together in huge numbers and make the MPs n Govt respond, as in admit
investigation and the faults, and implement people-system-
institutional solutions.
I am in some hurry. Shall be back later. But I do recall discussing an
international forum in this group some years ago.
archytas wrote:
> And that makes the sum much more interesting Vam. Our American
> cousins are thus paying $1460 each per year to support their rich
> bankers plus all the other bail out. If we say the average household
> has 5 people then each pays $7330 a year in 'bankster aid'. They
> don't seem to know do they? Or you'd expect such an obvious error to
> have been pounced on?
>
> When it comes to the losses being hidden, the western public know even
> less. My council tax (taxes for local services) is about $1400 a year
> - we pay per household - so the amount is hardly insubstantial. Asked
> to pay this money in tax the Americans would rebel. They presumably
> haven't got a grok.
>
> I for one think it much more sensible to hand over money for police,
> hospitals, schools, waste collection, libraries and so on than to a
> bunch of crooked bankers. My suspicions were first raised after I
> left the MOD where I'd been investigating government fraud. I
> couldn't understand how banks kept lending money to countries known to
> be run by kleptocrats, and how they could stand the losses. I started
> looking at 'capital flight' as an academic, finding my efforts blocked
> at almost every turn. I also knew productivity was rising 5% year on
> year and yet wages were in decline. And I could see debt rising year
> on year. These 'debts' were on a lot of balance sheets as 'assets'.
> I gave up when I realised I needed a cop's authority to get the
> information needed on money flows. I was reminded of the days when
> crooks laundered money through casinos. And I noticed those I'd know
> as crooks were buying up assets in the same places as the rich and
> that they were all part of an economy with no visible means of
> support.
>
> On Sep 8, 7:55 pm, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "... A billion is 10 to the power of 6. A trillion is 10 to the power
> > of 9. So the sum is .733 times a 1000."
> >
> > This is wrong arithmetic.
> >
> > 1 billion = 10 to the power 9
> > 1 trillion = 10 to the power 12
> >
> > That is 2.2 trillion = 2.2 million million > divided by 300 million =
> > (2.2 /300) million = (2.2/3) * 10,000 = $7330
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > archytas wrote:
> > > The amount of money paid to bankers by themselves over the last five
> > > years is $2.2 trillion. Now wouldn't that be a handy sum to pay down
> > > the deficit? When Tea Party smucks talk about tax they don't include
> > > anything like this. This is payment for making losses, running at
> > > 2.2. trillion divided by 300 million per US citizen.
> > > About $733 per capita. This just on what they claim as earnings from
> > > loss making we have to cover. $146 per person a year.
> >
> > > The $2.2 trillion is publicly quoted. I feel I must have the sum
> > > wrong. Incidentally, the banksters are lobbying for a law to keep
> > > their earnings secret. Have I got the noughts wrong? I'm assuming a
> > > billion at a thousand million, and a trillion at a thousand billion.
> >
> > > 2.2 divided by three is about .733. A billion is 10 to the power of
> > > 6. A trillion is 10 to the power of 9. So the sum is .733 times a
> > > 1000.
> >
> > > In the UK this would be a fifth of my local taxes per year (I don't
> > > have the bankster figures for the UK).- this pays for a load of
> > > policing, education, waste collection, road work and so on, though
> > > would pay for only 3 nights in the pub a year. I have no idea what I
> > > get back for this bankster tax - and it seems as though this is just
> > > a system I don't use much and a pile of their debts.
> >
> > > The real sum could be spreadsheeted to demonstrate whether bankstering
> > > actually provides me with a net gain or loss and we should have such a
> > > spreadsheet available for public scrutiny. I can say, qua economist,
> > > that this is a complex task, but doable. Getting the real amounts of
> > > bonus and losses tp put in remains difficult - but we should be able
> > > to assess the rich as a tax on the rest of us.
> >
> > > I only drop the above 'sum' in as an exemplar - the proper equation
> > > would be complicated - but that bit would be easier than getting the
> > > simple amounts that should be available to work with. The spreadsheet
> > > could be built without the figures and in a democracy we should have
> > > this.
> >
> > > On Sep 8, 12:03 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Brilliant little video Gabby. These days it looks like a descriptor
> > > > of what's happened to us all.
> >
> > > > One thing going on amongst the trillions is a variation on old
> > > > insurance rackets in which the insurer is nowhere to be found when a
> > > > claim is put in. This involves packaging an selling dud investments
> > > > that will fail and placing insurance several times over on the
> > > > failure. In the old days one might buy some expensive cargo, put that
> > > > in a sound ship but claim it went in one lacking tar that gets sunk
> > > > with all hands, thus getting the insurance and profit on the real
> > > > journey. If one thinks of carousel fraud where villains get paid by
> > > > tax authorities it's hard to believe banks have much clue on
> > > > security. The question is where all the toxic assets end up and what
> > > > they total up to. AIG was an obvious answer, but we seem unwilling to
> > > > investigate the full nature of the scam/s.
> >
> > > > On Sep 5, 5:08 pm, ornamentalmind <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > "…John Maynard Keynes said of it: "In my opinion it is a grand
> > > > > book...Morally and philosophically I find myself in agreement with
> > > > > virtually the whole of it: and not only in agreement with it, but in
> > > > > deeply moved agreement." Having said that, Keynes did not think
> > > > > Hayek's philosophy was of practical use; this was explained later in
> > > > > the same letter, through the following comment: "What we need
> > > > > therefore, in my opinion, is not a change in our economic programmes,
> > > > > which would only lead in practice to disillusion with the results of
> > > > > your philosophy; but perhaps even the contrary, namely, an enlargement
> > > > > of them. Your greatest danger is the probable practical failure of the
> > > > > application of your philosophy in the United States." George Orwell
> > > > > responded with both praise and criticism, stating, "in the negative
> > > > > part of Professor Hayek's thesis there is a great deal of truth. It
> > > > > cannot be said too often — at any rate, it is not being said nearly
> > > > > often enough — that collectivism is not inherently democratic, but, on
> > > > > the contrary, gives to a tyrannical minority such powers as the
> > > > > Spanish Inquisitors never dreamt of." Yet he also warned, "[A] return
> > > > > to 'free' competition means for the great mass of people a tyranny
> > > > > probably worse, because more irresponsible, than that of the state."
> > > > > …" -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom#Contemporary_commentary
> > > > > "…In his review (collected in The Present as History, 1953) Marxist
> > > > > economist Paul Sweezy joked that Hayek would have you believe that if
> > > > > there was an over-production of baby carriages, the central planners
> > > > > would then order the population to have more babies instead of simply
> > > > > warehousing the temporary excess of carriages and decreasing
> > > > > production for next year. The cybernetic arguments of Stafford Beer in
> > > > > his 1974 CBC Massey Lectures, Designing Freedom—that intelligent
> > > > > adaptive planning can increase freedom—are of interest in this regard,
> > > > > as is the technical work of Herbert Simon and Albert Ando on the
> > > > > dynamics of hierarchical nearly decomposable systems in economics—
> > > > > namely, that everything in such a system is not tightly coupled to
> > > > > everything else.…"
> > > > > "…More recently, Hayek's support of free market institutions has been
> > > > > challenged on a new front: the free market economy that he advocated
> > > > > is designed for an infinite planet, says Eric Zencey in "The Other
> > > > > Road to Serfdom," and when it runs into physical limits (as any
> > > > > growing system must), the result is a need for centralized planning to
> > > > > mediate the problematic interface of economy and nature. "Planning is
> > > > > planning, whether it's done to minimize poverty and injustice, as
> > > > > socialists were advocating then, or to preserve the minimum flow of
> > > > > ecosystem services that civilization requires, as we are finding
> > > > > increasingly necessary today."..." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom#Criticism
> >
> > > > > More. -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Serfdom#Libertarian.2FConser...
> >
> > > > > It is refreshing to see propaganda in such a nice and assimilatable
> > > > > package! Cartoons can give us a world which appears to be reality
> > > > > without any of the restraints thereof.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nEgjwfX6s8http://www.youtube.com/watc...
> >
> > > > > Yes, any particular ideology one wishes to espouse can be put to film
> > > > > and promulgated. And this is a serious topic. In any analysis some set
> > > > > of assumptions are made. Here, one might make human life a need and
> > > > > place it high on the list of that which must remain. In fact, most do…
> > > > > since the analysis is being done by a human being and thus one who is
> > > > > alive. Even though Lee may disagree, yes, most place life as being
> > > > > sacrosanct. Beyond that, how to retain life is based upon personal
> > > > > experiences and passions. So, any such ideology will be founded upon
> > > > > such subjectivity. How else could it be? The obverse would be a sort
> > > > > of cult of death with the goal of eradicating all life.
> >
> > > > > So, what we are left with is a dialectic. And, as much as I too tend
> > > > > to lean towards one side or the other, such ideologies don't seem to
> > > > > be the 'answer' do they?
> >
> > > > > On Sep 5, 4:46 am, gabbydott <gabbyd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkz9AQhQFNY
> >
> > > > > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 4:27 AM, ornamentalmind
> > > > > > <ornsmindseyes...@yahoo.com>wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > Neil mentioned insurance... something that is as close to the
> > > > > > > protection racket as possible.
> >
> > > > > > > Here in the States, we have many examples but one who stands out is
> > > > > > > William McGuire. His stock option of over a billion dollars (yes,
> > > > > > > billion with a 'b'), shows what happens when people who purchase
> > > > > > > insurance end up not getting anything for their money. That and the
> > > > > > > over 30% stock profits show what a sham the private sector is when it
> > > > > > > comes to the health racket. Many countries have laws denying any
> > > > > > > profit for such situations. Here, such crimes are seen as 'good'...a
> > > > > > > shining example of capitalism. Talk about serfdom!
> >
> > > > > > >http://www.startribune.com/business/11093081.html
> > > > > > >http://www.forbes.com/static/pvp2005/LIRRI3M.html
> >
> > > > > > >http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1848501_18...
> >
> > > > > > > On Sep 4, 2:11 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I'm fairy convinced on a politburo of the rich -a kind of shadow big
> > > > > > > > government. I like it no more than any other big government. I don't
> > > > > > > > think the threat is 'socialism' but rather serfdom. I regard anything
> > > > > > > > I have to pay to retailing or excess profit as tax and anything I have
> > > > > > > > to pay to capital based on accumulated wealth as a toll. I'm not
> > > > > > > > concerned whether the government or private sector taxes me, but my
> > > > > > > > control over it. For instance, I regard anything beyond a basic
> > > > > > > > haircut as a tax, but can easily avoid anything other than a short
> > > > > > > > back and sides.
> >
> > > > > > > > If we lived in a commune, those of
> >
> > ...
> >
> > read more »
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário