In his blog, Krugman reveals that Obama is the "Professor in chief": "I found Obama’s health care presentation so impressive — so much command of the issues — that it had me worried. If I really like a politicians’ speech, isn’t that an indication that he lacks the popular touch? (A couple of points off for “incentivize” — what ever happened to “encourage”? — but never mind.)
Seriously, it’s really good to see how much he gets it."
Yes, well, I particularly loved the sneak attacks against "the profit motive" delivered with great care and subtility, so as not to hurt and revolt, but just so as to leave a deep mark on the subconscious of the bleating media sheep (which seemed aware of their own mental short comings as they struggled to rise to the occasion, something I have observed with sheep in the wild, when they try to understand what to do). And, of course, that presentation was made to change the subconscious of the nation, as the dose of higher philosophy ("health care is not about profit, and actually the profit motive is toxic to health") was delivered twice with an extremely light touch, as if Obama himself was baffled by the idea, and was just trying to formulate modestly gathering thoughts...
Indeed, it's high time that "We The People" understands that stupidity is the road to hell in a waste basket. The popular obsession of mental retardation shrouded in sport scores, is not just ludicrous, it's an indecent threat to planetary survival.
In the present situation, the revolutionary reflex: "Off With Their Heads!, cannot even be evoked. Verily, before the people's heads could be cut off, they would need some. We may as have been dealing with sponges placidly bathing in plutocratic juice, but now Obama is showing them what a brain can do.
Obama's role is to be father of the nation, and he does that very well, because a father is someone who knows, and feels, more. It's easy to know more than children who have travelled nowhere. Obama has lived overseas, and not just overseas in an equivalent place such as Western Europe, but overseas in a (at the time) severely underdeveloped country of the Muslim type (my case exactly, by the way, but longer and deeper, making me fiercer).
So Obama is mentally deep (except in the waters where Larry Summers swim like a self assured globular sardine, while Obama is not hungry yet). It is good that the American People is exposed to some mental activity of the higher type, that's what the USA needs. The best profits are of the mental type. Learn.
By the way, there is a tradition in a country such as France, of presidents who actually know their stuff, and have the "vision thing" as Bush the First used to say, in one of his most notable efforts to form a sentence.
It is a particular grotesque behavior that American presidents have been overly dependent on "speech writers" to think. Obama is the Thinker In Chief, and powers to that! It is not just human, what man is all about, but it is also honest: instead of a plutocratic machine producing a figurehead actor, we get a human being thinking higher thougths.
So do not tremble, oh little Krugman, sheeps cannot devour minds.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
FREE MARKETS FANATICS CRASH AND BURN.
AMERICAN ECONOMISTS AS UNIVERSAL MECHANICS:
Doctor Paul Krugman suddenly shows his true colors, from back when he was an adviser of Ronald Reagan, before he played progressive in the media, for his greater glory.
He writes in his blog, July 21, 2009: “The solution to climate change must rely... on market mechanisms — it’s too complex an issue to deal with using command-and-control. ”
Really? Another complex issue is air traffic control, which, thus, according to the good Dr. Krugman, "must rely on market mechanisms". Goldman Sachs could sell the right to land first to who will pay more in the instant. Then if someone pays even more, they could sell the right to land first to that one instead. And so on. Then they could sell bets on who will crash first.
No doubt, pretty soon, air travel would experience a final solution to the problem of its existence. Most planes having crashed, there would be no more carbon emission that way. The air travel industry would follow the American society into the ground. Or even below, where Pluto is located.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
P/S 1: Of course high fossil fuel taxes is the way to conserve and force efficiencies. A carbon tax is the way to fix, worldwide the worst proble of globalization, which is that it gave ways for plutocracy to turn around legislation.
[P/S 2: The central argument above is too critical of the market concept as panacea, so the New York Times refused to publish it, pursuing a pattern of avoiding to publish my deepest critiques against the present economic system (they systematically refused to publish my observations about the private fractional reserve banking system, for example)...]
Doctor Paul Krugman suddenly shows his true colors, from back when he was an adviser of Ronald Reagan, before he played progressive in the media, for his greater glory.
He writes in his blog, July 21, 2009: “The solution to climate change must rely... on market mechanisms — it’s too complex an issue to deal with using command-and-control. ”
Really? Another complex issue is air traffic control, which, thus, according to the good Dr. Krugman, "must rely on market mechanisms". Goldman Sachs could sell the right to land first to who will pay more in the instant. Then if someone pays even more, they could sell the right to land first to that one instead. And so on. Then they could sell bets on who will crash first.
No doubt, pretty soon, air travel would experience a final solution to the problem of its existence. Most planes having crashed, there would be no more carbon emission that way. The air travel industry would follow the American society into the ground. Or even below, where Pluto is located.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
P/S 1: Of course high fossil fuel taxes is the way to conserve and force efficiencies. A carbon tax is the way to fix, worldwide the worst proble of globalization, which is that it gave ways for plutocracy to turn around legislation.
[P/S 2: The central argument above is too critical of the market concept as panacea, so the New York Times refused to publish it, pursuing a pattern of avoiding to publish my deepest critiques against the present economic system (they systematically refused to publish my observations about the private fractional reserve banking system, for example)...]
Sunday, July 19, 2009
RUB IT IN: RUBIN FOREVER.
PLUS DE CHANGE, PLUS DE PLUTOCRACIE:
***
In his blog post, "Morning Joe" (July 19, 2009), Paul Krugman deplores the absence in the Obama administration of a great economist such as Stiglitz (and, implicitly, and naturally, himself). Paul makes a few observations:
"...the larger story is the absence of a progressive-economist wing. A lot of people supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries because they thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team; and what Obama has done is … bring back the Rubin team. Even the advisory council, which is supposed to bring in skeptical views, does so by bringing in, um, Marty Feldstein..."
[Martin Feldstein is an extreme conservative (by European standards) economist, a partisan advising G. W. Bush to privatize social security, and a fanatical enemy of Europe, who views Europe as a natural enemy of the USA, and who naturally opposed the European currency in all ways.]
OK, let Paul finish his discourse:
"The point is that even if you think the leftish wing of economics doesn’t have all the answers, you’d expect some people from that wing to be at the table...
Joe Stiglitz stands out because in addition to being on the progressive wing, he’s also, as I said, a giant among academic economists. But I think the real story is more about excluded points of view than excluded people."
***
So I sent the following comment supporting Paul's views:
Indeed, many people supported Obama because they were sure that Clinton would bring back the Rubin team of plutocratic critters.
So Obama brought back the Rubin team, demonstrating that the plutocratic octopus is everywhere, and that there is something deep about Nader's insistence that the game is rigged.
Nader did not invent that line: it's the old saw that Communists and Socialists were using already a century ago.
After the Communists and Socialist made headway with that observation, the plutocrats produced the fascists who carefully imitated Communist and Socialist headlines with their own propaganda (Mussolini and Hitler said that they carefully did so).
So now, here we are. Just standing in place is called being part of the "progressive wing". Because what we are facing is a regressive movement. People who insist that destroying the earth is no worries of theirs, people who insist that worth is defined by financial profits, and that only a small oligarchy can have access to these financial profits, and that the entire population should pay to make it so, are not conserving any of the character of the republic.
In truth, they are regressives, who want to go back to the Middle Ages, and have already partly succeeded to do so. Why? Because they are turning into the new Lords. Politicians are motivated to help them achieve this status, because they are themselves rewarded the old fashion way, by being elevated to considerably greater riches as Clinton was (the average Congressman and Senator are already multi millionaire while they "serve" their mandates, namely themselves).
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
***
P/S: A president, though, contacted Stiglitz, and gave him a mission: try to define a better definition of GDP.
This has been one my war horses: to redefine GDP completely (and I have an elaborated solution, involving USING ENERGY AS CURRENCY, which allows to discard the inefficient part of GDP, and introduce in GDP what is very worthy, but not in the present GDP).
That president is located in Paris, he is the president of France, and his name is Sarkozy. It is instructive to realize that Merkel, Sarkozy, and even Brown, are way left of Obama, and are using American intellectual resources to progress. But, once one has realized that economically Obama is the Rubin team, that is not very surprising.
One thing that would surprise Americans, though, is the spite and anger, even among leaders, that the impudence of American plutocracy is causing overseas.
***
***
In his blog post, "Morning Joe" (July 19, 2009), Paul Krugman deplores the absence in the Obama administration of a great economist such as Stiglitz (and, implicitly, and naturally, himself). Paul makes a few observations:
"...the larger story is the absence of a progressive-economist wing. A lot of people supported Obama over Clinton in the primaries because they thought Clinton would bring back the Rubin team; and what Obama has done is … bring back the Rubin team. Even the advisory council, which is supposed to bring in skeptical views, does so by bringing in, um, Marty Feldstein..."
[Martin Feldstein is an extreme conservative (by European standards) economist, a partisan advising G. W. Bush to privatize social security, and a fanatical enemy of Europe, who views Europe as a natural enemy of the USA, and who naturally opposed the European currency in all ways.]
OK, let Paul finish his discourse:
"The point is that even if you think the leftish wing of economics doesn’t have all the answers, you’d expect some people from that wing to be at the table...
Joe Stiglitz stands out because in addition to being on the progressive wing, he’s also, as I said, a giant among academic economists. But I think the real story is more about excluded points of view than excluded people."
***
So I sent the following comment supporting Paul's views:
Indeed, many people supported Obama because they were sure that Clinton would bring back the Rubin team of plutocratic critters.
So Obama brought back the Rubin team, demonstrating that the plutocratic octopus is everywhere, and that there is something deep about Nader's insistence that the game is rigged.
Nader did not invent that line: it's the old saw that Communists and Socialists were using already a century ago.
After the Communists and Socialist made headway with that observation, the plutocrats produced the fascists who carefully imitated Communist and Socialist headlines with their own propaganda (Mussolini and Hitler said that they carefully did so).
So now, here we are. Just standing in place is called being part of the "progressive wing". Because what we are facing is a regressive movement. People who insist that destroying the earth is no worries of theirs, people who insist that worth is defined by financial profits, and that only a small oligarchy can have access to these financial profits, and that the entire population should pay to make it so, are not conserving any of the character of the republic.
In truth, they are regressives, who want to go back to the Middle Ages, and have already partly succeeded to do so. Why? Because they are turning into the new Lords. Politicians are motivated to help them achieve this status, because they are themselves rewarded the old fashion way, by being elevated to considerably greater riches as Clinton was (the average Congressman and Senator are already multi millionaire while they "serve" their mandates, namely themselves).
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
***
P/S: A president, though, contacted Stiglitz, and gave him a mission: try to define a better definition of GDP.
This has been one my war horses: to redefine GDP completely (and I have an elaborated solution, involving USING ENERGY AS CURRENCY, which allows to discard the inefficient part of GDP, and introduce in GDP what is very worthy, but not in the present GDP).
That president is located in Paris, he is the president of France, and his name is Sarkozy. It is instructive to realize that Merkel, Sarkozy, and even Brown, are way left of Obama, and are using American intellectual resources to progress. But, once one has realized that economically Obama is the Rubin team, that is not very surprising.
One thing that would surprise Americans, though, is the spite and anger, even among leaders, that the impudence of American plutocracy is causing overseas.
***
Friday, July 17, 2009
WHEREOF ONE CANNOT THINK, THEREOF ONE MUST NOT KILL.
Tyranosopher wrote:
July 18, 2009 5:39
What is the aim of the war in Afghanistan? For the Afghans, it is to get rid of the invaders. For Mr. Obama, it is to get rid of Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan anymore. So why is Mr. Obama truly sending more combat troops in Afghanistan and making more war? So that more people, and soldiers, will get killed?
It is more important to know why one is fighting a war than to fight it. Why one is fighting is the most important ingredient for victory, when the issue of a war is uncertain. When one bombs people's home, to kill them, one better make sure one's reasons are good. But the West is bombing people's homes, in Afghanistan, and its reasons are no good.
Neither the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda were created by Afghanistan, or by Afghans: both were created by the CIA, or by proxies of the CIA such as the ISI from Pakistan.
Mr. Obama heard that the Afghan government has confirmed a misogynistic law confirming that women, by law, can be raped by their husbands, but, by law, they have to enjoy it. He became indignant, asked for reconsideration. Why? Does Mr. Obama celebrate Islam? Has not he declared in Cairo he would be the defender of that faith? The Qur'an explicitly take the position confirmed by the Afghan legislature allowing men to rape women ("women are your fields, so men go into your fields however you want, etc..."). When he heard of this, Mr. Obama decided to fall silent, deciding suddenly to follow Wittgenstein's advice: " "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
The constitution of the Islamist Republic of Afghanistan is Islam (and thus the Qur'an). So far, so good. So what is NATO doing in Afghanistan? Defending the Afghan Islamist constitution. Against whom? Islamists. Mr. Obama made clear he loved Islamists, just not those. Those he wants to kill. Why? Because they kill people. Why does Mr. Obama go to Afghanistan to kill Islamists? Because that's where they live.
In other words, Western leadership has obviously gone crazy. The philosophical aim of the war has become to defend a peculiar view of Islam against a certain group of Islamists (thus it aims at establishing a particular religion, a characterized violation of the constitution of the USA).
To understand the Afghanistan war, at this point, G. Orwell' "!984" seems more important than American discourses. Time to go home.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
(Published in "The Economist")
July 18, 2009 5:39
What is the aim of the war in Afghanistan? For the Afghans, it is to get rid of the invaders. For Mr. Obama, it is to get rid of Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda is not in Afghanistan anymore. So why is Mr. Obama truly sending more combat troops in Afghanistan and making more war? So that more people, and soldiers, will get killed?
It is more important to know why one is fighting a war than to fight it. Why one is fighting is the most important ingredient for victory, when the issue of a war is uncertain. When one bombs people's home, to kill them, one better make sure one's reasons are good. But the West is bombing people's homes, in Afghanistan, and its reasons are no good.
Neither the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda were created by Afghanistan, or by Afghans: both were created by the CIA, or by proxies of the CIA such as the ISI from Pakistan.
Mr. Obama heard that the Afghan government has confirmed a misogynistic law confirming that women, by law, can be raped by their husbands, but, by law, they have to enjoy it. He became indignant, asked for reconsideration. Why? Does Mr. Obama celebrate Islam? Has not he declared in Cairo he would be the defender of that faith? The Qur'an explicitly take the position confirmed by the Afghan legislature allowing men to rape women ("women are your fields, so men go into your fields however you want, etc..."). When he heard of this, Mr. Obama decided to fall silent, deciding suddenly to follow Wittgenstein's advice: " "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent".
The constitution of the Islamist Republic of Afghanistan is Islam (and thus the Qur'an). So far, so good. So what is NATO doing in Afghanistan? Defending the Afghan Islamist constitution. Against whom? Islamists. Mr. Obama made clear he loved Islamists, just not those. Those he wants to kill. Why? Because they kill people. Why does Mr. Obama go to Afghanistan to kill Islamists? Because that's where they live.
In other words, Western leadership has obviously gone crazy. The philosophical aim of the war has become to defend a peculiar view of Islam against a certain group of Islamists (thus it aims at establishing a particular religion, a characterized violation of the constitution of the USA).
To understand the Afghanistan war, at this point, G. Orwell' "!984" seems more important than American discourses. Time to go home.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
(Published in "The Economist")
GOLD MAN SACKS
REFINED CENSORSHIP:
The comment below (after ***XXX***) was sent swiftly to the New York Times, after Krugman's editorial. My comment agreed with the editorial, but it went much further; for some reason, the NYT thought it was better not to publish it; now the strongest statement in my comment, was, by far, the attack against the Fractional Reserve Banking System; thus the conclusion I reach that it is viewed as a dangerous assault against the core of the system. Which it is. This shows the power and subtility of media control. This is not the first time this happens.)
***
THE PLUTO IN PLUTOCRACY:
In Russia one more courageous woman lawyer fighting for human rights was arrested by uniformed security forces, in full day light, and promptly shot to death. This is what happens when an oligarchy is even more out of control than the one in the USA today.
The criminal behavior of some fascist oligarchs in Russia is reminiscent,in its reckless disregard for a semblance of civilization, to the reckless behavior of some financiers in the USA. Or conversely.
Paul Krugman has joined the chorus against Goldman Sachs, a typical, ongoing financial conspiracy in the USA (before 2009, that conspiracy was called an "investment bank", now it's simply a "bank").
Says Krugman in his NYT editorial (July 17, 2009): "Goldman Sachs’s record quarterly profits show us that the investment bank is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America."
Here is my comment below (a more incisive version, "Gold Man Sucks", with sharper philosophy, will hopefully be posted on patriceayme.wordpress):
***XXX***
COMMENT ON GOLDMAN SACHS AND BANKING SPURNED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Goldman Sachs would not exist if not for the taxpayer. The taxpayer saved Goldman Sachs from extinction in 2008. To reward the taxpayer, Goldman Sachs is fully reestablishing its dominion.
Goldman Sachs got a 13 billion dollars gift through AIG, from the taxpayer, and probably much more, secretly, at some point through the secret operations of the Federal Reserve (unaudited by the US Congress). Just these $13 billion is about 25% of the stimulus distributed, so far, for more than 300 million Americans. But Goldman Sachs got it in 2008. Goldman gets first class service, and most of the service that exists. The USA seems to exist to serve Goldman.
China's economy is growing again close to 8% per year. Why? Because of a giant stimulus to its economy. In the USA, there has been an even much larger stimulus. But not a stimulus for the economy; that one is small: officially $787 billion but in truth a small fraction of this (once the AMT and the subventions to the crashing states have been removed).
No, the giant stimulus in the USA has been for the bankers, the same group of private individuals, some particular bankers, that caused the disaster to start with. All of Goldman Sachs is part of it. Banks should have been saved as institutions, no doubt. But should well organized criminals be saved too? Yes, it sounds like an unrelated question. So why did the government of the USA relate both propositions? Because there are always Goldman Sachs officers in the government of the USA? Does this have to do with Goldman Sachs' acumen in profiting from the disasters it itself advise periodically to engage in?
China has banks too. But the Chinese government gave guidelines about who and what should get money for its real stimulus to the economy, and that meant the real economy, not speculation.
How come China could achieve this, and not the USA? Because China is a People's republic. The Chinese government controls its bankers. In the USA, the bankers control the government.
Make no mistake: China is also a plutocracy. Children of Communist party officials control the economy to a great extent. official statistics show this. Simply, the USA is even more of a plutocracy, and thus, in that particular dimension, less of a republic.
In the fractional reserve system, bankers, private individuals, fabricate the money. It is time to realize that this FRACTIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS A DEVOLUTION OF CIVILIZATION. The only way out is to reestablish a greater control of banking, enforcing on bankers an ontology, an oath of office, and severe controls, to finally make them officially into the officers of the state they already are. It is part of the solution for allowing its rightful owners, the People,to repossess the State.
Indeed, right now, a particular group of private bankers and their business associates, rule the USA as their own private state, instead of letting the public do their own thing (which is what a republic is, supposedly).
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
The comment below (after ***XXX***) was sent swiftly to the New York Times, after Krugman's editorial. My comment agreed with the editorial, but it went much further; for some reason, the NYT thought it was better not to publish it; now the strongest statement in my comment, was, by far, the attack against the Fractional Reserve Banking System; thus the conclusion I reach that it is viewed as a dangerous assault against the core of the system. Which it is. This shows the power and subtility of media control. This is not the first time this happens.)
***
THE PLUTO IN PLUTOCRACY:
In Russia one more courageous woman lawyer fighting for human rights was arrested by uniformed security forces, in full day light, and promptly shot to death. This is what happens when an oligarchy is even more out of control than the one in the USA today.
The criminal behavior of some fascist oligarchs in Russia is reminiscent,in its reckless disregard for a semblance of civilization, to the reckless behavior of some financiers in the USA. Or conversely.
Paul Krugman has joined the chorus against Goldman Sachs, a typical, ongoing financial conspiracy in the USA (before 2009, that conspiracy was called an "investment bank", now it's simply a "bank").
Says Krugman in his NYT editorial (July 17, 2009): "Goldman Sachs’s record quarterly profits show us that the investment bank is very good at what it does. Unfortunately, what it does is bad for America."
Here is my comment below (a more incisive version, "Gold Man Sucks", with sharper philosophy, will hopefully be posted on patriceayme.wordpress):
***XXX***
COMMENT ON GOLDMAN SACHS AND BANKING SPURNED BY THE NEW YORK TIMES:
Goldman Sachs would not exist if not for the taxpayer. The taxpayer saved Goldman Sachs from extinction in 2008. To reward the taxpayer, Goldman Sachs is fully reestablishing its dominion.
Goldman Sachs got a 13 billion dollars gift through AIG, from the taxpayer, and probably much more, secretly, at some point through the secret operations of the Federal Reserve (unaudited by the US Congress). Just these $13 billion is about 25% of the stimulus distributed, so far, for more than 300 million Americans. But Goldman Sachs got it in 2008. Goldman gets first class service, and most of the service that exists. The USA seems to exist to serve Goldman.
China's economy is growing again close to 8% per year. Why? Because of a giant stimulus to its economy. In the USA, there has been an even much larger stimulus. But not a stimulus for the economy; that one is small: officially $787 billion but in truth a small fraction of this (once the AMT and the subventions to the crashing states have been removed).
No, the giant stimulus in the USA has been for the bankers, the same group of private individuals, some particular bankers, that caused the disaster to start with. All of Goldman Sachs is part of it. Banks should have been saved as institutions, no doubt. But should well organized criminals be saved too? Yes, it sounds like an unrelated question. So why did the government of the USA relate both propositions? Because there are always Goldman Sachs officers in the government of the USA? Does this have to do with Goldman Sachs' acumen in profiting from the disasters it itself advise periodically to engage in?
China has banks too. But the Chinese government gave guidelines about who and what should get money for its real stimulus to the economy, and that meant the real economy, not speculation.
How come China could achieve this, and not the USA? Because China is a People's republic. The Chinese government controls its bankers. In the USA, the bankers control the government.
Make no mistake: China is also a plutocracy. Children of Communist party officials control the economy to a great extent. official statistics show this. Simply, the USA is even more of a plutocracy, and thus, in that particular dimension, less of a republic.
In the fractional reserve system, bankers, private individuals, fabricate the money. It is time to realize that this FRACTIONAL RESERVE SYSTEM IS A DEVOLUTION OF CIVILIZATION. The only way out is to reestablish a greater control of banking, enforcing on bankers an ontology, an oath of office, and severe controls, to finally make them officially into the officers of the state they already are. It is part of the solution for allowing its rightful owners, the People,to repossess the State.
Indeed, right now, a particular group of private bankers and their business associates, rule the USA as their own private state, instead of letting the public do their own thing (which is what a republic is, supposedly).
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
INFINITE WISDOM ONLY FROM ETERNAL LIFE?
SINCE WISDOM EXTENSION WE NEED, LIFE EXTENSION WE WILL SEEK.
Extending life will extend wisdom. Not just because people will know more, including how childish many a passion is, but because they will have more to lose if policies go wrong.
So life extension will not be a luxury, but a necessity, because if a given threshold of wisdom is not reached, humanity will be exterminated.
BTW, there is a theory, by very serious people, that it is stress, not calorie restriction per se, which causes life extension in animals. So here! (Anti oxydant studies' perplexing results have led to this counter-intuitive view...)
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Extending life will extend wisdom. Not just because people will know more, including how childish many a passion is, but because they will have more to lose if policies go wrong.
So life extension will not be a luxury, but a necessity, because if a given threshold of wisdom is not reached, humanity will be exterminated.
BTW, there is a theory, by very serious people, that it is stress, not calorie restriction per se, which causes life extension in animals. So here! (Anti oxydant studies' perplexing results have led to this counter-intuitive view...)
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Thursday, July 2, 2009
MONEY SWINDLER GUIDANCE
WHEN THE HOUSE GOES TO THE FOXES.
Obama passed a pseudo stimulus package of around 800 billion dollars. Some of it was fake, such as the AMT adjustment(a standard part of the Fed budget), some was running in place: such as money sent to states that are cutting their own spending. Best example: 50 billion dollars of the Federal stimulus is sent to California, at the time when California state budget went into a deep freeze (thousands of California state projects were stopped, all employees were told to stay home, and not be paid one Friday out of two; starting July first, it's three days with no work and no pay, almost two months worth of salary, and work, a year, now reduced to zero, and the pitiful Obama stimulus cannot stop that non sense).
Moreover, the Obama "stimulus" spent so far is about 50 billion dollars. China's stimulus was about 500 billions, but three quarters of it has been spent, and it's on real infrastructure.
By comparison, Goldman Sachs, through TARP money sent to AIG, got a gift of 13 billion dollars from the proverbial "taxpayers", the government of the USA, in the name of the American People. Question: what does Goldman Sachs make? What employment does it support? For example, Boeing makes planes. Goldman Sachs makes transactions, as many as possible, and then extracts a cut for each. It does not make anything real, let alone anything that would help people. Goldman Sachs has been about greasing the wheels for so long, there are not more wheels, only grease.
When FDR was president the Federal budget was a very small part of GDP (this changed only with World War Two) . So FDR could do little, but to legislate very creatively and very boldly and intelligently, and all of that he did.
Obama, by contrast, controls a huge part of the GDP, but he gave most of this control to the dim witted foxes he put in charge of watching the hen house (see above: 50 billion stimulus, so far, 13 billion for Goldman Sachs alone, if not more through the central bank secret operations). Obama can do a lot, but, as long as he puts the profiteers in charge of not changing the system, all he can show is the profiteers profiteering again, as he boasts of regularly on TV, as if he accomplished something important. Well, maybe important to him.
Just two examples from France: the government there has decided to create a gigantic fast automatic 24/7 train in an immense eight connecting all four of Paris airports and business districts and central hubs. Cost: 50 billion dollars. Work on four new high speed train lines is proceeding. The high speed train line through the "metropolises" of the French Riviera (Marseilles-Toulon-Cannes-Nice) was decided this week. It will be underground a lot, so it's immensely expensive: 30 billion dollars. Next generation nuclear reactors are also being built. And so on. That is what one calls really stimulating.
Eco-nomy means house-management. It does not mean profiteering from the house. As long as Obama puts financiers (Summers, Geithner, and various other mental gnomes from Goldman Sachs) in charge of managing the house, they will keep on stealing it. That's all they know. For a fox, the essence of intelligence is killing chicken.
House-management is fundamentally not about money. Money helps to motivate the children, and keep tabs on their activities, but rather it's just a way to help, not the essence of the thing. The essence is productive work. It's for the People and its democratically elected government, guided by the deepest thinkers to decide what productive work is, it is not the business of the money swindlers.
Such is Obama's mistake, and it could all end very badly, if he does not correct this in time.
I know someone with a PhD who works as an quality control inspector overseeing the Food and Drug Administration. She informed me an hour ago that all her portion of the overseeing system she works for will be cancelled in September. Meanwhile Mr. Obama is stimulating the Afghans by killing and terrorizing a lot of them. Change you can sneer by.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Obama passed a pseudo stimulus package of around 800 billion dollars. Some of it was fake, such as the AMT adjustment(a standard part of the Fed budget), some was running in place: such as money sent to states that are cutting their own spending. Best example: 50 billion dollars of the Federal stimulus is sent to California, at the time when California state budget went into a deep freeze (thousands of California state projects were stopped, all employees were told to stay home, and not be paid one Friday out of two; starting July first, it's three days with no work and no pay, almost two months worth of salary, and work, a year, now reduced to zero, and the pitiful Obama stimulus cannot stop that non sense).
Moreover, the Obama "stimulus" spent so far is about 50 billion dollars. China's stimulus was about 500 billions, but three quarters of it has been spent, and it's on real infrastructure.
By comparison, Goldman Sachs, through TARP money sent to AIG, got a gift of 13 billion dollars from the proverbial "taxpayers", the government of the USA, in the name of the American People. Question: what does Goldman Sachs make? What employment does it support? For example, Boeing makes planes. Goldman Sachs makes transactions, as many as possible, and then extracts a cut for each. It does not make anything real, let alone anything that would help people. Goldman Sachs has been about greasing the wheels for so long, there are not more wheels, only grease.
When FDR was president the Federal budget was a very small part of GDP (this changed only with World War Two) . So FDR could do little, but to legislate very creatively and very boldly and intelligently, and all of that he did.
Obama, by contrast, controls a huge part of the GDP, but he gave most of this control to the dim witted foxes he put in charge of watching the hen house (see above: 50 billion stimulus, so far, 13 billion for Goldman Sachs alone, if not more through the central bank secret operations). Obama can do a lot, but, as long as he puts the profiteers in charge of not changing the system, all he can show is the profiteers profiteering again, as he boasts of regularly on TV, as if he accomplished something important. Well, maybe important to him.
Just two examples from France: the government there has decided to create a gigantic fast automatic 24/7 train in an immense eight connecting all four of Paris airports and business districts and central hubs. Cost: 50 billion dollars. Work on four new high speed train lines is proceeding. The high speed train line through the "metropolises" of the French Riviera (Marseilles-Toulon-Cannes-Nice) was decided this week. It will be underground a lot, so it's immensely expensive: 30 billion dollars. Next generation nuclear reactors are also being built. And so on. That is what one calls really stimulating.
Eco-nomy means house-management. It does not mean profiteering from the house. As long as Obama puts financiers (Summers, Geithner, and various other mental gnomes from Goldman Sachs) in charge of managing the house, they will keep on stealing it. That's all they know. For a fox, the essence of intelligence is killing chicken.
House-management is fundamentally not about money. Money helps to motivate the children, and keep tabs on their activities, but rather it's just a way to help, not the essence of the thing. The essence is productive work. It's for the People and its democratically elected government, guided by the deepest thinkers to decide what productive work is, it is not the business of the money swindlers.
Such is Obama's mistake, and it could all end very badly, if he does not correct this in time.
I know someone with a PhD who works as an quality control inspector overseeing the Food and Drug Administration. She informed me an hour ago that all her portion of the overseeing system she works for will be cancelled in September. Meanwhile Mr. Obama is stimulating the Afghans by killing and terrorizing a lot of them. Change you can sneer by.
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)