Since I've been here in New Zealand, I've developed a few routines. My possible favorite is my morning routine. Due to its general steady, relaxed, and consistent nature, it usually gives me the energy and peace of mind to work throughout the day and adapt to whatever confronts me no matter how rapid or extreme. Without making it too boring, I simply make a french press of good coffee and porridge, and read the news from three different papers from three corners of the world (Washington Post, New Zealand Herald, and Novaya Gazeta (sometimes RT)). Im not very conspiratorial, but the whole reading multiple sources is a pet peeve of mine that I developed a few years ago. It pays off.
It pays off on days like today. In the midst of all these Wall street protests, Im surprised some people in high positions still have the audacity to continue going on with activities that the protests address. [Quick note: The core idea of the protests needs to be the fact that the government is clearly not representing the interests of the US people anymore. Its in our country's foundations (DOI) to remove any system that no longer answers to its people: the power is literally in our hands. The rest of the grab-all ideas that the movement seems to have picked up can and will be discussed/ handled once we have mechanisms of handling that. But the idea now is to address something clear, concise, as well as something that we have a right to do.]
SO in the midst of this protest that should be addressing the above notion, our government is currently engaged in
1.) Holding the record for most deportations of any other term
2.) Continuing to develop a missile shield originally designed to combat the [now non-existent] USSR
3.) Sending more soldiers to Central Africa
*I'm sure there is more, but I have shit to do today. like earn money.
Starting from the top, I went to a university that was heavily Obama supportive (which ones werent really?). The idea that he currently holds such a claim is, quite frankly, a direct betrayal of the ideas of most of these people. It may be a long stretch of a comparison, but these people wanted Obama in office to get rid of things like Guantanamo, and to increase the rights of humans to be with whom they chose, and so on. Immigration policy is a bit different, i'll admit that. But when an incumbent does a better job at kicking people out of the country than the Bush's, something seems a bit estranged. [again, i need to develop this more, but the article really struck out at me today]
For anyone who knew me while i was in DC, you'll know that this missile shield is a really sore subject for me. Im a bit of a Russophile, and can't help myself for always being slightly more optimistic toward them than maybe I should be (perhaps it balances out the negative feelings). But this is a ridiculous idea. Its obsolete--the USSR doesnt exist anymore, Russia (no matter WHAT anyone says) is not a military threat to the US anymore. Its useless for the 'new' purpose--Iran and North Korea's missile capabilities are sub-optimal at best and the furthest they could reach is not even close to what the defense system can bring down. and third--how much money is this costing the US tax payer? They expanded the system two years ago, and are still doing so. Military tech of any nature is not cheap (maybe in the functionality way, but certainly not in price), and I believe that the US government could be using that money for better things. Its not like our economy is in the shit hole right?
And the story about troops going to Central Africa is hardly posted at all in US media. I resulted to finding the story in significantly less time in European media. Supposedly, these soldiers are only going to help training and advice to help the nation's forces 'remove Kony and any other high ranking officials,' which I believe is about the same terminology they used entering Afghanistan/Iraq.
Now, I'm not indifferent to what is going on in that region. Its an awful situation that no one is responding to, and is probably a better example of 'terrorism' than what the word is normally attributed to--mainly because what is going on in Central Africa causes people to literally live in terror every day (not fear- terror). One could get raped, killed, maimed, dismembered....its essentially living in a horror/slasher film. I'm not saying we shouldn't care. We should.
But i'm a Cosmopolitan economist: Nations mean nothing to me, but i still prefer to get bang for my buck. To clarify, I think our relationship as human beings should always be strong than our relationship as Americans, Germans, Russians, etc. But, If one were to drop everything and pursue a goal, chances are, that could be the only goal one accomplishes. Yes, we should be helping to alleviate what was going on in Central Africa.
...But we're also a suffering country ourselves. Not trivializing what is going on in Central Africa with an economic crisis, but we as a country have a lot going on- wars, crises-- We cant help everyone without taking huge sacrifices to ourselves. Something, in my opinion, we cannot do.
Not in THAT way anyhow. I'm tired of the wars in which the US is currently involved. Plus, its costing too much money. We're not helping anymore, we're hurting their people. Wars are expensive, and only created an economic stimulus ONCE, and that was for extreme reasons. In short, what I'm saying is that if the US really wanted to help Central africa, they should get out of the mess theyre currently in, and change the flow of support to something that they CAN help with--not something where they continue to hurt the residents, the soldiers of their own country, as well as their own economy, and reputation.
Still looking for something good to come out of the wars in the Middle east...
Oh! We havent had a terrorist attack on the US since then!
--thanks TSA! You know, that establishment we have on our own shores...
The point of this really has been that clearly, in a time where we have thousands of people protesting [or what they should be protesting] is that the government no longer represents their interests. The economy is dying, people have no jobs, and most of the money the US government receives seems to be going to select, people and then the warfront, or vice versa. Who knows what the priorities are anymore?: THATS THE PROBLEM!
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Sunday, September 4, 2011
A Dusty Box, Filled with Broken Glass
I'm tired, and I need to write. That is to say, I have two urges that I really need to fulfill, but The mental urge needs out before I give into the physical. I gave into quite a bit of mindless entertainment recently, and my mind is suffering from the lack of exercise. Best to give it a bit of a warm up. Especially since I have a paper that needs researched/written by the end of the week. Sigh. Being a student is a bit of a pain on occasion.
So what to write that could be of interest? I have no prompt really, but there was a bit of an artsy piece I came across that I had written ages ago. By the looks of it, and based on the speech patterns I attempted to deliver via the particular medium, I was probably mildly intoxicated. Regardless, I quite enjoyed it.
It concerned 'hate'.
Hate always seems an interesting topic of choice. Its a word/state that I believe is often taken for granted/overused/etc. Its really lost meaning. We say, 'oh I hated that movie,' or 'I hate traffic.' But how often do people actually experience legitimate, and real 'hate'? I'd venture to guess not very often.
Firstly, it seems that hate is often mistaken for anger. Again, 'hate' is used so often that its meaning has become much less. Someone could get into a fight with another and claim that they 'hate' them. If one were to actually inquire if they truly 'hated' that person, chances are that they would say no, but that they are just really angry with them.
So why retract the statement upon second examination? For me, when asked if I really meant 'hate' there is a certain exponential increase of intensity in the emotion. The second questioning takes the lackluster 'hate' and instead seeks to showcase the possibility of the 'real deal' (if one will).
To actually hate entails something brutal, and near-primal. In fact, to actually 'hate' carries a negative connotation not upon the victim of the hate, but on the one possessing the emotion. Its something one should be ashamed of, and something one should regret. It leads to rash decisions, potentially violent actions--essentially nothing good. I've found through my studies that if one wishes to see where ideas of morals came about, it can easily be found through the endless stories across cultures. With regards to the topic in question, ever read/hear a story about the benefits of hate? I haven't. I'm fairly confident I wont ever encounter one either.
So it does seem that hate is a negative thing- a sort of regression to a more primitive state, and something that we should be able to control.
I have 'hated'. Not in the light sense. No where near it. The piece that I wrote (mentioned earlier), contains a fairly illustrative description of the feeling. I've only felt it once, and nothing ever came close to it ever before or since.
"I saw [the girl] a week ago- stared her in the eye for a few moments. I realized that I have nothing but wrath for her now. I despise her. I once thought that I could make things better and forgive her, but when I saw her that day I realized that it couldnt happen. I found that I can now tell someone what hate feels like. You feel a discomfort in your own skin just at sight of the thing. Extremities go numb, muscles tighten up- its an enormous mental conflict between confrontation and utter avoidance. You want it gone. You remind yourself to be a civilized and controlled human being, and so you resist, and just deal with the situation. But its like trying to sit in a room with someone scratching nails on a chalkboard, and you cannot make a single reaction. All you want to do is yell, attack, leave, anything but be passive and civilized. You even lose sleep over it. That is hate. And it is misery."
I do not feel this way toward that person anymore. Rereading that paragraph, however, it all comes back. Every feeling described, I remember vividly. It is a painful experience. Its a desperate feeling, and one that reminds one of how weak they are. It feels like an emotion of last resort- what to go to once you've run out of options, and you've realized you cannot win no matter what.
It reminds me of quotes from film and books: "its hate that drives him".
Given my brief experience with hate, I understand the above quote in an entirely new light. While in retrospect, it can be seen that to hate is indeed a shameful thing, there is power behind it. That 'burn' that is always referred to is the effect hate has in erasing all logic and reason. The power is that there is no more human restraint in hate.
"anything is possible"
while that phrase is normally looked upon in a fond light, seeing it through the lens of hate's enabling force, it is frightening. Anything can be done through hate. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. There is the object of hate, and the only thing that is of concern is eliminating that object, so that one need not hate anymore.
And most frightening of all, when one manages to rid oneself of the hated object, logic and reason return.When they do, one can look back and see clearly everything that has been done for the one goal. One can see every sacrifice made, every log thrown on the fire, and every piece of the soul that is left torn and shredded in the firey wake.
At that point, there are only two options: come to terms with the damage that oneself has wrought and work to make amends, or to delve further into the hate and blind oneself of the horrors committed.
I only had a taste of Hate. It is bitter, painful, poisonous, and like many other aspects of power, addictive.
So what to write that could be of interest? I have no prompt really, but there was a bit of an artsy piece I came across that I had written ages ago. By the looks of it, and based on the speech patterns I attempted to deliver via the particular medium, I was probably mildly intoxicated. Regardless, I quite enjoyed it.
It concerned 'hate'.
Hate always seems an interesting topic of choice. Its a word/state that I believe is often taken for granted/overused/etc. Its really lost meaning. We say, 'oh I hated that movie,' or 'I hate traffic.' But how often do people actually experience legitimate, and real 'hate'? I'd venture to guess not very often.
Firstly, it seems that hate is often mistaken for anger. Again, 'hate' is used so often that its meaning has become much less. Someone could get into a fight with another and claim that they 'hate' them. If one were to actually inquire if they truly 'hated' that person, chances are that they would say no, but that they are just really angry with them.
So why retract the statement upon second examination? For me, when asked if I really meant 'hate' there is a certain exponential increase of intensity in the emotion. The second questioning takes the lackluster 'hate' and instead seeks to showcase the possibility of the 'real deal' (if one will).
To actually hate entails something brutal, and near-primal. In fact, to actually 'hate' carries a negative connotation not upon the victim of the hate, but on the one possessing the emotion. Its something one should be ashamed of, and something one should regret. It leads to rash decisions, potentially violent actions--essentially nothing good. I've found through my studies that if one wishes to see where ideas of morals came about, it can easily be found through the endless stories across cultures. With regards to the topic in question, ever read/hear a story about the benefits of hate? I haven't. I'm fairly confident I wont ever encounter one either.
So it does seem that hate is a negative thing- a sort of regression to a more primitive state, and something that we should be able to control.
I have 'hated'. Not in the light sense. No where near it. The piece that I wrote (mentioned earlier), contains a fairly illustrative description of the feeling. I've only felt it once, and nothing ever came close to it ever before or since.
"I saw [the girl] a week ago- stared her in the eye for a few moments. I realized that I have nothing but wrath for her now. I despise her. I once thought that I could make things better and forgive her, but when I saw her that day I realized that it couldnt happen. I found that I can now tell someone what hate feels like. You feel a discomfort in your own skin just at sight of the thing. Extremities go numb, muscles tighten up- its an enormous mental conflict between confrontation and utter avoidance. You want it gone. You remind yourself to be a civilized and controlled human being, and so you resist, and just deal with the situation. But its like trying to sit in a room with someone scratching nails on a chalkboard, and you cannot make a single reaction. All you want to do is yell, attack, leave, anything but be passive and civilized. You even lose sleep over it. That is hate. And it is misery."
I do not feel this way toward that person anymore. Rereading that paragraph, however, it all comes back. Every feeling described, I remember vividly. It is a painful experience. Its a desperate feeling, and one that reminds one of how weak they are. It feels like an emotion of last resort- what to go to once you've run out of options, and you've realized you cannot win no matter what.
It reminds me of quotes from film and books: "its hate that drives him".
Given my brief experience with hate, I understand the above quote in an entirely new light. While in retrospect, it can be seen that to hate is indeed a shameful thing, there is power behind it. That 'burn' that is always referred to is the effect hate has in erasing all logic and reason. The power is that there is no more human restraint in hate.
"anything is possible"
while that phrase is normally looked upon in a fond light, seeing it through the lens of hate's enabling force, it is frightening. Anything can be done through hate. There is no right or wrong, good or bad. There is the object of hate, and the only thing that is of concern is eliminating that object, so that one need not hate anymore.
And most frightening of all, when one manages to rid oneself of the hated object, logic and reason return.When they do, one can look back and see clearly everything that has been done for the one goal. One can see every sacrifice made, every log thrown on the fire, and every piece of the soul that is left torn and shredded in the firey wake.
At that point, there are only two options: come to terms with the damage that oneself has wrought and work to make amends, or to delve further into the hate and blind oneself of the horrors committed.
I only had a taste of Hate. It is bitter, painful, poisonous, and like many other aspects of power, addictive.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
For a Greater Leverage
I'm feeling a little buzzed, so i'll give you a topic...
Campaign finance- is it unconstitutional? or should we be approaching the problem from a different angle?
To give a crash course of why campaign finance is somewhat ruining America (among other countries) is that it gives unnecessary leverage to those with heaping piles of money. Politicians need to get elected so they campaign to get their name out--nothing wrong with that. They need money to campaign and so businesses that feel a particular politician will support their interests will donate money to said politician to try and help get him elected. When that particular politician gets elected, he is then (unofficially) obligated to 'pay back' the contributor(s) in 'favors'. These favors can be anything from subsidy support to endorsement of a particular policy.
Where this can go awry is when a politician takes the 'obligation' he has to pay back his contributors as a higher priority than that of the people that really matter- eg the ones that voted his ass into the position. This is why we have enormous tobacco subsidies rather than a useful healthcare system (among other things) and why most financial banks have a firm grip on most of Washington's balls.
This cant be fixed by taxing the rich more than any other person (i'm referring to percentages not monetary amounts). if there is one thing i definitely will support on the right-wing politics, its that one cannot 'take'. No matter how one looks at it, under the current economic system we enable wealth to be made. Sadly, even immorally. However, it is legal. That is the problem. The correction is not to take what is rightfully theirs (because it is, we allowed it to happen/it was a legitimate loophole in the system/etc), and to take what is rightfully a possession of someone else is stealing. Plain and simple. Taxation is not stealing merely for the fact that it is legalized. so what could be a solution?
Set limits on campaign finance so the politicians cant dig themselves in too deep, therein enabling our policy-makers to do what we elected them to do? Sadly, campaign finance falls under the territory of free speech. Anyone is allowed to spend any amount of money they wish in any way they wish (dont get technical on me people, you know what i mean), and support anyone they wish with said money. One cannot argue against one of the founding pillars of our constitution.
So, we must argue with another piece of our constitution! Though Campaign finance(CF) falls under free speech, there is another way around it. Essentially, CF is what enables those with more money more leverage in the political realm. In essence, a loophole in the free speech argument allows a kind of plutocracy. the problem is not necessarily the money, but the leverage itself.
We must then, create a way in which we dont not assail anothers' rights, yet regain the leverage we are guaranteed by our democracy. In the way, i believe that we should find a way to give the people more leverage over the elected candidates. To put it simply, every elected official (congress, senate, executive) should be subject to a much easier form of ejection/impeachment. It is, after all, a very foundational piece of our national constitution that if a regime no longer serves the interests of the people, it is in the peoples right to remove that regime and replace it with another that is more suitable (look it up, its there!).
Obviously, as the position of authority gets higher, it will be more difficult to impeach. But in terms of congress and senate officials, an annual 'review' should be instated, and if certain policies are not being worked at hard enough, or enabled when it is clear that they could have been (essentially, if the official is not serving the interests of the majority but that of the plutocracy/campaign finance chaps) then they should be easily removed from their position. Probably by another vote-popular movement.
As for who would replace the official, I'm sure if a popular movement were mobilized to remove an official, a person within that movement would be more than capable of filling the position. If not, there could be any number of mechanism for replacement--a runner up of the elections (if favored by majority of course) for example.
There are other options of course. But as for an option that respects the idea of privacy as well as democracy, the way to go seems to be to find a way to increase the political leverage of the people. Preferably, the increase must be at least equal to the influence of the ones financing the politicians. In this way, the politicians will no longer be fully swayed by the rewards of serving the lobbies (for example). They will also be swayed by the fact that if they do no do as their electors wish, they can be removed from their office at the tip of the hat.
It doesn't hurt every now and then to remind our leadership that they still need to fear their people....
Campaign finance- is it unconstitutional? or should we be approaching the problem from a different angle?
To give a crash course of why campaign finance is somewhat ruining America (among other countries) is that it gives unnecessary leverage to those with heaping piles of money. Politicians need to get elected so they campaign to get their name out--nothing wrong with that. They need money to campaign and so businesses that feel a particular politician will support their interests will donate money to said politician to try and help get him elected. When that particular politician gets elected, he is then (unofficially) obligated to 'pay back' the contributor(s) in 'favors'. These favors can be anything from subsidy support to endorsement of a particular policy.
Where this can go awry is when a politician takes the 'obligation' he has to pay back his contributors as a higher priority than that of the people that really matter- eg the ones that voted his ass into the position. This is why we have enormous tobacco subsidies rather than a useful healthcare system (among other things) and why most financial banks have a firm grip on most of Washington's balls.
This cant be fixed by taxing the rich more than any other person (i'm referring to percentages not monetary amounts). if there is one thing i definitely will support on the right-wing politics, its that one cannot 'take'. No matter how one looks at it, under the current economic system we enable wealth to be made. Sadly, even immorally. However, it is legal. That is the problem. The correction is not to take what is rightfully theirs (because it is, we allowed it to happen/it was a legitimate loophole in the system/etc), and to take what is rightfully a possession of someone else is stealing. Plain and simple. Taxation is not stealing merely for the fact that it is legalized. so what could be a solution?
Set limits on campaign finance so the politicians cant dig themselves in too deep, therein enabling our policy-makers to do what we elected them to do? Sadly, campaign finance falls under the territory of free speech. Anyone is allowed to spend any amount of money they wish in any way they wish (dont get technical on me people, you know what i mean), and support anyone they wish with said money. One cannot argue against one of the founding pillars of our constitution.
So, we must argue with another piece of our constitution! Though Campaign finance(CF) falls under free speech, there is another way around it. Essentially, CF is what enables those with more money more leverage in the political realm. In essence, a loophole in the free speech argument allows a kind of plutocracy. the problem is not necessarily the money, but the leverage itself.
We must then, create a way in which we dont not assail anothers' rights, yet regain the leverage we are guaranteed by our democracy. In the way, i believe that we should find a way to give the people more leverage over the elected candidates. To put it simply, every elected official (congress, senate, executive) should be subject to a much easier form of ejection/impeachment. It is, after all, a very foundational piece of our national constitution that if a regime no longer serves the interests of the people, it is in the peoples right to remove that regime and replace it with another that is more suitable (look it up, its there!).
Obviously, as the position of authority gets higher, it will be more difficult to impeach. But in terms of congress and senate officials, an annual 'review' should be instated, and if certain policies are not being worked at hard enough, or enabled when it is clear that they could have been (essentially, if the official is not serving the interests of the majority but that of the plutocracy/campaign finance chaps) then they should be easily removed from their position. Probably by another vote-popular movement.
As for who would replace the official, I'm sure if a popular movement were mobilized to remove an official, a person within that movement would be more than capable of filling the position. If not, there could be any number of mechanism for replacement--a runner up of the elections (if favored by majority of course) for example.
There are other options of course. But as for an option that respects the idea of privacy as well as democracy, the way to go seems to be to find a way to increase the political leverage of the people. Preferably, the increase must be at least equal to the influence of the ones financing the politicians. In this way, the politicians will no longer be fully swayed by the rewards of serving the lobbies (for example). They will also be swayed by the fact that if they do no do as their electors wish, they can be removed from their office at the tip of the hat.
It doesn't hurt every now and then to remind our leadership that they still need to fear their people....
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
This is a Mind Dump
So its been a while. blah blah blah. Enough small talk. I've only got a little bit of time, but I've got a get my head around this somehow. So lets get right to it.
For some reason, even though there was a seemingly near-criminal investigation into the financial world post-crisis, there is no one in prison.
oh, my bad, ONE guy is in prison.
and probably just because SOMEONE had to go. Someone had to feed the masses rage-hunger
Without going into too much detail, there is an ABUSRD amount of evidence to put quite a few people in prison from anything from money laundering, to fraud and embezzlement--among other things. But all we (the public) got for being blatantly used and taken advantage of was one man.
I only need to illustrate the absurdity of this using one simple parallel. In trading, one cannot trade with oneself. there must be at least two people involved for it to be a 'trade'. So why, if our economy was demolished by financial securities TRADING, is there only one man behind bars?
would i be satisfied if they threw another guy in and called it a day? Of course not. That would just mean one less thing for me to be furious about.
These men are in fact criminals. There are precedents for this. I cannot take out a student loan and spend most of it in a casino rather than on books and food. However, a bunch of financial bankers can take OUR money and use it for a 'pseudo-casino'.
The fact that this occurred, was exposed, and yet there has been essentially no consequences for the actions of the few bankers is painful. Clearly, the finance boys have a diamond studded collar around the dogs in the government, and a firm grip on their balls.
Or I'm sorry, there is no negative coercion going on. Consider this is DC men we're talking about, its definitely positive coercion. And by positive coercion i mean that the men and women that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people of the United States and paying off their debts at the expensive of ours.
I'll leave my angry views on campaign finance for another post, but in short, the reason practically nothing gets done in terms of policy is because lobbies pay for elected officials campaigning to get elected. If/when the official gets elected, that money spent on annoying plastic signs and commercials needs to be paid back. Not in money, necessarily, but in favors. Favors, or government backing of certain areas, protection from foreign markets, etc.
Or in the case of said financial sector, we bail them out when they lose it all on the roulette table. Why? look how much money those guys are making--if Goldman Sachs decides to support say....Obama, the amount of other lobbies he needs to ask for campaign financing is very very low.
the problem becomes when Goldman Sachs loses a few hundred billion performing illegal activities.Because then our elected official (in this case Obama) is very strongly obligated to repay Goldman Sachs for the oodles of money he cost them to get elected.
Was there ever a real debate about the bailout for the banks? I strongly doubt it. in fact, i think the 'debates' were just a show to make it seem we were not being swindled.
To make matters even more atrocious, for the second time this year, the US government has avoided a government meltdown at the very last minute.
What seems all too convenient for me, is that the US credit rating is no longer a AAA rating. Even with the debt ceiling increased, its no longer AAA. its not in a BAD rating, but its not the flawless rating we've had since, practically, our formation. These potential 'meltdowns' our government keeps having has been weakening the credit rating and thereby making our financial assets not a guaranteed solid investment. THe flip side of that coin is that if one trades them on the, oh i dunno, financial market that Goldman Sachs (among others) got in trouble with in 2008, they essentially become more valuable. mainly more valuable in that they are more risky, therefore the spreads are larger, and therefore, there is more money to be made.
Which according to a report by Keiser Report (financial publication), thats exactly what theyve been doing.
For me, it seems pretty obvious that the government is tossing more than just a bone to the financial market. Its beginning to look like they're tossing them the entire roast. Our roast. I'm alright if politicians want to pay their debts. But when they start paying their debts and making them a priority over ours, i think there should be some serious consequences.
It astounds me that the title of our politicians is still technically 'civil servant'. In my opinion, 'civil servants' should be like they were throughout the rest of history. You get paid to compensate for participating in government (but not the highest wage, nor the lowest), and you are a SERVANT or the people. A representative. Neither of those titles can afford half the things a politician makes.Nor should they.
ARGH.Lets just vote them all out, make campaign finance limits, and start fixing whats wrong with this country.
Thats my rant. If you bitch enough or provide a good enough argument i'll give you evidence to back my harsh words above.
Call this the last straw for me. If i can find a way to get even ONE more of these to answer for this catastrophe i'll consider my life to have fulfilled something great.
For now, my next goal is simple. Have the words 'Masters in Finance Law" printed (among others) on my final degree.
For some reason, even though there was a seemingly near-criminal investigation into the financial world post-crisis, there is no one in prison.
oh, my bad, ONE guy is in prison.
and probably just because SOMEONE had to go. Someone had to feed the masses rage-hunger
Without going into too much detail, there is an ABUSRD amount of evidence to put quite a few people in prison from anything from money laundering, to fraud and embezzlement--among other things. But all we (the public) got for being blatantly used and taken advantage of was one man.
I only need to illustrate the absurdity of this using one simple parallel. In trading, one cannot trade with oneself. there must be at least two people involved for it to be a 'trade'. So why, if our economy was demolished by financial securities TRADING, is there only one man behind bars?
would i be satisfied if they threw another guy in and called it a day? Of course not. That would just mean one less thing for me to be furious about.
These men are in fact criminals. There are precedents for this. I cannot take out a student loan and spend most of it in a casino rather than on books and food. However, a bunch of financial bankers can take OUR money and use it for a 'pseudo-casino'.
The fact that this occurred, was exposed, and yet there has been essentially no consequences for the actions of the few bankers is painful. Clearly, the finance boys have a diamond studded collar around the dogs in the government, and a firm grip on their balls.
Or I'm sorry, there is no negative coercion going on. Consider this is DC men we're talking about, its definitely positive coercion. And by positive coercion i mean that the men and women that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people of the United States and paying off their debts at the expensive of ours.
I'll leave my angry views on campaign finance for another post, but in short, the reason practically nothing gets done in terms of policy is because lobbies pay for elected officials campaigning to get elected. If/when the official gets elected, that money spent on annoying plastic signs and commercials needs to be paid back. Not in money, necessarily, but in favors. Favors, or government backing of certain areas, protection from foreign markets, etc.
Or in the case of said financial sector, we bail them out when they lose it all on the roulette table. Why? look how much money those guys are making--if Goldman Sachs decides to support say....Obama, the amount of other lobbies he needs to ask for campaign financing is very very low.
the problem becomes when Goldman Sachs loses a few hundred billion performing illegal activities.Because then our elected official (in this case Obama) is very strongly obligated to repay Goldman Sachs for the oodles of money he cost them to get elected.
Was there ever a real debate about the bailout for the banks? I strongly doubt it. in fact, i think the 'debates' were just a show to make it seem we were not being swindled.
To make matters even more atrocious, for the second time this year, the US government has avoided a government meltdown at the very last minute.
What seems all too convenient for me, is that the US credit rating is no longer a AAA rating. Even with the debt ceiling increased, its no longer AAA. its not in a BAD rating, but its not the flawless rating we've had since, practically, our formation. These potential 'meltdowns' our government keeps having has been weakening the credit rating and thereby making our financial assets not a guaranteed solid investment. THe flip side of that coin is that if one trades them on the, oh i dunno, financial market that Goldman Sachs (among others) got in trouble with in 2008, they essentially become more valuable. mainly more valuable in that they are more risky, therefore the spreads are larger, and therefore, there is more money to be made.
Which according to a report by Keiser Report (financial publication), thats exactly what theyve been doing.
For me, it seems pretty obvious that the government is tossing more than just a bone to the financial market. Its beginning to look like they're tossing them the entire roast. Our roast. I'm alright if politicians want to pay their debts. But when they start paying their debts and making them a priority over ours, i think there should be some serious consequences.
It astounds me that the title of our politicians is still technically 'civil servant'. In my opinion, 'civil servants' should be like they were throughout the rest of history. You get paid to compensate for participating in government (but not the highest wage, nor the lowest), and you are a SERVANT or the people. A representative. Neither of those titles can afford half the things a politician makes.Nor should they.
ARGH.Lets just vote them all out, make campaign finance limits, and start fixing whats wrong with this country.
Thats my rant. If you bitch enough or provide a good enough argument i'll give you evidence to back my harsh words above.
Call this the last straw for me. If i can find a way to get even ONE more of these to answer for this catastrophe i'll consider my life to have fulfilled something great.
For now, my next goal is simple. Have the words 'Masters in Finance Law" printed (among others) on my final degree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)