Liz's photoI simply can't run the photo from Eurodog's site as it is so upsetting so I'll run a nice shot instead. One truly wonders what the term "human" signifies in the case of those "people" - it's truly sick. Please sign the petition there.
Monday, October 06, 2008
[bailout] explanation for the unitiated
Looking at the U.S., which is not a bad analogy for other parts of the world in terms of bailouts, where is the money coming from? One answer:
... and:
... and:
... and:
A certain amount is debt to other countries and though China looms large in this, it is not 50% of total debt, it's far less. China does not seem likely to refuse to fund more debt even though they might not be keen to:
The key might be in the last quote - printing money. Here is a good guide for beginners, despite the look of it. It says that the government can either print money or change the balance sheet, selling securities to the private sector. It goes on:
Standard advice to overcome inflation includes selling shorter, which is what we are seeing - short term buybacks. Even at 0%, it is a safe haven for investors as long as the government guarantee of its fiat money is believed by the people.
In the end, this is the critical point. The government is owned by the Fed in real terms, which is owned by groups like Morgan who make a killing in times such as these, who then decide who is bailed out and who is not.
The moment you mention groups like Morgan, you are talking the world money houses and the real government and so we are back, legally as it turns out, dependent on their agenda. In other words, the people, in the end, are owned by the old money and subject to its whims for unrest, war and any other turmoil they care to finance.
This is the S and C syndrome [short and curlies]. It's a simple enough rule. If there is an almighty conflagration in the offing, it clearly needs funding and the old money needs to top up its coffers in order to finance it. Crash-depression-unrest-war ... the old formula every time.
The IndyMac debacle is taking a large bite out of FDIC reserves, and if scores of other banks fail in the year ahead, the fund will be depleted. Taxpayers will have to step in.
... and:
To help pay for these bailouts, the government sells securities. And right now, there's plenty of demand because those securities are considered safe in the midst of all the turmoil.
... and:
Lest you think the Fed has run out of ammunition, the central bank, the WSJ reports, has roughly $400 billion left at its disposal and it has a few aces up its sleeves, including lowering interest rates.
... and:
The government hopes to someday sell the toxic securities it buys from the banks.
A certain amount is debt to other countries and though China looms large in this, it is not 50% of total debt, it's far less. China does not seem likely to refuse to fund more debt even though they might not be keen to:
If foreigners like the Chinese go on a buyers’ strike then - it was suggested - the US might resort to printing more money, and that would cause inflation - and a fall in the dollar and in the value of all those treasury bills held by China.
The key might be in the last quote - printing money. Here is a good guide for beginners, despite the look of it. It says that the government can either print money or change the balance sheet, selling securities to the private sector. It goes on:
The true structural cause of persistent high inflation is a fiscal deficit that is not eliminated with cuts in spending and/or increases in (non-seignorage) taxes.
Standard advice to overcome inflation includes selling shorter, which is what we are seeing - short term buybacks. Even at 0%, it is a safe haven for investors as long as the government guarantee of its fiat money is believed by the people.
In the end, this is the critical point. The government is owned by the Fed in real terms, which is owned by groups like Morgan who make a killing in times such as these, who then decide who is bailed out and who is not.
The moment you mention groups like Morgan, you are talking the world money houses and the real government and so we are back, legally as it turns out, dependent on their agenda. In other words, the people, in the end, are owned by the old money and subject to its whims for unrest, war and any other turmoil they care to finance.
This is the S and C syndrome [short and curlies]. It's a simple enough rule. If there is an almighty conflagration in the offing, it clearly needs funding and the old money needs to top up its coffers in order to finance it. Crash-depression-unrest-war ... the old formula every time.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
[overcrowding] chinese show the way
And we thought the Tube and the Met were bad. Here are the Chinese returning after their National Day weekend:
[debt problems] a novel solution
Mortgage finance company Fannie Mae says it's forgiving the mortgage debt of a 90-year-old Ohio woman, Addie Polk who shot herself in the chest as sheriff's deputies attempted to evict her. Polk has refinanced several times since taking out the loan in 1997. She remains hospitalized, but is expected to recover from chest wounds suffered last week.
Everything is wrong with this, isn't it? Her own refinancing, her age, the ease with which it happened, the pushing of society into this position by the banks, the reaction of Fannie Mae which would not write off her debt until, as they put it:
... the incident "certainly made our radar screen ...
Made our radar screen ... yes.
[ten commandments] of blogging
Clive Davis today on Blogging's Ten Commandments:
No 2. You shall not make an idol of your blog.No 10. You shall not covet your neighbour's blog ranking.
[Chuckle]
[lazy town] having fun is what it's all about
Leaving aside the financial angst of the moment, leaving aside issues of last night, leaving aside any number of matters, I'd like to ask a question.
There is an example on my mind right now. Indirectly, there is a connection I have with a family and there's a little kid who is into something called Lazy Town, a kid's show made in Iceland. It's a bit saccharine sweet for me but I quite like a character called Robbie Rotten who seems to get the best lines and sub plots.
I googled Julianna Rose Mauriello [the main character] and Magnús Scheving [producer and another main character] - it is an interesting tale in itself. What I was horrified by was that in google there were so many references to her being a lesbian and I wondered WTF? This is a kid's show and OK, the lead character has some special long term friendship off set, as every person I know has had and sickos on the web are turning it into something dirty with all sorts of innuendo.
The expression "get a life" goes through the brain over and over. What the hell is going on in society if that is the sort of thing which titillates people? It's b-o-r-i-n-g, you know. It's t-e-d-i-o-u-s. Can't we have anything good without someone trying to twist it round and place some bizarre interpretation on it? I don't know.
What I see in this show is an attempt by someone [Scheving] with an ideal of setting kids on a straight path of being kind [and eating sports candy]. Admittedly he is making a killing in the meantime and why not? Someone using his talents and his connections to put something about which is actually ... er ... clean and good.
Now watch the vipers come in and try to dirty it. Sorry, there is not one dirty thing I can see in any of this and the best of luck to them for what they are actually achieving. May there be more of it.
Having said all that, why is it that the The Bad seem to have all the best lines and be the most interesting characters [as well as having the best spaceships]? Why is it that The Good, apart from being handy to have around in a crisis, is ultimately seen as duller and less interesting to be with?
Similarly, why is it that people are far more afraid of the Dark Side in their stunning, shiny black costumes when the White Side is vastly more dangerous. Ultimately the former are losers. I tell you, I don't think it is the best plan to get on the worng side of G-d, mild-mannered and altrusitic though he may be. It's not unlike a papa who loves you. You're so into him being close to you that you can be forgiven for forgetting the awesome destructive capability.
Maybe some sanity needs to return to a world where it seems to be in short supply of late.
Do you see an element of madness creeping into not only public life but in the way people are interacting with each other of late?
There is an example on my mind right now. Indirectly, there is a connection I have with a family and there's a little kid who is into something called Lazy Town, a kid's show made in Iceland. It's a bit saccharine sweet for me but I quite like a character called Robbie Rotten who seems to get the best lines and sub plots.
I googled Julianna Rose Mauriello [the main character] and Magnús Scheving [producer and another main character] - it is an interesting tale in itself. What I was horrified by was that in google there were so many references to her being a lesbian and I wondered WTF? This is a kid's show and OK, the lead character has some special long term friendship off set, as every person I know has had and sickos on the web are turning it into something dirty with all sorts of innuendo.
The expression "get a life" goes through the brain over and over. What the hell is going on in society if that is the sort of thing which titillates people? It's b-o-r-i-n-g, you know. It's t-e-d-i-o-u-s. Can't we have anything good without someone trying to twist it round and place some bizarre interpretation on it? I don't know.
What I see in this show is an attempt by someone [Scheving] with an ideal of setting kids on a straight path of being kind [and eating sports candy]. Admittedly he is making a killing in the meantime and why not? Someone using his talents and his connections to put something about which is actually ... er ... clean and good.
Now watch the vipers come in and try to dirty it. Sorry, there is not one dirty thing I can see in any of this and the best of luck to them for what they are actually achieving. May there be more of it.
Having said all that, why is it that the The Bad seem to have all the best lines and be the most interesting characters [as well as having the best spaceships]? Why is it that The Good, apart from being handy to have around in a crisis, is ultimately seen as duller and less interesting to be with?
Similarly, why is it that people are far more afraid of the Dark Side in their stunning, shiny black costumes when the White Side is vastly more dangerous. Ultimately the former are losers. I tell you, I don't think it is the best plan to get on the worng side of G-d, mild-mannered and altrusitic though he may be. It's not unlike a papa who loves you. You're so into him being close to you that you can be forgiven for forgetting the awesome destructive capability.
Maybe some sanity needs to return to a world where it seems to be in short supply of late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)