On a truly terrible day for the markets I have finally happened upon a decent description of fractional reserve banking, one of the major problems with the current financial system.
I've been an occasional follower of Positive money but while their ideas seem fairly decent their videos are terrible.
Happily the Zeitgeist Movement of all things have made a very good lecture about it.
Towards the hour mark things go off the rails slightly but it is consistently a sound analysis of a barely known issue. Their proposed solution is... less sound, being a kind of magical technical centrally planned economy. Though as the guy giving the lecture points out at the end, the current system is way more absurd than that.
Oh and in another unexpected turn arch-conservative David Frum has kinda almost paid Paul Krugman a compliment and again here. We are living in strange times.
Showing posts with label Finance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Finance. Show all posts
Thursday, 4 August 2011
Wednesday, 27 July 2011
Defaultgeddon: More good articles
The articles I post here pretty much show for certain that there wont be a default but still, for ease of lumping the topics together I've kept the same title
Yesterday I posted a short FAQ that was one of the best explanations of the debt ceiling farce so far. In a discussion on Buzz I was caused to ask if there are any longer form articles that give a description of a similar quality. Thanks to a mix of hanging out in a Something Awful thread and checking various sites I regularly do a day later I have an embarrassment of riches on the subject.
This fairly short article by Dean Baker explains how the debt ceiling arguments are just being used as a cover by both Republicans and Democrats, especially Obama, to force austerity measures on America and gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security at the behest of their corporate overlords.
Given the stealth Bi-partisan support for this Americans really are screwed.
Michael Hudson has written a longer piece that focuses on the great amount of effort Obama has put in to destroying as much of FDR's legacy as he possibly can.
Speaking of FDR, Richard D Wolff has written an article examining the nature of the Keynesian softening of Capitalism that was required to save Capitalism. Essentially the Welfare State and the New Deal were part of a system to keep Capitalism going and protect the rich from popular anger when the system is experiencing one of its' major crisis. However in order to maintain this buffer and protect the rich governments incurred greater deficits because the rich and powerful didn't want to pay the tax necessary to maintain it. Now public debt has gotten so large the elite want deficit reduced. Thus the buffer that keeps people relatively safe and relatively quiet is being removed. Interesting times loon.
Yesterday I posted a short FAQ that was one of the best explanations of the debt ceiling farce so far. In a discussion on Buzz I was caused to ask if there are any longer form articles that give a description of a similar quality. Thanks to a mix of hanging out in a Something Awful thread and checking various sites I regularly do a day later I have an embarrassment of riches on the subject.
This fairly short article by Dean Baker explains how the debt ceiling arguments are just being used as a cover by both Republicans and Democrats, especially Obama, to force austerity measures on America and gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security at the behest of their corporate overlords.
Given the stealth Bi-partisan support for this Americans really are screwed.
Michael Hudson has written a longer piece that focuses on the great amount of effort Obama has put in to destroying as much of FDR's legacy as he possibly can.
Speaking of FDR, Richard D Wolff has written an article examining the nature of the Keynesian softening of Capitalism that was required to save Capitalism. Essentially the Welfare State and the New Deal were part of a system to keep Capitalism going and protect the rich from popular anger when the system is experiencing one of its' major crisis. However in order to maintain this buffer and protect the rich governments incurred greater deficits because the rich and powerful didn't want to pay the tax necessary to maintain it. Now public debt has gotten so large the elite want deficit reduced. Thus the buffer that keeps people relatively safe and relatively quiet is being removed. Interesting times loon.
Sunday, 24 July 2011
Defaultgeddon: a couple of points.
Firstly I would like to thank Amber for bringing something important to my attention. I had assumed renaming welfare programs as "entitlements" had been a slow creeping shifting of the narrative. Amber however pointed out the shift has occurred very rapidly only starting earlier this year with Paul Ryan's slash and burn budget. And I quote:
It is pretty terrifying how much and how rapidly the right wing control the narrative.
Secondly I found this LA Times article that sums up how much damage the Gang of Six proposals and other compromises Obama is willing to back will do to America. He really has sold us down the river.
As an aside there is an article by Jeffrey Sachs doing the rounds at the minute explaining why America is in such a bad state and it is fairly trenchant but thanks to someone in the comments (comments are weird like that, a lot of dross and then some very worthwhile stuff) pointed out Sachs is one of the creators of shock doctrine and was personally responsible for turning Russia into the Oligarch run hellhole it is today.
There are a lot of false friends out there.
first instance of "Roadmap for America" plan being introduced: May 21, 2008 with a revision in January 2010.
check this google trends data:
http://www.google.com/trends?q=entitlement&date=all&geo=usa&ctab=0&sort=0&sa=N
Talk about controlling the narrative...
It is pretty terrifying how much and how rapidly the right wing control the narrative.
Secondly I found this LA Times article that sums up how much damage the Gang of Six proposals and other compromises Obama is willing to back will do to America. He really has sold us down the river.
As an aside there is an article by Jeffrey Sachs doing the rounds at the minute explaining why America is in such a bad state and it is fairly trenchant but thanks to someone in the comments (comments are weird like that, a lot of dross and then some very worthwhile stuff) pointed out Sachs is one of the creators of shock doctrine and was personally responsible for turning Russia into the Oligarch run hellhole it is today.
There are a lot of false friends out there.
Sunday, 17 July 2011
Obama, the Tea Party President.
Reading a couple of articles today I am becoming increasingly pessimistic about that a compromise on raising the debt ceiling can be reached (I am, of course, wholly pessimistic about what the content of any possible compromise would be).
This first article by a hedge fund manager who seems to at least pay lip service to being liberal gives this entry its title, examining how Obama increasingly seems to agree with the Tea Party on savage cuts. Now this would seem to suggest a compromise is more likely, not less, but as I have argued with Tony, who is clearly vindicated by this piece, it isn't Obama so much as Democratic legislators that are an obstacle to total GOP victory on this issue.
Obama's seeming desire to gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is so unappealing to the voters that the selfish pragmatism of many Democrats will prevent them from agreeing to a capitulation. Defending these three broadly popular programs is a big vote winner, attacking them is a vote loser as Paul Ryan learnt a couple of months ago.
Further at this piece by Will Hutton asserts, basic human interaction requires some give and take. For reasons of pride and for the ability to tell angry constituents they at least put up a fight Democratic legislators may not be willing to throw cherished welfare programs under the bus. Even if Obama explains in a soaring and wondrous speech why the poor should go die in a fire and why people under the age of 55 expecting to retire at some point are unreasonable.
But while it will be the political reality of legislative politics that prevents absolute capitulation by the Democrats it is Obama who is preventing any other outcome. If he had fought for anything near a middle ground rather than agreeing to make major concessions on social programs on day one then there would be some impetus for compromise, something for Democratic legislators to hang their hats on and, much more importantly, an opportunity for more moderate House republicans to push for compromise too. Sure the Tea Partiers are happy to drive straight off the cliff but older GOP hands will probably not want to see the end of the American empire, even if only social programs and civilian jobs are lost following a default with more expensive credit the American war machine is that much harder to maintain.
There are other signs a default is becoming a more likely scenario. A look at the business press, Fox News and others shows you the increasing suggestion that a default wouldn't be so bad. Some people have taken away from this the belief that big business and the super rich want a default. This is highly unlikely, I mean they'd be better off than the rest of us sure but the potential upheaval is unlikely to be appealing to them.
What instead this "default aint so bad" rhetoric is for is a form of spinning a very bad scenario into being Obama's problem. You plant the seed that a default really need not be that bad if you're smart, you're competent and then when the inevitable major problems occur you scream as loud as you can it is Obama and the left's fault for not being competent. Thus you attempt to shift the blame from the debt ceiling debate, where GOP intransigence might get blamed to it being wholly an issue of presidential control. Default as a controllable thing gone bad lays the blame solely at Obama's door.
Still given I don't think anyone beyond the Tea Party really wants default the fact the business press have shifted from trying to prevent a very bad thing to damage control on that very bad thing is not a good sign. Of course maybe the rich will profit from a default in a way I don't understand or perhaps the business press are just idiots, both are entirely plausible.
I still think there is a very good chance we'll get some kind of settlement on the debt ceiling before August 2nd but I will reiterate that the mainstream view that there is nothing to worry about is incorrect. We'll have to see I suppose.
This first article by a hedge fund manager who seems to at least pay lip service to being liberal gives this entry its title, examining how Obama increasingly seems to agree with the Tea Party on savage cuts. Now this would seem to suggest a compromise is more likely, not less, but as I have argued with Tony, who is clearly vindicated by this piece, it isn't Obama so much as Democratic legislators that are an obstacle to total GOP victory on this issue.
Obama's seeming desire to gut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is so unappealing to the voters that the selfish pragmatism of many Democrats will prevent them from agreeing to a capitulation. Defending these three broadly popular programs is a big vote winner, attacking them is a vote loser as Paul Ryan learnt a couple of months ago.
Further at this piece by Will Hutton asserts, basic human interaction requires some give and take. For reasons of pride and for the ability to tell angry constituents they at least put up a fight Democratic legislators may not be willing to throw cherished welfare programs under the bus. Even if Obama explains in a soaring and wondrous speech why the poor should go die in a fire and why people under the age of 55 expecting to retire at some point are unreasonable.
But while it will be the political reality of legislative politics that prevents absolute capitulation by the Democrats it is Obama who is preventing any other outcome. If he had fought for anything near a middle ground rather than agreeing to make major concessions on social programs on day one then there would be some impetus for compromise, something for Democratic legislators to hang their hats on and, much more importantly, an opportunity for more moderate House republicans to push for compromise too. Sure the Tea Partiers are happy to drive straight off the cliff but older GOP hands will probably not want to see the end of the American empire, even if only social programs and civilian jobs are lost following a default with more expensive credit the American war machine is that much harder to maintain.
There are other signs a default is becoming a more likely scenario. A look at the business press, Fox News and others shows you the increasing suggestion that a default wouldn't be so bad. Some people have taken away from this the belief that big business and the super rich want a default. This is highly unlikely, I mean they'd be better off than the rest of us sure but the potential upheaval is unlikely to be appealing to them.
What instead this "default aint so bad" rhetoric is for is a form of spinning a very bad scenario into being Obama's problem. You plant the seed that a default really need not be that bad if you're smart, you're competent and then when the inevitable major problems occur you scream as loud as you can it is Obama and the left's fault for not being competent. Thus you attempt to shift the blame from the debt ceiling debate, where GOP intransigence might get blamed to it being wholly an issue of presidential control. Default as a controllable thing gone bad lays the blame solely at Obama's door.
Still given I don't think anyone beyond the Tea Party really wants default the fact the business press have shifted from trying to prevent a very bad thing to damage control on that very bad thing is not a good sign. Of course maybe the rich will profit from a default in a way I don't understand or perhaps the business press are just idiots, both are entirely plausible.
I still think there is a very good chance we'll get some kind of settlement on the debt ceiling before August 2nd but I will reiterate that the mainstream view that there is nothing to worry about is incorrect. We'll have to see I suppose.
Friday, 15 July 2011
Europe's sweaty palms moment
I would argue that while the EU's problems are potentially much worse than those of Americas, there is greater scope for action while the intransigence of the Tea Party refusing to raise the debt ceiling could end the dollar's status as the global reserve currency and that really could be catastrophic for America. Hence sweaty palms rather than pooey pants
Sauce for goose is sauce for gander so here is an excellent article regarding Europe's debt problems. While the short term solution to the EU's problems aren't quite so simple as just raising an arbitrary cap on borrowing it would seem the self interest of German elites and to an extent German voters could badly harm the EU just as Tea Party self interest could badly harm the US.
The article also highlights the growing sense of lacking economic agency most citizens of Europe have. The flip side of the coin is the assertion of the elites and their lickspittles that essentially democracy works and thus it is everyone's fault and everyone has to face the consequences of that. The contrast of the self congratulation elites chorused when things were going well to this egalitarian approach to blame is probably the most crass case of "socialise the risk, privatise the reward" I have yet to see. Still the way things are going I doubt this is the most egregious case we're going to see.
One complaint I have about the article (and something I hope Tony will comment on) is that it fails to mention the nature of the Euro as a currency peg rather than an actual currency. There is no central control mechanism for borrowing (or at least there wasn't, I don't think this has changed but it might've) so countries like Greece could use the value of the Euro as imbued by big economies like France and Germany to borrow on much more favourable terms than their own economies would allow. That is to say Greece could borrow with Euros but was only able to pay back in (metaphorical) Drachma.
I really hope there is a reason other than cynical self interests that such a glaring oversight was made in the creation of the single currency.
Tony's Response
"For the most part you're correct, but it's important to note that while there is a single currency, the mechanism by which sovereign debt is accrued varies by state and unlike the US there isn't a single entity who can reign it in.
The question the Euro sought to answer was "can a unified currency work with a bunch of different entities essentially managing the back end?" As France and Germany will likely find out, they're going to be footing the bill for every country that doesn't have enough cash to meet its obligations. Either they do it or the currency itself gets weakened in ways that no one can really predict. Right now things aren't so bad, but if Italy goes or Spain, well, that's going to be the test because at a certain point the Germans aren't going to be able to keep up with large but faltering economies.
Within a country, sovereign wealth generally has to support the weaker, depressed parts of the country. That's just the way it has to be. In the Eurozone it's difficult to see how that's going to fly when the wealthier countries aren't responsible for and don't answer to the weaker countries but still have to act in a way that primarily funnels money to the countries that need it in order to support the entire system.
This is uncharted territory, really. There isn't any historical data on how this will play out to my knowledge, but my guess is that France and Germany won't be able to shoulder the burden for long and something will have to give either politically or economically. It's worth watching.
(FWIW Europe isn't worse off than the US economically, but the political realities involved will likely create a crisis in Europe before the US. The US has the benefit of simply being able to falter on it's own rather than having disparate parties who could precipitate collapse by actions that they might not be able to avoid. Europe's situation is definitely better overall when looking at the numbers and they're willing to address the actual balance sheet problems whereas the US simply never will, but the uncertainty over how Europe will play out makes it riskier now than it is in the US.)"
Sauce for goose is sauce for gander so here is an excellent article regarding Europe's debt problems. While the short term solution to the EU's problems aren't quite so simple as just raising an arbitrary cap on borrowing it would seem the self interest of German elites and to an extent German voters could badly harm the EU just as Tea Party self interest could badly harm the US.
The article also highlights the growing sense of lacking economic agency most citizens of Europe have. The flip side of the coin is the assertion of the elites and their lickspittles that essentially democracy works and thus it is everyone's fault and everyone has to face the consequences of that. The contrast of the self congratulation elites chorused when things were going well to this egalitarian approach to blame is probably the most crass case of "socialise the risk, privatise the reward" I have yet to see. Still the way things are going I doubt this is the most egregious case we're going to see.
One complaint I have about the article (and something I hope Tony will comment on) is that it fails to mention the nature of the Euro as a currency peg rather than an actual currency. There is no central control mechanism for borrowing (or at least there wasn't, I don't think this has changed but it might've) so countries like Greece could use the value of the Euro as imbued by big economies like France and Germany to borrow on much more favourable terms than their own economies would allow. That is to say Greece could borrow with Euros but was only able to pay back in (metaphorical) Drachma.
I really hope there is a reason other than cynical self interests that such a glaring oversight was made in the creation of the single currency.
Tony's Response
"For the most part you're correct, but it's important to note that while there is a single currency, the mechanism by which sovereign debt is accrued varies by state and unlike the US there isn't a single entity who can reign it in.
The question the Euro sought to answer was "can a unified currency work with a bunch of different entities essentially managing the back end?" As France and Germany will likely find out, they're going to be footing the bill for every country that doesn't have enough cash to meet its obligations. Either they do it or the currency itself gets weakened in ways that no one can really predict. Right now things aren't so bad, but if Italy goes or Spain, well, that's going to be the test because at a certain point the Germans aren't going to be able to keep up with large but faltering economies.
Within a country, sovereign wealth generally has to support the weaker, depressed parts of the country. That's just the way it has to be. In the Eurozone it's difficult to see how that's going to fly when the wealthier countries aren't responsible for and don't answer to the weaker countries but still have to act in a way that primarily funnels money to the countries that need it in order to support the entire system.
This is uncharted territory, really. There isn't any historical data on how this will play out to my knowledge, but my guess is that France and Germany won't be able to shoulder the burden for long and something will have to give either politically or economically. It's worth watching.
(FWIW Europe isn't worse off than the US economically, but the political realities involved will likely create a crisis in Europe before the US. The US has the benefit of simply being able to falter on it's own rather than having disparate parties who could precipitate collapse by actions that they might not be able to avoid. Europe's situation is definitely better overall when looking at the numbers and they're willing to address the actual balance sheet problems whereas the US simply never will, but the uncertainty over how Europe will play out makes it riskier now than it is in the US.)"
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Some excellent opinion pieces.
Al Jazeera has put up a number of excellent opinion pieces today.
Dominic Strauss Kahn
I had some suspicion that DSK being charged with Rape might be politically motivated, though I had assumed it was more likely to be Sarkozy's doing than anyone else's. Now I do not suggest the victim is lying, just that the timing is suspicious, Elliot Spitzer was found to be a user of prostitutes at a very fortuitous time for the GOP but he had actually committed that crime for instance. These two pieces examine this possibility from different angles:
Danny Schechter looks at The Financial world as a hypsexualised environment and examines how intelligence agencies and banks who were not fond of some of the things DSK was saying might have exploited already known about "foibles" to shut down a potential threat.
Pepe Escobar expands on just why DSK could have needed neutralising pointing out that he was trying to make the IMF slightly less of a machine designed to carve up the world for the benefit of a plutocratic elite. As Escobar highlights the endorsement of Joseph Stiglitz could well have lead the financial elite to get rid of him.
This does not of course mean DSK did not commit rape, it just means a lot of very powerful people had reason to have him disgraced. On a more positive note it strongly suggests Noam Chomsky is a really decent guy, hes been a thorn in the right's side for decades and they haven't gotten anything to stick to him.
Obama's Speech
I haven't read or watch the whole speech so I can't really offer much comment but reading around the apparent Israeli chagrin at the 1967 borders proposal (something the UN has always endorsed) one realises that Obama has given Israel all they could really want in that speech. Still no harm in acting angry and hoping for more.
Richard Falk looks specifically at how the speech favours Israel and examines within this context what Palestinians can do.
Joseph Massad looks at how the speech impacts US Imperial policy in the middle east depressingly but not surprisingly he finds it to be a lot of hypocrisy and a continued pursuit of the status quo. The point about Obama giving a speech for the West and specifically for America is an interesting one. Sure the US has always been insular but given Obama's popularity and prominence as a non-white Western leader and the clear political awakening going on in the Middle East to be so tone deaf to the views and opinions of Arabs is unwise. I mean sure he probably assumes he can use violence and financial coercion to force the Arabs back under dictatorships but it never hurts to at least pretend not to be a monster.
Miscellaneous
I probably wont link this unless I do it here so here we go. Jonny sent me this and it's an article in an Indian newspaper about how China has pledged to protect Pakistan from future US incursions. Now you'd think that would be big news, but no, the western media obviously don't want to get too stuck into the regional political situation. America and friends are saving Afghanistan from Muslims or something and no other nation really exists in that scenario.
Tarak Barkawi examines how accusations of "radicalisation" are being used to attack freedom of speech at universities. He also broaches the subject of neo-liberalisation of University management.
Finally there is a review of a book by Francis Fukuyama, he who is mocked over the misinterpretation of his statements regarding the "end of history". It is a critique of the anti-state sentiment of right wingers in both the US and the UK. Such a prominent conservative making such a strong case against neo-liberal ideology is I think noteworthy and worth keeping an eye on. Then again, maybe he'll be arrested for an embarrassing crime within the next couple of weeks.
Dominic Strauss Kahn
I had some suspicion that DSK being charged with Rape might be politically motivated, though I had assumed it was more likely to be Sarkozy's doing than anyone else's. Now I do not suggest the victim is lying, just that the timing is suspicious, Elliot Spitzer was found to be a user of prostitutes at a very fortuitous time for the GOP but he had actually committed that crime for instance. These two pieces examine this possibility from different angles:
Danny Schechter looks at The Financial world as a hypsexualised environment and examines how intelligence agencies and banks who were not fond of some of the things DSK was saying might have exploited already known about "foibles" to shut down a potential threat.
Pepe Escobar expands on just why DSK could have needed neutralising pointing out that he was trying to make the IMF slightly less of a machine designed to carve up the world for the benefit of a plutocratic elite. As Escobar highlights the endorsement of Joseph Stiglitz could well have lead the financial elite to get rid of him.
This does not of course mean DSK did not commit rape, it just means a lot of very powerful people had reason to have him disgraced. On a more positive note it strongly suggests Noam Chomsky is a really decent guy, hes been a thorn in the right's side for decades and they haven't gotten anything to stick to him.
Obama's Speech
I haven't read or watch the whole speech so I can't really offer much comment but reading around the apparent Israeli chagrin at the 1967 borders proposal (something the UN has always endorsed) one realises that Obama has given Israel all they could really want in that speech. Still no harm in acting angry and hoping for more.
Richard Falk looks specifically at how the speech favours Israel and examines within this context what Palestinians can do.
Joseph Massad looks at how the speech impacts US Imperial policy in the middle east depressingly but not surprisingly he finds it to be a lot of hypocrisy and a continued pursuit of the status quo. The point about Obama giving a speech for the West and specifically for America is an interesting one. Sure the US has always been insular but given Obama's popularity and prominence as a non-white Western leader and the clear political awakening going on in the Middle East to be so tone deaf to the views and opinions of Arabs is unwise. I mean sure he probably assumes he can use violence and financial coercion to force the Arabs back under dictatorships but it never hurts to at least pretend not to be a monster.
Miscellaneous
I probably wont link this unless I do it here so here we go. Jonny sent me this and it's an article in an Indian newspaper about how China has pledged to protect Pakistan from future US incursions. Now you'd think that would be big news, but no, the western media obviously don't want to get too stuck into the regional political situation. America and friends are saving Afghanistan from Muslims or something and no other nation really exists in that scenario.
Tarak Barkawi examines how accusations of "radicalisation" are being used to attack freedom of speech at universities. He also broaches the subject of neo-liberalisation of University management.
Finally there is a review of a book by Francis Fukuyama, he who is mocked over the misinterpretation of his statements regarding the "end of history". It is a critique of the anti-state sentiment of right wingers in both the US and the UK. Such a prominent conservative making such a strong case against neo-liberal ideology is I think noteworthy and worth keeping an eye on. Then again, maybe he'll be arrested for an embarrassing crime within the next couple of weeks.
Monday, 6 December 2010
Buy Silver, hurt JP Morgan
I've heard rumblings about this before but didn't really know what was going on. Heres all round cool dude Max Keiser explaining it in less than a minute:
More details here
More details here
Friday, 15 October 2010
The Skynet of stealing.
This is finance so I can't really speak to the content but I get the feeling it is important. Essentially the big banks are using computer programs to manipulate and control the market. Happily the US Govt is merrily looking the other way about this because it worked out so well last time.
Jonny linked by a different article about this a long time ago but I forgot to link it so thanks to him for at least making me aware this is an important issue.
Jonny linked by a different article about this a long time ago but I forgot to link it so thanks to him for at least making me aware this is an important issue.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
China continuing to ramp up soft conquest of Europe.
A good while ago I mentioned how China was taking advantage of Greece's current financial problems to to buy into the EU. Well that was just a contracted that was helpful to Greece's economy at a bad time. Now China is offering to buy up Greek debt especially in key areas of infrastructure that are of vital importance to Chinese export markets. Since Greece solving its' debt problem of vital importance for the whole of the EU this would give Beijing considerable leverage over the EU. The article mentions how this might cause the EU to be less critical of the current value of the Yuan. I agree but almost certainly not for the reasons the author meant. Interestingly this is quite similar to how the IMF and World Bank operate in service of US foreign policy.
As I said before, it is all smiles and kindness now but once they have that leverage China could well try to do some unpleasant things to the EU and more to the point disincline the EU from criticising far more unpleasant things China does to its' citizens and near neighbours.
As I said before, it is all smiles and kindness now but once they have that leverage China could well try to do some unpleasant things to the EU and more to the point disincline the EU from criticising far more unpleasant things China does to its' citizens and near neighbours.
Monday, 20 September 2010
Instant opinion UK Public sector pay info.
I'm in a bit of a rush atm but I just looked at the BBC investigation's public sector pay figures. While I'm not condemning or anything and I am aware there are issues of context and we're never going to see how private sector salaries leaked in a similar way but still. Also it is in the interest of the current government to paint public sector workers as overpaid.
Anyway here is the list (you might need to click around different headings) but the maddest thing I've seen initially is that a number of GPs are earning more than Sir Jock Stirrup head of UK Defence staff.
Weird things are occuring. anyway gotta go, hopefully will offer my analysis later.
Anyway here is the list (you might need to click around different headings) but the maddest thing I've seen initially is that a number of GPs are earning more than Sir Jock Stirrup head of UK Defence staff.
Weird things are occuring. anyway gotta go, hopefully will offer my analysis later.
Sunday, 19 September 2010
A good thing has happened.
I am hopefully not going to make a habit of linking the Wall Street Journal, it was the newspaper of choice for capitalists even before Murdoch took over and added in some Fox News populist lies for good measure. Nonetheless this is a special occasion, for the WSJ is angry with Obama. Not angry in their dismissive faux manner they usually are with Obama because they've got to keep shifting the overton window ever rightwards. No, this is straight up real anger. They're angry because something good has happened.
Elizabeth Warren has been appointed to oversee the creation of the Consumer Protection Agency. It does longer term she almost certainly wont lead it but given continuing GOP tactics to block any and all appointments and legislation that is in any way positive for America that wasn't likely anyway. Hopefully under her wise hand will built into something capable of doing some good.
A good example of why I like Elizabeth Warren so much is this lecture she gave a few years ago:
And I'm putting this mea culpa at the bottom of the page under the video so maybe you wont have your perception of me as infallible pierced: I strongly believed that after her capable overseership of the TARP program she'd never get any higher in government. I am glad Obama has done a rare good thing and proven me wrong.
Elizabeth Warren has been appointed to oversee the creation of the Consumer Protection Agency. It does longer term she almost certainly wont lead it but given continuing GOP tactics to block any and all appointments and legislation that is in any way positive for America that wasn't likely anyway. Hopefully under her wise hand will built into something capable of doing some good.
A good example of why I like Elizabeth Warren so much is this lecture she gave a few years ago:
And I'm putting this mea culpa at the bottom of the page under the video so maybe you wont have your perception of me as infallible pierced: I strongly believed that after her capable overseership of the TARP program she'd never get any higher in government. I am glad Obama has done a rare good thing and proven me wrong.
Thursday, 16 September 2010
Your knowledge of salaries.
BBC Radio 4 have made a fun little quiz where you look at 12 jobs and see how much you think they're paids and how much they should be paid then you get to see their actual salary. Worth the five minutes it takes, especially for the salary comparison you see if you do all 12.
Wednesday, 15 September 2010
DO NOT CUT FUNDING TO THE KILLFORCE, YOU WILL REGRET THIS!
little sim city joke for y'all there
British MPs are warning that if funding is cut to the British Military (which is higher than Russia's) then bad things will happen its harder to be clearer than that since it just seems to be general scaremonger on behalf of military interests rather than anything specific. Threats to Britain are mentioned but what on earth threatens Britain these days? We have nukes and even if we don't replace Trident we'll still have them and be able to nuke people in one way or another. Even so no one capable of invading Britain has any real interest in doing so. Occupying Afghanistan seems to cause Islamic terror attacks rather than preventing them and anyway all the expensive helicopters and tanks etc seem pretty unsuited to fighting asymmetrical warfare which in an age of nukes is the only kind of war that seems to take place.
But you kinda give up trying to understand what these "threats" are when you read:
A review of the British armed forces in a long term and ongoing financial crisis is focusing on money?? MY STARS. If we don't give the arms industry a blank cheque we wont win The Great Game. To be serious that this kind of blank cheque, we need even more money to pretend we're still a world power and brutally enforce corporate interests thinking can be printed in a report about a military spending review without it being questioned is pretty depressing.
British MPs are warning that if funding is cut to the British Military (which is higher than Russia's) then bad things will happen its harder to be clearer than that since it just seems to be general scaremonger on behalf of military interests rather than anything specific. Threats to Britain are mentioned but what on earth threatens Britain these days? We have nukes and even if we don't replace Trident we'll still have them and be able to nuke people in one way or another. Even so no one capable of invading Britain has any real interest in doing so. Occupying Afghanistan seems to cause Islamic terror attacks rather than preventing them and anyway all the expensive helicopters and tanks etc seem pretty unsuited to fighting asymmetrical warfare which in an age of nukes is the only kind of war that seems to take place.
But you kinda give up trying to understand what these "threats" are when you read:
Mr Arbuthnot told Radio 4's Today programme: "We are worried that this process appears to be money-driven rather than driven by the threats to our country which need to be worked out and assessed in order to work out whether, and the extent to which, we can defend against them.
A review of the British armed forces in a long term and ongoing financial crisis is focusing on money?? MY STARS. If we don't give the arms industry a blank cheque we wont win The Great Game. To be serious that this kind of blank cheque, we need even more money to pretend we're still a world power and brutally enforce corporate interests thinking can be printed in a report about a military spending review without it being questioned is pretty depressing.
Delaware victory for Tea Party
The Guardian puts a positive spin on it by saying shes probably unelectable but after eight years of W Bush sensible people know not to underestimate the potential achievements of the right in the US. The she in question is Christine O'Donnell who managed to beat a veteran Republican in a primary for the senate seat vacated by Joe Biden.
She is a straight up fucking loony so of course she had the backing of the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, along with the usual unpleasantness right wingers claim as ideology Ms O'Donnell also opposes masturbation something that might well alienate Penn and Teller style libertarians in the Tea Party but then again expecting Tea Partiers to know whats going on within their corporate sham movement is probably expecting too much. Certainly the establishment GOP is not pleased with the result, having already stated they wouldn't fund her if she won, before the primary took place.
More important, is to wonder why the brothers Koch, corporate overlords of the Tea Party, chose to fund this woman to the tune of $250k. Pessimism aside it does seem unlikely she'll win especially with the GOP against her. If anything gives us a hint as to why they backed this lost cause it is the film Fight Club. You see while it is never definitively stated Fight Club is inferred to take place in Wilmington, Delaware, the reason for this is the explosive finale. Tyler Durden's plan to blow up several credit card company's buildings so as to reset society to zero suggests a city with a high concentration of CC companies and thanks to favourable tax and corporate welfare schemes Wilmington Delaware has by far the highest concentration of Credit Card Company headquarters in the US, if not the world.
Now if a Democratic candidate was up against a more mainstream Republican candidate then some discussion of the role of credit card companies, predatory lending etc might have come up given the current financial crisis. One of the key reasons the Tea Party exists and is a wise investment for its' corporate owners is to distract people's anger from the failings of capitalism and the crimes of the super rich and onto racism, homophobia, xenophobia and religious absurdities so a mainstream candidate running in Delaware was a problem. With Christine O'Connell spouting insanity on the campaign trail however nothing important will be focused on, there will be no need for a Democratic candidate to risk alienating big donors by posturing about finance and even if for some reason Chris Coons did so (he wont) the media will be too distracted by reporting on the outlandish things the Tea Party lady is saying.
So another win for the absurdly rich guys!
Oh and to finish off have a look at the BBC article and learn to hate Mark Mardell's smug fat face as he goes on about Republicans caring about ideological purity and pretending the Tea Party is some kind of grass roots movement.
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
A short summary of how unequal the distribution of wealth in the US is.
Please note, I am really quite lazy and have allowed a huge backlog of tabs I intend to read and then link to accrue so I am now trying to clear that backlog (I have strongly considered just closing all the tabs and starting from scratch but a) they're good pieces of info and b)thats just a bit too Pol Pot for my tastes). Because of this for the next few days (my aren't I optimistic) you may get quite a lot of "old" news with brief summaries. Nonetheless if I have kept it around this long its probably pretty useful stuff.
I have had the 2007 Striking it richer guide for quite a while, so long in fact that the 2008 revision has come out. If you only look at one look at the 2008 one but comparing the predictions in 2007 (pretty much the first few paragrapghs) and the outcome in 2008 is quite worth looking at.
The Striking it Richer guide is produced annually by the economics department at UC Berkley with a lag time on the data it covers of two years. It examines how the gap between rich and poor is growing in the US and also who among the rich is benefiting most and by what means they are gaining their increased share of the national wealth. Not fun reading but interesting summaries.
Oh do be sure to look at fig 1 (PDF Page 7 in 2008) and then wave your fist at Reagan's legacy.
I have had the 2007 Striking it richer guide for quite a while, so long in fact that the 2008 revision has come out. If you only look at one look at the 2008 one but comparing the predictions in 2007 (pretty much the first few paragrapghs) and the outcome in 2008 is quite worth looking at.
The Striking it Richer guide is produced annually by the economics department at UC Berkley with a lag time on the data it covers of two years. It examines how the gap between rich and poor is growing in the US and also who among the rich is benefiting most and by what means they are gaining their increased share of the national wealth. Not fun reading but interesting summaries.
Oh do be sure to look at fig 1 (PDF Page 7 in 2008) and then wave your fist at Reagan's legacy.
Sunday, 5 September 2010
A moral grey area.
This one has been lingering in the elephant graveyard that is the ever expanding number of tabs I really am going to post about soon it was old when I was linked it about a month ago so perhaps I can get away with it being a little older still.
I understand that This American Life is quite popular with liberals in the US and this is an episode from it. It is also counter to the righteous indignation that usually characterises my posts, as the title states, this really is a moral grey area. It is about three individuals who are part of an online community that likes to scam Nigerian scammers which seems a reasonable thing to do but these three in particular have put those they target in some pretty extreme danger. Plus you have the usual problems vigilante justice brings and the nagging question of why obviously white and affluent first worlders decided the group they most needed to bring justice too was relatively poor Africans, plus their choice of terms such as "Safari" further muddies their motives. Nonetheless it is also made clear the Nigerian Scammers are really not pleasant people and false payoff the vigilantes use against the individual highlighted in this episode involves them defrauding a fictional church that is trying to distribute aid to war victims.
In the end its hard to say the Nigerian scammers they target are in any way nice people but you do still have to wonder if this is the right way to deal with them as well of the question of if two wrongs make a right.
I understand that This American Life is quite popular with liberals in the US and this is an episode from it. It is also counter to the righteous indignation that usually characterises my posts, as the title states, this really is a moral grey area. It is about three individuals who are part of an online community that likes to scam Nigerian scammers which seems a reasonable thing to do but these three in particular have put those they target in some pretty extreme danger. Plus you have the usual problems vigilante justice brings and the nagging question of why obviously white and affluent first worlders decided the group they most needed to bring justice too was relatively poor Africans, plus their choice of terms such as "Safari" further muddies their motives. Nonetheless it is also made clear the Nigerian Scammers are really not pleasant people and false payoff the vigilantes use against the individual highlighted in this episode involves them defrauding a fictional church that is trying to distribute aid to war victims.
In the end its hard to say the Nigerian scammers they target are in any way nice people but you do still have to wonder if this is the right way to deal with them as well of the question of if two wrongs make a right.
Thursday, 2 September 2010
SHOCK: Man who took all the credit and money for successes not responsible for failures.
Dick "apt first name" Fuld informed a congressional committee yesterday that the failure of the bank he got paid a fair amount of money to run was not his fault because at his heart he was a socialist who supports government intervention at the drop of a hat (except when it comes to taxes of course) and because they didn't act fast enough his perfectly run bank failed.
The full depth and nature of the crisis was simply unknowable even to one as great as he, as he informed the committee:
For those of you mortals who are lesser than Mr Fuld (PBUH) you may not realise but one can only read the details of Asian economies in the late nineties with a crystal ball. Otherwise he would've been able to predict that following exactly the same policies Japan in particular followed a decade earlier might have negative consequences.
The full depth and nature of the crisis was simply unknowable even to one as great as he, as he informed the committee:
However, Fuld told the panel, he would have needed a "crystal ball" to take more radical action – such as pulling Lehman out of the troublesome mortgage market earlier.
For those of you mortals who are lesser than Mr Fuld (PBUH) you may not realise but one can only read the details of Asian economies in the late nineties with a crystal ball. Otherwise he would've been able to predict that following exactly the same policies Japan in particular followed a decade earlier might have negative consequences.
Sunday, 8 August 2010
You see, criminals understand how to prevent crime best of all!
I am not a fan of Robert Peston but this editorial is good and shows pretty clearly that not only is it business as usual for banks but they're still able to set their own opaque agenda with only the mildest of comment from the media. Oh well, at least everyone knows their proper place in a feudal society.
Wednesday, 21 July 2010
The US Federal Reserve does not know where over $9 TRILLION of its' money is.
The title says it all really, here is a link to an article and a youtube about how the woman in charge of auditing the Federal Reserve (Inspector General Elizabeth Coleman) has no idea where the money is.
(Fake Edit: I just realised this is from May last year, I assumed it was new because The Exiled linked it today. still if the mainstream media didn't report this in the first place its news to me and unless proof is provided this is now fixed I'm not going to be kind enough to make the assumption for them.)
(Fake Edit: I just realised this is from May last year, I assumed it was new because The Exiled linked it today. still if the mainstream media didn't report this in the first place its news to me and unless proof is provided this is now fixed I'm not going to be kind enough to make the assumption for them.)
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Shifting the overton window, spectre of 40% cuts raised.
Chancellor Gideon Osbourne has instructed every government department except four (health, international development, defence and education) to prepare plans for forty percent budget cuts. Which is pretty damn scary, there are essentially three reasons why he is doing this:
1) As I suggest in the title he is trying to shift the overton window to the right so that 25% cuts seem acceptable compared to 40%, the opposition has to argue him down from the higher number rather than the lower one and so on. Also with the unions preparing industrial action for 40% they're less likely to fight against 25% and so on.
2) The cuts of 25% was an average and because those four departments are protected to varying degrees the other departments have to take bigger cuts for it to average out at 25%. On top of this asking for 40% cuts as well as 25% cuts empowers Osboure, he can pick and choose from both lists rather than just having to accept the 25% the department chose to cut.
3) Osbourne is a rich rightwing scumbag and the destruction of as much as the state as possible is ideologically necessary for him to bring about as much shock therapy as humanly possible, if he thinks he can get away with more than an average of 25% cuts then he will cut more.
1) As I suggest in the title he is trying to shift the overton window to the right so that 25% cuts seem acceptable compared to 40%, the opposition has to argue him down from the higher number rather than the lower one and so on. Also with the unions preparing industrial action for 40% they're less likely to fight against 25% and so on.
2) The cuts of 25% was an average and because those four departments are protected to varying degrees the other departments have to take bigger cuts for it to average out at 25%. On top of this asking for 40% cuts as well as 25% cuts empowers Osboure, he can pick and choose from both lists rather than just having to accept the 25% the department chose to cut.
3) Osbourne is a rich rightwing scumbag and the destruction of as much as the state as possible is ideologically necessary for him to bring about as much shock therapy as humanly possible, if he thinks he can get away with more than an average of 25% cuts then he will cut more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)