XML Feedswhat to do in an economic death spiral ...
By basd on Jan 12, 2010 45 views | In predators vs. victims | Send feedback »
You think I know the answer? Ha. I don't even know why I write this stuff.
monetary and governance alternatives
By basd on Jan 6, 2010 21 views | In predators vs. victims | Send feedback »
As the monetary and governance systems become more predatory, they provide less and less of any value to society. We should then expect to see a rise in (a) monetary alternatives; and (b) participation in alternative social institutions that can provide the goods and services people need.
cash for elderly cats
By basd on Nov 24, 2009 55 views | In predators vs. victims | Send feedback »
In which we describe genetically based human character deficiencies, explain why the "stimulus package" is actually an anti-stimulus package (unless you are extremely wealthy and an investment banker), set forth the path by which the world economy can be saved and predict the future. (Can you tell I am running on four hours sleep and coffee?)
At the end of the article, please support our advertisers, who offer various assorted pitchforks, along with torches made from sticks, rags and pine-tar.
corporate feudalism
By basd on Oct 8, 2009 74 views | In predators vs. victims | Send feedback »
Human beings have a somewhat astonishing capacity for long term self-delusion.
Most of "law" is devoted to determining who "legally" controls which assets. Most of the system is, of course, entirely absurd and designed to serve specific, rather greedy, interests. These "legal principles" are extrapolated from essentials we all mostly agree on -- it's wrong (and quite inconvenient) for others to take our personal possessions. But, the extrapolation turns the concept on its head and we end up not even owning our personal possessions because someone richer than us has a lien on them or some other claim of right to them.
time to end the banking double-standard
By basd on Apr 25, 2009 225 views | In predators vs. victims, current events | Send feedback »
In normal human relations, when someone we know has financial hardship, we attempt to accommodate them. We give discounts, reduce interest rates, grant more time to pay.
Bankers, on the other hand, raise interest rates and impose late fees and penalties. They rely on free market "rules of contract". They do it because, "that is what our contract says."
Fine. Live by the free market, die by the free market. Given the machinations of the banking industry, there should not be a major bank still standing.
Instead, the public has (repeatedly) bailed them out. Why would we do this? Why would we tolerate 30% interest rates from banks that are being given money for free? If the public is going to help out financially troubled enterprise, we should skip the middleman. If the interest rate is going to be 1%, then let's simply loan directly to the public instead of giving the banks a 29% cut.
From the latest news, it appears Paulson and Lewis conspired to violate SEC disclosure laws in having B of A take over Merrill. This did not hurt "the public" -- bankers eat their own. The stockholders of Bank of America, many of whom are large institutional investors, were seriously harmed by this illegal conspracy.
It's time to put an end to the double standard. Either let the banks fail pursuant to free market principles, or else admit there is no such thing as a "free market" and put regulations in place that are as beneficial to the public as they are to the rapacious banking industry.
