trio on a computer keyboard = conjured it out of thin air. But recall that $s are fungible, which means that it is hard-to-impossible to discern between real $s & virtual $s.

Side note: With all these $Trios floating around, it's no wonder that the stock exchange goes mostly up. Think of unending supplies of 'funny money,' then think how hard you have to work, and how even harder it is to save for your non-working future.

Recently I used the term 'PPT' without explaining it; it stands for 'Presidential Plunge Team,' and means some shadowy US agency which can act as 'buyer of last resort' in an attempt to halt big slides on the stock exchange. Note that they don't even have to have any real $s, they can just keep buying, then selling again on the way up. IF it goes up, that is; Murphy tells us that if something can happen THEN it eventually will = one day, the crashing stock exchange simply won't recover, no matter how it's 'goosed.'