MY WALL STREET, RIGHT OR WRONG, SAYS FAMOUS SELF DECLARED LIBERAL!
Paul Krugman, the self declared "Conscience of a Liberal" writes the following in a New York Times editorial (September 26, 2008):
"Maybe we can let Wall Street implode and Main Street would escape largely unscathed. But that’s not a chance we want to take."
Really? Why not? All indicates that it's the other way around. Keeping on sending money to Wall Street may keep on depriving Main Street of money. Sending money to Wall Street is exactly what has happened in the last few decades. Maybe it's time to try something different.
The total worth of the world is about 100 trillion dollars, and the total world GDP is not even half that. Nevertheless, the supposed "value" of all derivatives invented by "Wall Street" is in excess of 500 trillion dollars. Many of these derivatives are leveraged out of mortgage based securities.
In other words, "Main Street's" money (found in banks) was lent to hedge funds owned by extremely rich individuals, so they could leverage themselves to make themselves even more fabulously rich. Now that this leverage is working the other way, two things are occurring: the banks can't be reimbursed, and the hedge fund industry (worth two trillions dollars in the USA) is in danger of being wiped out (bringing many of the hyper rich to ruin). This is probably what is the real reason for the panic of the Bush administration.
The simple solution to all this, for the People at large, "Main Street", the real economy, is to nationalize all institutions that are necessary for the ongoing functioning of the economy (in the Great Depression, the Fed let thousands of banks necessary to the functioning of the economy close, a horrible mistake). In other words, let the government provide necessary banks with all the capital needed for operations necessary for the ongoing functioning of the economy . Simple. and don't send the money to the rich: that could cause a new Great Depression.
Hedge Funds and obscure, unregulated derivatives are unnecessary to "Main Street", and have actually hindered "Main Street" by siphoning money away from it. Let them die. It's time to do triage.
Nationalizing (hence saving) only functions and institutions useful to "Main Street" will save the economy. All "Wall Street" has been doing is destroying the real economy. Time for a change.
Patrice Ayme.
— Patrice Ayme, Hautes Alpes
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
(Recommended by 45 Readers).
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Sunday, September 21, 2008
FINANCIAL OBSCENITIES.
If France was in the same mess as the USA is in now, with many major financial institutions unable to carry their obligations, France would solve the mess herself. France has been in related messes, and has been solving them herself (remember Credit Lyonnais? The greatest bankruptcy ever, around 30 billion dollars…). After W.W.II, France was completely broke. It was solved the old fashion way. In cases like that, the solution is direct administration and ownership by the People. In other words, nationalization. The USA is no exception.
Just as the Central bank is the “Lender of Last report”, THE STATE IS THE OWNER OF LAST RESORT. Time has come. That psychological issue nobody can solve it for the USA. If the USA wants to keep on operating, it will have to nationalize maybe 1,000 financial outfits. Maybe more. Otherwise, an alternative would be to establish a feudal regime, with the great Lords of American finance always going unpunished, owning any and all, and the American People even more submissive than it already is.
After a spectacular bank failure last fall, even the slightly deluded great pope of the Free Market, P.M. Gordon Brown, deduced, all well considered, that the solution was to nationalize said bank. Anything else would be a fraud on the British People, said Gordon.
The plan proposed by Paulson is to have the American People come to the rescue of the Rich of America, lest the latter burn the house to the ground, leaving the People most deprived.
The plan proposed by U.S. dinosaurs, with the help of Barney (Frank) is even funnier. It is even more hilarious, indeed, to ask the poor People of the entire planet to come to rescue the American Rich.
But why not make such an outrageous plea? It is even more obscene than the present situation, and, as we visualize this, the poor of the world getting their coins together to help the nasty, arrogant, possessive U.S. gadzillionaires, we are seized, hopefully, with intense comic relief…
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Just as the Central bank is the “Lender of Last report”, THE STATE IS THE OWNER OF LAST RESORT. Time has come. That psychological issue nobody can solve it for the USA. If the USA wants to keep on operating, it will have to nationalize maybe 1,000 financial outfits. Maybe more. Otherwise, an alternative would be to establish a feudal regime, with the great Lords of American finance always going unpunished, owning any and all, and the American People even more submissive than it already is.
After a spectacular bank failure last fall, even the slightly deluded great pope of the Free Market, P.M. Gordon Brown, deduced, all well considered, that the solution was to nationalize said bank. Anything else would be a fraud on the British People, said Gordon.
The plan proposed by Paulson is to have the American People come to the rescue of the Rich of America, lest the latter burn the house to the ground, leaving the People most deprived.
The plan proposed by U.S. dinosaurs, with the help of Barney (Frank) is even funnier. It is even more hilarious, indeed, to ask the poor People of the entire planet to come to rescue the American Rich.
But why not make such an outrageous plea? It is even more obscene than the present situation, and, as we visualize this, the poor of the world getting their coins together to help the nasty, arrogant, possessive U.S. gadzillionaires, we are seized, hopefully, with intense comic relief…
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Thursday, September 18, 2008
AMERICAN ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EXPLODING.
If worst comes to worst (and we are getting there very quickly), the USA will turn into France. France is a capitalist country with stronger social and financial regulations. The USA has turned into a creditist country with a ravenous plutocracy. The USA has a class of hyper rich people that buy elections, but average people are so bereft of capital, they have to borrow for everything, They borrow at usurious rates, making the rich richer.
But there is hope. Indeed, looked at it another way, the present crisis denotes the unwillingness of average people to keep on overpaying for their ownership of homes (then, through huge leverage, this avalanched in a giant credit crisis).
The USA got into this in a bipartisan way: a lot of the present excess went out of control under Clinton (Bush only encouraged it further).
The Titanic sank because its rivets were of poor quality (there was a shortage of high quality material to make them, so the hyper rich builder cut corners to build Titanic and its sister ships). Under pressure of scrapping along the iceberg, the rivets lost their heads, so the ship opened like modern tin can do.
Many of the leading socioeconomic ideas of the USA are characterized by a carefully designed poor quality, so that the rich can rule and prosper more, and now that the pressure has come, they are losing their heads.
Fortunately, some ships are better sunk. And what's so bad about France anyway?
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
But there is hope. Indeed, looked at it another way, the present crisis denotes the unwillingness of average people to keep on overpaying for their ownership of homes (then, through huge leverage, this avalanched in a giant credit crisis).
The USA got into this in a bipartisan way: a lot of the present excess went out of control under Clinton (Bush only encouraged it further).
The Titanic sank because its rivets were of poor quality (there was a shortage of high quality material to make them, so the hyper rich builder cut corners to build Titanic and its sister ships). Under pressure of scrapping along the iceberg, the rivets lost their heads, so the ship opened like modern tin can do.
Many of the leading socioeconomic ideas of the USA are characterized by a carefully designed poor quality, so that the rich can rule and prosper more, and now that the pressure has come, they are losing their heads.
Fortunately, some ships are better sunk. And what's so bad about France anyway?
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Monday, September 8, 2008
SOME INTELLIGENT CHOICES FOR THE USA
One liner thoughts ("[Obama] is worried that someone won’t read [the terrorists] their rights.”) do not an intelligent policy make. In Afghanistan, as in Iraq, as in the USA all over, what is needed is intelligence to blossom, not the ability to not read moose their rights. Ms. Palin seems eminently qualified for more of the same, shooting innocent creatures, and the American people should ponder seriously whether that is what they want again.
This being said, total withdrawal in Iraq within sixteen month is not a solution. And I don't think that Obama is advocating it anymore. It's not much more of a solution than total French withdrawal from, say, Ivory Coast. Civilization cannot just withdraw here, there and everywhere, until it surrenders from the last corner. What needs to be done is a careful maneuver of getting United Nations' approval and military replacement of most of the US force by UN forces, ASAP.
It's true that the Sunnis, or the Kurds, will need help against the Shiah majority for years to come, and that one needs to insure that Sunni Muslim Fundamentalism (aka Al Qaeda) does not come back to provide it again. The Shiah are backed up by a powerful Iran. Iran (population not far from 70 millions, mostly young and many indoctrinated and ready to fight) at some point grabbed the Caliphate, and established it in Baghdad (750 CE). Memories are long in the region, one can expect Iran to keep on pushing. So UN troops should be there to provide the Sunni tribes with help instead of al Qaeda (recruiting UN soldiers in poor Muslim countries should be easy). The US could withdraw to remote high tech bases to provide the UN with ultimate backbone (France is opening a military basis in the United Arab Emirates, with advanced supersonic interceptors; the US could do more of the same in the area).
Now as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the way is indeed to help massively the locals who think basically in a way compatible with civilization. Reward those financially, encourage education, and boost the Afghan army.
The French did this in Senegal during the initial conquest, using 5,000 local soldiers led by a handful of French officers. In the early twentieth century, though, the French stumbled for a while. After fighting a local Muslim prophet, and caging him in Madagascar, they were going nowhere nice. Finally, though, they thought better of it, brought the prophet back, helped him, and he helped them, and France ended up decorating him in the most prestigious way. This is important: the resulting Senegalese Islam is FULLY Western compatible, and is now actually an alternative to Saudi Wahhabism, and its popularity is growing in Western Africa (thus barring Al Qaeda).
By contrast the French mishandled Islam in Algeria (they could have tweaked it and used it in the service of democracy, instead they mostly ignored it).
In the last two decades, fanatical and illegal Wahhabist preachers sent from Saudi Arabia with Saudi money wrought havoc in France (and, much worse, caused a huge war in Algeria, with more than 100,000 killed). French authorities, and in particular Sarkozy, have finally opted for a strategy of promotion of an "Islam de France", fully compatible with the republic. After all, making an Abrahamic religion compatible with the republic was done before, with Judeo-Christianism. If one allowed these two Middle-East superstitions, why not a third? Support means control, of course. After all, the civilization of Al Andalous at its best was resplendent precisely because it was tolerant of all variants of Judeo-Christo-Islamism.
By the way, the official production of opiates for pharmaceutical usage, although saturated in its present very restricted markets, could be extended worldwide to provide the gravely, or terminally ill with comfort. Integrating this in the Afghan economy would solve short term Afghanistan economic problems, and would do wonders with the popularity of the West. In first order, the problem in Afghanistan is not military, so the first order solution should not be military. Unfortunately, as it is, the effort of the West is primarily military, thus destined to fail.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
This being said, total withdrawal in Iraq within sixteen month is not a solution. And I don't think that Obama is advocating it anymore. It's not much more of a solution than total French withdrawal from, say, Ivory Coast. Civilization cannot just withdraw here, there and everywhere, until it surrenders from the last corner. What needs to be done is a careful maneuver of getting United Nations' approval and military replacement of most of the US force by UN forces, ASAP.
It's true that the Sunnis, or the Kurds, will need help against the Shiah majority for years to come, and that one needs to insure that Sunni Muslim Fundamentalism (aka Al Qaeda) does not come back to provide it again. The Shiah are backed up by a powerful Iran. Iran (population not far from 70 millions, mostly young and many indoctrinated and ready to fight) at some point grabbed the Caliphate, and established it in Baghdad (750 CE). Memories are long in the region, one can expect Iran to keep on pushing. So UN troops should be there to provide the Sunni tribes with help instead of al Qaeda (recruiting UN soldiers in poor Muslim countries should be easy). The US could withdraw to remote high tech bases to provide the UN with ultimate backbone (France is opening a military basis in the United Arab Emirates, with advanced supersonic interceptors; the US could do more of the same in the area).
Now as far as Afghanistan is concerned, the way is indeed to help massively the locals who think basically in a way compatible with civilization. Reward those financially, encourage education, and boost the Afghan army.
The French did this in Senegal during the initial conquest, using 5,000 local soldiers led by a handful of French officers. In the early twentieth century, though, the French stumbled for a while. After fighting a local Muslim prophet, and caging him in Madagascar, they were going nowhere nice. Finally, though, they thought better of it, brought the prophet back, helped him, and he helped them, and France ended up decorating him in the most prestigious way. This is important: the resulting Senegalese Islam is FULLY Western compatible, and is now actually an alternative to Saudi Wahhabism, and its popularity is growing in Western Africa (thus barring Al Qaeda).
By contrast the French mishandled Islam in Algeria (they could have tweaked it and used it in the service of democracy, instead they mostly ignored it).
In the last two decades, fanatical and illegal Wahhabist preachers sent from Saudi Arabia with Saudi money wrought havoc in France (and, much worse, caused a huge war in Algeria, with more than 100,000 killed). French authorities, and in particular Sarkozy, have finally opted for a strategy of promotion of an "Islam de France", fully compatible with the republic. After all, making an Abrahamic religion compatible with the republic was done before, with Judeo-Christianism. If one allowed these two Middle-East superstitions, why not a third? Support means control, of course. After all, the civilization of Al Andalous at its best was resplendent precisely because it was tolerant of all variants of Judeo-Christo-Islamism.
By the way, the official production of opiates for pharmaceutical usage, although saturated in its present very restricted markets, could be extended worldwide to provide the gravely, or terminally ill with comfort. Integrating this in the Afghan economy would solve short term Afghanistan economic problems, and would do wonders with the popularity of the West. In first order, the problem in Afghanistan is not military, so the first order solution should not be military. Unfortunately, as it is, the effort of the West is primarily military, thus destined to fail.
***
Patrice Ayme
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
Saturday, September 6, 2008
DIRAC AT A GLANCE.
DIRAC EQUATION JUSTIFIED IN ONE SENTENCE
The Dirac equation is the statement that the electron satisfies the simplest WAVE equation possible in space-time. The simplest wave equation is first order, and is of the type dw = w. If the differential operator d treats all dimensions equally (and it better does that, to satisfy the Einsteinian-Minkowski wish of treating all dimensions equally, and time "as" space), one gets the Dirac operator.
The Dirac equation is the statement that the electron satisfies the simplest WAVE equation possible in space-time. The simplest wave equation is first order, and is of the type dw = w. If the differential operator d treats all dimensions equally (and it better does that, to satisfy the Einsteinian-Minkowski wish of treating all dimensions equally, and time "as" space), one gets the Dirac operator.
Friday, August 29, 2008
WHAT CHANGE REALLY MEANS.
Democrats may feel the pain about all those with bad health care, forced into destitution by emergency room treatments, but, without power to fight back the causes of the pain, there will be pain always.
In economics, power is money. So where are the democrats going to find the money? Nowhere much, if they do not change their minds, because the taxes on income are not far from maximal already. European countries confronted that problem long ago, and decided to find the money with new taxes. The taxes, in turn, diverted economic activity from consumption and waste to savings and caring. To do this, a French "inspector of finances" invented the Value Added Tax in 1954. That tax was soon made mandatory in all countries members of the European Union (it taxes all increased values of stages of production around 19%). Huge taxes on energy were also introduced (they correspond roughly to $300 per barrel oil). France is now introducing a system of bonus-malus on all products according to their CO2 impact during use and manufacture (tax the inefficient ones, reward the efficient ones; it's already deployed with cars, and that explains why Peugeot SA has the best fleet mileage, worldwide: 141 grams CO2/kilometer).
The USA has to go in that general direction. Away from rabid consumption and mindless waste. Into saving, caring and investing. And taxes are the only way. Short of this, the pain is just made into a song. Short of this, it's just change one cannot believe in.
Patrice Ayme.
— Patrice Ayme, Hautes Alpes
In economics, power is money. So where are the democrats going to find the money? Nowhere much, if they do not change their minds, because the taxes on income are not far from maximal already. European countries confronted that problem long ago, and decided to find the money with new taxes. The taxes, in turn, diverted economic activity from consumption and waste to savings and caring. To do this, a French "inspector of finances" invented the Value Added Tax in 1954. That tax was soon made mandatory in all countries members of the European Union (it taxes all increased values of stages of production around 19%). Huge taxes on energy were also introduced (they correspond roughly to $300 per barrel oil). France is now introducing a system of bonus-malus on all products according to their CO2 impact during use and manufacture (tax the inefficient ones, reward the efficient ones; it's already deployed with cars, and that explains why Peugeot SA has the best fleet mileage, worldwide: 141 grams CO2/kilometer).
The USA has to go in that general direction. Away from rabid consumption and mindless waste. Into saving, caring and investing. And taxes are the only way. Short of this, the pain is just made into a song. Short of this, it's just change one cannot believe in.
Patrice Ayme.
— Patrice Ayme, Hautes Alpes
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
MOSCOW RULES.
GEORGIA TOLLS FOR THEE.
The New York Times editorial on the invasion of Georgia concludes this way: "Ties between Russia and the West are now the worst in a generation. It will take toughness and subtlety to ensure they do not lock into a permanent confrontation — not more bluster from anyone."(August 27, 2008)
Right. But lots more toughness. Moscow, per its intrinsic genesis and nature, is anti-Western. That was long hidden by the fact Moscow claimed to be Marxist, and socialist, and many in the West were, and are, genuine socialists. Basically, all of Western Europe, Britain included, is socialist (and the USA is not too far behind!). So there is a lot of sympathy for socialism in the West, and Moscow ended using that sympathy as a trick to advance itself. That Moscow is deeply anti-Western was also hidden by the fact that Stalinian fascism, after being allied to Hitlerian fascism, was attacked by it, and conducted a desperate fight against it (suffering 20 million dead).
But now the smokescreens are dissipating. The time of the final confrontation is at hand between the mentality of the West and the anti-Western mentality of Moscow. That anti-Western mentality is more than 1,000 years old (indeed much older than Moscow itself). This confrontation is much bigger than any problem connected with the US mistake of having invaded Iraq, because invading Iraq was deeply anti-American. Thus, invading Iraq was contrary to American nature. Whereas invading Georgia is exactly what Moscow has always been about, ever since it was born as the double agent stooge of the Mongols (before 1480).
Cheney, that error onto himself, should better be threading lightly, indeed, as he goes to Europe to talk about Russia. The Europeans dislike and despise him, and the Europeans have to carry the main economic weight of confronting Moscow at this point. The Europeans have to have the courage to go all the way, and forget about begging for energy from Moscow, down on their knees. They can do it, but it will be tough. Otherwise Moscow will reinvade as much as it can (until the unavoidable military struggle).
Gorbachev, the Russian tzar before Putin, impudently condemns the fact that Kosovo voted for its independence repeatedly. Voting is a big no-no for Moscow. Invading is what Moscow does.
Kosovo has been its own country forever. The Serbs were invited to settle in the area by emperor Heraclius (7th century). The Serbs are the guests, the Kosovars are the original stock. And, although the Serbs fought a battle against the Turks in Kosovo, they mainly stayed out of it for a very long time. Moreover the Serbs have voted recently twice to say implicitly that Kosovo could go its own way, and that Serbia would join the European Union instead (reunifying Serbia with Kosovo, in the fullness of time!). Kosovo, besides, is 35 times the population of South Ossetia, South Ossetia has been a province of Georgia for 3,000 years. But now Moscow has decided that South Ossetia is part of Moscow. Is Kosovo also part of Moscow? What about Berlin? After all, Berlin is much closer to Moscow than Kosovo.
So why is Moscow so obsessed about Kosovo? Kosovo is smack dab in the Middle of the Mediterranean region (100 kilometers from the sea). Kosovo never had anything to do with Moscow, except as an object of desire. The Muscovite desire for the Mediterranean sea. Moscow wants all the seas. It has many of them, but not that one. It is painful. Moscow wants it all, like Staphylococcus Aureus. It is high time to draw the line. The line is that if Moscow wants to keep on with its anti-Western, antidemocratic, invasive mentality, it can stay in its own sand box. After all, it is the largest in the world.
Patrice Ayme.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
P/S: The NYT published the text above, minus the final section (commentary # 31). It was an interesting wink: OK, we know who you are, and you may be right, but we, at the NYT, have our own foreign policy, we are sure you understand. At least, this time we did not outright ignore you. A week earlier, a post of mine giving a list of facts demonstrating that Russia had planned its invasion of Georgia was outright omitted (true, the Georgian may have opened fire first, but only after 3,000 tanks and dozens of thousands of troops were found to be advancing in Georgian territory).
The New York Times editorial on the invasion of Georgia concludes this way: "Ties between Russia and the West are now the worst in a generation. It will take toughness and subtlety to ensure they do not lock into a permanent confrontation — not more bluster from anyone."(August 27, 2008)
Right. But lots more toughness. Moscow, per its intrinsic genesis and nature, is anti-Western. That was long hidden by the fact Moscow claimed to be Marxist, and socialist, and many in the West were, and are, genuine socialists. Basically, all of Western Europe, Britain included, is socialist (and the USA is not too far behind!). So there is a lot of sympathy for socialism in the West, and Moscow ended using that sympathy as a trick to advance itself. That Moscow is deeply anti-Western was also hidden by the fact that Stalinian fascism, after being allied to Hitlerian fascism, was attacked by it, and conducted a desperate fight against it (suffering 20 million dead).
But now the smokescreens are dissipating. The time of the final confrontation is at hand between the mentality of the West and the anti-Western mentality of Moscow. That anti-Western mentality is more than 1,000 years old (indeed much older than Moscow itself). This confrontation is much bigger than any problem connected with the US mistake of having invaded Iraq, because invading Iraq was deeply anti-American. Thus, invading Iraq was contrary to American nature. Whereas invading Georgia is exactly what Moscow has always been about, ever since it was born as the double agent stooge of the Mongols (before 1480).
Cheney, that error onto himself, should better be threading lightly, indeed, as he goes to Europe to talk about Russia. The Europeans dislike and despise him, and the Europeans have to carry the main economic weight of confronting Moscow at this point. The Europeans have to have the courage to go all the way, and forget about begging for energy from Moscow, down on their knees. They can do it, but it will be tough. Otherwise Moscow will reinvade as much as it can (until the unavoidable military struggle).
Gorbachev, the Russian tzar before Putin, impudently condemns the fact that Kosovo voted for its independence repeatedly. Voting is a big no-no for Moscow. Invading is what Moscow does.
Kosovo has been its own country forever. The Serbs were invited to settle in the area by emperor Heraclius (7th century). The Serbs are the guests, the Kosovars are the original stock. And, although the Serbs fought a battle against the Turks in Kosovo, they mainly stayed out of it for a very long time. Moreover the Serbs have voted recently twice to say implicitly that Kosovo could go its own way, and that Serbia would join the European Union instead (reunifying Serbia with Kosovo, in the fullness of time!). Kosovo, besides, is 35 times the population of South Ossetia, South Ossetia has been a province of Georgia for 3,000 years. But now Moscow has decided that South Ossetia is part of Moscow. Is Kosovo also part of Moscow? What about Berlin? After all, Berlin is much closer to Moscow than Kosovo.
So why is Moscow so obsessed about Kosovo? Kosovo is smack dab in the Middle of the Mediterranean region (100 kilometers from the sea). Kosovo never had anything to do with Moscow, except as an object of desire. The Muscovite desire for the Mediterranean sea. Moscow wants all the seas. It has many of them, but not that one. It is painful. Moscow wants it all, like Staphylococcus Aureus. It is high time to draw the line. The line is that if Moscow wants to keep on with its anti-Western, antidemocratic, invasive mentality, it can stay in its own sand box. After all, it is the largest in the world.
Patrice Ayme.
http://patriceayme.wordpress.com/
P/S: The NYT published the text above, minus the final section (commentary # 31). It was an interesting wink: OK, we know who you are, and you may be right, but we, at the NYT, have our own foreign policy, we are sure you understand. At least, this time we did not outright ignore you. A week earlier, a post of mine giving a list of facts demonstrating that Russia had planned its invasion of Georgia was outright omitted (true, the Georgian may have opened fire first, but only after 3,000 tanks and dozens of thousands of troops were found to be advancing in Georgian territory).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)