I wonder if executive pay will cut at those banks that have been caught making fundamental management errors. Many banks are paid very large sums every year to service mortgage loans. Yet they have been exposed to have lied and filed false statements in foreclosures. Their internal management systems have been geared to cost cutting and minimal "service", contrary to their legal obligations. Some bank management has lied about its procedures when first asked [e. g. Bank of America].
When management fails in its duties, its pay should be cut. Or they should be fired. Obviously high level management is at fault - trying to wring out excessive profits, they have caused the organization to fail in its duties. Top management at all those banks should see serious cuts in bonuses; perhaps even pay cuts. Running the company properly is their jobs. When they fail, why give them a bonus at all?
Social Revolution
I wonder if worldwide social revolution will get a spark? Certainly the pile of tinder, kindling and dry fuel grows daily. The ruling classes of the rich and powerful and their overpaid, cossetted public employee bureaucracies seem to be getting serious pushback as they try to impose the costs of financial and governmental restructuring on the common man & woman. This is not simply a US issue.
Billionaires the worldwide are using looted wealth to obtain more power and status. Here's a quote from a column in the weekend FT: "On the opening day of Frieze [the Pavilion of Art and Design covering Berkeley Square in London], when I could only spare an hour to scout, I spotted a couple of Russian oligarchs, three North American billionaires, Tom Ford, a sprinkling of other celebrities and a lot of runners, all circling the big-hitters. The money is guarded fiercely by a wall of advisers-as-human-shields, while the amount of hot air that ricochets around the art scene is staggering. It is everything to do with names and status and nothing to do with love of art, or so it seems. There’s a palpable desire to acquire the latest wunderkinder – although how these wunderkinder are determined is a curious process and seems to have little to do with artistic merit. I wonder whether the oligarchs even care where the “wunders” will be next year? There’s so much money swilling about that while the “clever art” (that which doubles in value) may remain on the wall, the majority can be consigned to a Moscow basement. The increasing global disparity of wealth is disconcerting to witness."
Aristotle and Pericles would spit.
And people wonder why I am well-prepared to civil strife and armageddon.
Word of the Day
"Despond" - verb, intransitive [$10] archaic alt.: dispond [$1000]
Despond means to become discouraged.
Sentence: The middle class private sector desponds under their grossly unfair treatment by the ruling classes and their bureacracies. Without a loyal middle class, modern society can collapse. How far can they be pushed?
Showing posts with label revolutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revolutions. Show all posts
Monday, October 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Don't Get Angry ...
Do something !
Over 400 years ago the famous French philosopher Montaigne wrote his essay #4 titled "How the soul discharges its passions on false objects when the true are wanting" [Great Books, vol. 23, page 57-58]. In that essay he gave many examples from history how rulers misdirected anger according to superstitions and myths of the time (such as Xerxes having the waters of the Hellespont whipped for making his crossing difficult), or beating their own bodies in some manner (Augustus Caesar beating his head against the wall saying "Varus, give me back my soldiers" after the defeat at the Teutoberg Forest in A. D. 9). Or referring to a tale of a man pulling his hair out in grief, "Does this man think baldness relieves grief ?" Montaigne observes: "So it seems the soul, once stirred and set in motion, is lost in itself unless we give it something to grasp; and we must give it an object to aim and act on." If a legitimate object is not found, the soul "forges a false and frivolous one." [loc. cit.]
Now in our time currently, many of the public at large display much anger at Obama's crypto-fascist maneuvers to impose obligations on the people via sheer power politics. The "Tea Party" movement is channeling some of the anger into positive political responses. These remind me of the Howard Jarvis led Proposition 13 movement in California in the 1970s that brought real estate tax relief to California homeowners. And Barbara Anderson's similar effort in Massachusetts brought forth Proposition 2 1/2 which gave Massachusetts citizens a direct vote in their towns on real estate tax hikes over a 2.5% per annum trigger. Those were successful, peaceful rebellions against oppressive government.
Obama's shills are screeching against the efforts of the common man to regain some power. That means they are worried. A good blog I read yesterday about the Anger described a New York Times writer calling all the angry people 'racists'. That's sheer nonsense and a polemical, ad hominen fallacy to disrupt the debate. How should we interpret the anger, though ? Is it more general than anti-Obama feeling ? Yes, in my opinion. Past commentors here raised the issue even before Obama was elected. I've pondered it myself, but can't remember putting the ideas into one cogent statement that encapsulated the frustration and despair of the common man. Here's how the perspicacious* blogger cited above put it: "The real cause of the rage is the sense that money seems to be flowing only upward (away from the middle class) and not circulating in small business and consumer lending or in the form of pay raises, and the resulting fear and sense of general disease is horrifying to people." [cited from link given above.]
That sounds about right to me. The common man is getting the short end of so many sticks he is fed up ... or in despair. Government and the ruling classes have gone too far. When an average family faces a 45% marginal tax rate on income from extra effort, that's far, far too high. Obama is now resorting to mandates as raising taxes with rates already so high is soon to be counterproductive. Big corporations and the ruling classes are his co-conspirators in putting new burdens on the common man, and in sucking more money from him and his communities. It is infuriating !
As Montaigne pointed out 400 years ago, one needs to direct one's anger properly. Miss-directed anger at myths does nothing. Stop mere sloganeering & griping to your own circle of friends. Volunteer some time or money or both to help nascent movements get off the ground. Find local, HONEST candidates to support. Contact representatives with ideas. Early money donations are crucial for getting campaigns started - whether for candidates or for initiative efforts.
Stop shopping at Wal-Mart and other conduits for China. A huge amount of the money spent there flows straight to China. Cut your use of imported oil (yes, Sun Boy is right). Take your money out of mega-banks and money market funds and put it into local banks.
"Fear and rage accomplish nothing productive. But working together, we are some of the most productive people on earth. It is time to face up to what is bothering so many of us and get back to being the "can-do" nation that we are." [loc. cit.]
Markets
Ms. Market seems tired of dancing. Every jig lately runs out of steam fast. Beware of complacency. This is no place to be leveraged long. Seasonal strength runs out soon. Take some profits so you'll have some money to buy a big dip. Lots of events can cause it and it will be unpredictable. Constant Vigilance is the watch word.
Word of the Day
"Perspicacious" - adjective [$10]; "Perspicacity" - noun [$10]
Perspicacious means of acute mental vision or discernment.
Perspicacity means acuteness of perception, discernment or understanding.
Sentence: Writing a trenchant blog post requires perspicacious observation and insight, and the ability to express thoughts verbally with simpicity and clarity.
Over 400 years ago the famous French philosopher Montaigne wrote his essay #4 titled "How the soul discharges its passions on false objects when the true are wanting" [Great Books, vol. 23, page 57-58]. In that essay he gave many examples from history how rulers misdirected anger according to superstitions and myths of the time (such as Xerxes having the waters of the Hellespont whipped for making his crossing difficult), or beating their own bodies in some manner (Augustus Caesar beating his head against the wall saying "Varus, give me back my soldiers" after the defeat at the Teutoberg Forest in A. D. 9). Or referring to a tale of a man pulling his hair out in grief, "Does this man think baldness relieves grief ?" Montaigne observes: "So it seems the soul, once stirred and set in motion, is lost in itself unless we give it something to grasp; and we must give it an object to aim and act on." If a legitimate object is not found, the soul "forges a false and frivolous one." [loc. cit.]
Now in our time currently, many of the public at large display much anger at Obama's crypto-fascist maneuvers to impose obligations on the people via sheer power politics. The "Tea Party" movement is channeling some of the anger into positive political responses. These remind me of the Howard Jarvis led Proposition 13 movement in California in the 1970s that brought real estate tax relief to California homeowners. And Barbara Anderson's similar effort in Massachusetts brought forth Proposition 2 1/2 which gave Massachusetts citizens a direct vote in their towns on real estate tax hikes over a 2.5% per annum trigger. Those were successful, peaceful rebellions against oppressive government.
Obama's shills are screeching against the efforts of the common man to regain some power. That means they are worried. A good blog I read yesterday about the Anger described a New York Times writer calling all the angry people 'racists'. That's sheer nonsense and a polemical, ad hominen fallacy to disrupt the debate. How should we interpret the anger, though ? Is it more general than anti-Obama feeling ? Yes, in my opinion. Past commentors here raised the issue even before Obama was elected. I've pondered it myself, but can't remember putting the ideas into one cogent statement that encapsulated the frustration and despair of the common man. Here's how the perspicacious* blogger cited above put it: "The real cause of the rage is the sense that money seems to be flowing only upward (away from the middle class) and not circulating in small business and consumer lending or in the form of pay raises, and the resulting fear and sense of general disease is horrifying to people." [cited from link given above.]
That sounds about right to me. The common man is getting the short end of so many sticks he is fed up ... or in despair. Government and the ruling classes have gone too far. When an average family faces a 45% marginal tax rate on income from extra effort, that's far, far too high. Obama is now resorting to mandates as raising taxes with rates already so high is soon to be counterproductive. Big corporations and the ruling classes are his co-conspirators in putting new burdens on the common man, and in sucking more money from him and his communities. It is infuriating !
As Montaigne pointed out 400 years ago, one needs to direct one's anger properly. Miss-directed anger at myths does nothing. Stop mere sloganeering & griping to your own circle of friends. Volunteer some time or money or both to help nascent movements get off the ground. Find local, HONEST candidates to support. Contact representatives with ideas. Early money donations are crucial for getting campaigns started - whether for candidates or for initiative efforts.
Stop shopping at Wal-Mart and other conduits for China. A huge amount of the money spent there flows straight to China. Cut your use of imported oil (yes, Sun Boy is right). Take your money out of mega-banks and money market funds and put it into local banks.
"Fear and rage accomplish nothing productive. But working together, we are some of the most productive people on earth. It is time to face up to what is bothering so many of us and get back to being the "can-do" nation that we are." [loc. cit.]
Markets
Ms. Market seems tired of dancing. Every jig lately runs out of steam fast. Beware of complacency. This is no place to be leveraged long. Seasonal strength runs out soon. Take some profits so you'll have some money to buy a big dip. Lots of events can cause it and it will be unpredictable. Constant Vigilance is the watch word.
Word of the Day
"Perspicacious" - adjective [$10]; "Perspicacity" - noun [$10]
Perspicacious means of acute mental vision or discernment.
Perspicacity means acuteness of perception, discernment or understanding.
Sentence: Writing a trenchant blog post requires perspicacious observation and insight, and the ability to express thoughts verbally with simpicity and clarity.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Betrayers of Revolutions
For around 400 years the world has seen many revolutions by and in the name of "the people". Some worked, some did not. Some were disasters. Some were colossal successes.
What determines success and failure ? Sometimes ingerence* - interference from foreign neighbors - causes a collapse. [*Word of the Day] Such was the cause of the failure of the 1791 revolution in Poland led by Tadeusz Kościuszko , which was crushed by armies of Russia and Prussia.
The quality of the leaders - usually a singular leader in both senses of the word "singular" - determines if the revolution will evolve into a positive state of government, or devolve into a tyranny. And for revolutions in current times, how do we decide what is happening ? Our information is usually very, very fragmented and imperfect.
One crucial factor seems to be a necessary condition for success, and a sufficient condition for failure. Will the leader permit a peaceful transfer of power, or will he resort to any means to hold on to power ? The answer to that single question seems to link historical failures to each other and obversely to link successful revolutions also.
Here are some examples of success and failure.
Cromwell - he never again held free elections in England after taking power, becoming an unpopular tyrant. His puritanical revolution died when he died and the issues of power in England had to be re-fought (peacefully) in 1689 in the "Glorious Revolution".
Washington - he resigned his command after winning the Revolutionary war and caustically rejected calls for his kingship. Recalled to power eight years later, after two terms as President he then refused to run for a third term, relinquishing power peacefully again. The American revolution went on to succeed for hundreds of years.
Lenin - His Bolshevik party resorted to a killing spree in 1919-1922 rather than share power with other social revolutionary parties. That is documented in historical records and numerous first hand accounts by truly dedicated revolutionaries such as the books by Emma Goldman and Angelica Balabanova. The Communist revolution in Russia became the killing ground for Stalin and the eventual oppressor of eastern Europe for 45 years.
Hitler - that sordid tale is well known. After taking power in 1933, no free election was held in Germany until the Nazi regime was crushed in World War II.
Castro - After seizing power in the 1959 revolution, no free election was ever held. Castro's own sister has documented in a recent book how he began to imprison and kill any opposition leader, no matter how moderate, so that he could retain power.
De Gaulle - after being President, commander in chief and then Prime Minister of France during and after World War II, he left power peacefully in 1946 when political conflict rose. Later in 1958, he led a restructuring the the French government to create the Fifth Republic and became its President. He led strongly, but did not create a party to hold power regardless of opposition. He left office peacefully in 1969. France is a strong nation today, one of the leaders in Europe.
Wałęsa - After leading the "Solidarity" revolution to victory in 1990 and being elected to the Presidency of Poland, he did not try to consolidate power into a dictatorship. He was defeated in the 1995 election and left power peacefully. He is still active in Polish politics. Poland is a political and economic success story in Europe.
The answer: A revolution succeeds when the leader is not blinded by fanatical desire for power. A revolution fails when it is betrayed by its own leader whose lust for power consumes all reason. That is the acid test of a revolution. Revolutions are betrayed by their leader.
What about now ? How do some current leaders shape up on this standard ?
Post-communist Russia - Yeltsin and Gorbachev both left power peacefully. Putin is questionable, as he installed a crony, Medvedev, into the Presidency. However, he did not change the constitution to permit another term for himself - that does show a "bit" of self-restraint. Unclear for now -very risky position.
Venezuela - this is easy - Chavez has changed innumerable rules to retain power. He's evolving into, or is, a tyrant.
Honduras - easy, Zelaya wanted to change the constitution to retain power. He was a potential tyrant, stopped for now by the Supreme Court of Honduras, its Congress and loyal military. Obama and Hillary are ignorantly on the wrong side of this controversy.
Red China - easy, the Communist Party permits no political opposition. It's an oppressive military dictatorship. Whether it returns to its past Maoist butchery is unknown. Red China could easily revert to the darkest side again.
Iran - another betrayal as the current clique of mullahs cling to power using any means. The recent oppression of electoral protests proves Iran is a oppressive dictatorship.
______________________________________________________
Actions
I bought more S&P Dec. call options yesterday on a couple of dips in the post Fed volatility. I have 3/4 of my planned position. This is a risky play on an improved jobs number being reported Friday that could lead to an new leg up in the market. I could lose 50% of the speculation if wrong or make 300% if right.
Word of the Day
"Ingerence" - noun [$1000]; and "Ingere" - verb, obsolete, rare.
Ingerence means bearing in upon, intrusive; interference. Often used in diplomatic of affairs of nations.
Ingere means to carry in, put or push in, obtrude; (reflexive) to thrust oneself in, to obtrude oneself, to intrude, to presume.
Sentence: (I) see * above in the second paragraph of this post. (II) Why does the US government seem compelled to ingere itself into the business of almost every nation on Earth ? The US is neither the world's policeman nor its nanny. Let's leave them alone.
What determines success and failure ? Sometimes ingerence* - interference from foreign neighbors - causes a collapse. [*Word of the Day] Such was the cause of the failure of the 1791 revolution in Poland led by Tadeusz Kościuszko , which was crushed by armies of Russia and Prussia.
The quality of the leaders - usually a singular leader in both senses of the word "singular" - determines if the revolution will evolve into a positive state of government, or devolve into a tyranny. And for revolutions in current times, how do we decide what is happening ? Our information is usually very, very fragmented and imperfect.
One crucial factor seems to be a necessary condition for success, and a sufficient condition for failure. Will the leader permit a peaceful transfer of power, or will he resort to any means to hold on to power ? The answer to that single question seems to link historical failures to each other and obversely to link successful revolutions also.
Here are some examples of success and failure.
Cromwell - he never again held free elections in England after taking power, becoming an unpopular tyrant. His puritanical revolution died when he died and the issues of power in England had to be re-fought (peacefully) in 1689 in the "Glorious Revolution".
Washington - he resigned his command after winning the Revolutionary war and caustically rejected calls for his kingship. Recalled to power eight years later, after two terms as President he then refused to run for a third term, relinquishing power peacefully again. The American revolution went on to succeed for hundreds of years.
Lenin - His Bolshevik party resorted to a killing spree in 1919-1922 rather than share power with other social revolutionary parties. That is documented in historical records and numerous first hand accounts by truly dedicated revolutionaries such as the books by Emma Goldman and Angelica Balabanova. The Communist revolution in Russia became the killing ground for Stalin and the eventual oppressor of eastern Europe for 45 years.
Hitler - that sordid tale is well known. After taking power in 1933, no free election was held in Germany until the Nazi regime was crushed in World War II.
Castro - After seizing power in the 1959 revolution, no free election was ever held. Castro's own sister has documented in a recent book how he began to imprison and kill any opposition leader, no matter how moderate, so that he could retain power.
De Gaulle - after being President, commander in chief and then Prime Minister of France during and after World War II, he left power peacefully in 1946 when political conflict rose. Later in 1958, he led a restructuring the the French government to create the Fifth Republic and became its President. He led strongly, but did not create a party to hold power regardless of opposition. He left office peacefully in 1969. France is a strong nation today, one of the leaders in Europe.
Wałęsa - After leading the "Solidarity" revolution to victory in 1990 and being elected to the Presidency of Poland, he did not try to consolidate power into a dictatorship. He was defeated in the 1995 election and left power peacefully. He is still active in Polish politics. Poland is a political and economic success story in Europe.
The answer: A revolution succeeds when the leader is not blinded by fanatical desire for power. A revolution fails when it is betrayed by its own leader whose lust for power consumes all reason. That is the acid test of a revolution. Revolutions are betrayed by their leader.
What about now ? How do some current leaders shape up on this standard ?
Post-communist Russia - Yeltsin and Gorbachev both left power peacefully. Putin is questionable, as he installed a crony, Medvedev, into the Presidency. However, he did not change the constitution to permit another term for himself - that does show a "bit" of self-restraint. Unclear for now -very risky position.
Venezuela - this is easy - Chavez has changed innumerable rules to retain power. He's evolving into, or is, a tyrant.
Honduras - easy, Zelaya wanted to change the constitution to retain power. He was a potential tyrant, stopped for now by the Supreme Court of Honduras, its Congress and loyal military. Obama and Hillary are ignorantly on the wrong side of this controversy.
Red China - easy, the Communist Party permits no political opposition. It's an oppressive military dictatorship. Whether it returns to its past Maoist butchery is unknown. Red China could easily revert to the darkest side again.
Iran - another betrayal as the current clique of mullahs cling to power using any means. The recent oppression of electoral protests proves Iran is a oppressive dictatorship.
______________________________________________________
Actions
I bought more S&P Dec. call options yesterday on a couple of dips in the post Fed volatility. I have 3/4 of my planned position. This is a risky play on an improved jobs number being reported Friday that could lead to an new leg up in the market. I could lose 50% of the speculation if wrong or make 300% if right.
Word of the Day
"Ingerence" - noun [$1000]; and "Ingere" - verb, obsolete, rare.
Ingerence means bearing in upon, intrusive; interference. Often used in diplomatic of affairs of nations.
Ingere means to carry in, put or push in, obtrude; (reflexive) to thrust oneself in, to obtrude oneself, to intrude, to presume.
Sentence: (I) see * above in the second paragraph of this post. (II) Why does the US government seem compelled to ingere itself into the business of almost every nation on Earth ? The US is neither the world's policeman nor its nanny. Let's leave them alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
