[Mind's Eye] Re: Trillions?

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 us getting home with sore backs
> > > > > after a day of toil might well object to other members who claimed
> > > > > their job was to sit around all day playing Monopoly.  This is much
> > > > > how I regard the banksters - beyond the primitive stuff we need.  The
> > > > > trillions swilling about that Orn raises represent a form of Monopoly
> > > > > played with our currency.
>
> > > > > Around the West you can see that wages have ceased to rise and debt
> > > > > increasing since around 1965 - the previous examples are in gold
> > > > > rushes and the Depression.  China is no different in the last 20
> > > > > years.  The figures expressed in GDP terms are clear and also show a
> > > > > massive adjustment of wealth to the rich.  The essence of it all is a
> > > > > move from building lives and capital that is investment in such, to
> > > > > accumulation through speculation for a few.  Our politics is 60 years
> > > > > behind what is going on.  The figures don't show the money going on
> > > > > public services but into the Monopoly game we don't get to play in.
>
> > > > > If you look at what the bottom 50% in our economies own of what we can
> > > > > put a money value on it's very small in comparison with the top 20%.
> > > > > Our governments are both corrupt (most MPs or representatives are
> > > > > economically useless) and scared - they are ploughing money to the
> > > > > banks and changing requirements for them to hold more Teir 1 capital
> > > > > and the rest - but must know the banks simply change their false-
> > > > > accounting schemes in order to play their old games.  The new QE is
> > > > > privatised and what's going on is asset sweating - they are still
> > > > > borrowing our savings and pensions in repo deals that mean our low
> > > > > risk investments are still going into junk and gambles.  The question
> > > > > is where the losses are and how they have been dumped.  In the old
> > > > > Barings case, the losses were dumped into an 888 account - but in this
> > > > > wider crisis the losses are so massive that governments have decided
> > > > > to inflate their way out.  This is an old trick, practised by the
> > > > > Germans to evade reparations.
>
> > > > > The alternative is to go for job growth and wage inflation - the other
> > > > > being war.  The situation is clouded by soaked up ideologies about
> > > > > meritocracy, hard work and despising poor people as wasters.  In
> > > > > reality we have no idea of how little work we need to do, or how bent
> > > > > the banksters are.  The banksters have created their own free table
> > > > > (Plato's communism), but socialism isn't needed to end this -
> > > > > transparency is.
>
> > > > > The USD is probably finished as a
>
> ...
>
> read more »

0 comentários:

Postar um comentário