PreS: most of these gang8 post samples are not in chronological order
via A-list .. archive with years of months worth of posts zipped up ... reduncancy by a simplistic Yugo broad w black mate who does untrimmed top posts that swell the files by 15% ... don't try explain it to her ... i already tried that.
Amped Status -- By David DeGraw -- The Financial Terrorists Who Destroyed Our Economy Will Pay Zero in Taxes -- and Get $33 Billion in Refunds You and I are working our asses off, paying 30% of our limited income in taxes. Not the banks that triggered the financial crisis. April 18, 2010
Subject: [A-List] Obama's phony banking "reform" -- by Barry Grey ---
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/apr2010/pers-a27.shtml --- (April 27
Re: Charles Brown's remarks on 'Will Goldman Sachs Prove Greed is God?'
---- Thanks Charles, I'm not so sure these beliefs are deeply held. The Randian ideas are mostly a narrative, repeated endlessly through every channel available to the monied interests. It is not surprising people absorb it. However, the operation of the mind is something far deeper and harder to control, than the words that flow from peoples' mouths. ---- If people really had a Randian mindset (self-reliance, rejection of responsibility for others, rejection of any sort of collective action, let alone government, etc) Imagine what a different world it would be. Certainly they wouldn't be voting for the Democratic Party, let alone the Republican Party which is even more dictatorial, violent and intrusive. --- What the American people really have is a miasma. A swamp. A confusing and ever-shifting froth of words --meaningless words -- tossing about on a restless ocean of fears, desires, urges, impulses bubbling up from their unconscious layers of the mind, which is wholly untamed and will never be tamed. --- Most people seem to operate on faith, and by following the group. They are unprincipled. --- It is my belief, many people go all the way to the ends of their lives, never realizing that they were never free, and had no prospect of freedom since they hadn't even understood the basic problem, which is, somehow gaining understanding and control over the operation of their own mind. So, they allow the PR industries to control it. Todd
#14981 From: "G W Gardiner" -- Date: Wed Mar 31, 2010 9:12 am -- Subject:
Banking -- The debate on television between the potential Chancellors of the Exchequer contained only one reference to Britain's gigantic trade deficit. It was one sentence from George Osborn, the Conservative. He remarked that China was lending us the money to buy its goods. -- Did you see the announcements on Thursday and Friday last week by Lloyds Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland about their plans to reduce their Tier Two capital liabilities? Yes. I did write REDUCE!!!! --- No-one in the media seems to have realised what that means, which is of course that those two banks have TOO MUCH CAPITAL, despite the £24bn of write-offs at Lloyds. The core Tier Two capital adequacy ratio of RBS is heading towards 13 per cent. --- What
better proof could there be that the 'banking crisis' which Gordon Brown so brilliantly dealt with was a fantasy of his imagination? The true crisis was not one of capital adequacy but of liquidity, and the low liquidity of the banks in August 2007, a mere £20 bn, was entirely the fault of the government's Debt Management Office. --- Brown's ability to fib was also demonstrated at the weekend. He addressed the Labour Pity and included at criticism of free market economics. That he had said precisely the opposite in an e-mail to Alan Greenspan some years ago is unknown to the press gurus, it seems. Of course Greenspan has confessed his own error, sort of, but Brown has not indicated he has had a change of heart. ---
Dirk, At the moment it is the UK government which is committed to over-lending.
Clearly It sees no other way of restoring the boom but the same means by which it was created in the first place. The long-term consequences are ignored as they cannot affect the election result on 6th May. 70 per cent owned RBS joined in the loan to Kraft to buy Cadbury at a price more than twice the net tangible asset value. Yet Kraft was already so over-borrowed that its shareholder funds were not balanced by any tangible assets at all. It was the ultimate archetypal example of the sort of asset-inflating loan which caused the crisis. Yet a bank totally under government control joined in the loan. --- Kraft will have about $36bn of 'goodwill' in its balance sheet, an intangible asset which is the creation of over-lending/borrowing. Michael might like to try to calculate how much the cost of servicing the 'goodwill' adds to the prices of Kraft's products in the shops. If any
competitor appears to take advantage of this situation to undercut Kraft, it too will no doubt be ruthlessly acquired with yet more borrowed money. --- There is an inevitability about this process as saving so hugely exceeds borrowing for real capital creation. ...In the recent TV debate between the Darling, Cable, and Osborne only Osborne mentioned the result. 'China is lending us the money to by its products.' Sadly it was only one sentence in the whole debate. Geoffrey
Michael, 1.The flaw in your conclusion is that you have assumed that Bush, being a right-winger, was not inspired by do-gooder naivety just as much, or indeed even more, than Carter. His remarks which you quote reek of 'caring conservatism', and although worthy it is no different in its potential for damage from socialist do-gooding. The 1977 legislation was not the normal socialist approach, which is to try to make all citizens dependent on the state, and therefore socialists try to dissuade home ownership and prefer to see all citizens tenants of state owned houses. The objective was wider home ownership, a main plank of caring conservatism. A factor which made this objective popular with western politicians and caused them
to use risky methods to achieve it was the knowledge that the highest levels of home ownership in the world were in East European communist countries. Western Capitalists had to do better, didn't they? --- In Bush's first speech in Britain as president he referred to Lord Shaftesbury (Anthony Ashley Cooper), the leading do-gooder of the mid-nineteenth century, a Conservative member of Parliament until he inherited the earldom in 1851. The remark was intended as one in the eye for his (phoney) socialist host, Tony Blair, and it showed that Bush was not quite the blithering idiot every liberal tried to characterise him as. They under-estimated him, and his motivations, through gross over-simplification. --- It is a norm that
interference with the established behaviour and rules of an industry, banking or any other ('throwing away the wisdom of the ages', as I call it) is to open up the avenue to huge fraud. ---- Did you read the article by Simone Mirabeau? ---- 2. You may have seen the fines on two Northern Rock officials for fraudulent accounting. They failed to reveal the existence of 1970 non-performing loans. But even if every one of those loans was for £100,000, which is unlikely, the additional charge for impairment would not have made a substantial dent in the Rock's capital base. It would still have been well-capitalised and within the rules. Its problem was lack of liquidity and that was entirely due to government action as only the government can
influence the liquidity levels of British banks. Why did they conceal the bad loans? Well all bank staff share in profits. ----- 3. Gordon Brown has at last admitted that he failed to regulate banks firmly enough, but as usual puts the blame on others, claiming he was acting on the advice of the bankers. No doubt he was indeed listening to bankers, two in particular, his two Scots friends who ran RBS and HBOS. Many bank staff lower down the pecking order but in touch with the public were very worried about what they were being asked to do. ---- 4. Tim Congdon has sent me another brilliant article he has published in 'Standpoint'. Standpoint+June+2009+article6%5B1%5D.pdf
from early februari: Professor Timothy Congdon kindly gave me a copy of his 'Central Banking in a Free Society', published by the Institute for Economic Affairs. This is by far the best study of the British banking crisis I have so far seen. His analysis is as near identical with my own as I could wish for. Among the points he highlights are, ..
1. That the authorities did not know the difference between bank capital adequacy and bank liquidity. ---
-- 2. That the Governor did not know what a central bank was for. --
3. That an insurance fund is totally unnecessary as so long as the deposits
are in the national currency the money to bail out depositors can be created
piet: huh? unnecessary maybe, but unethical? over against and compared to allowing that idiot Geoffiat to put his fiat in overdrive ....overdriving - both exagerating and running over wood be the possible transliterations to dutch ... you know ... that misty land beyond, ... short of that menace, those bad guys, them of whom will certainly stubbornly and steadfastly not take hints and pointers towards, nor comment upon even if we secretly read their works, this Germany, damned Beckerath /piet ... ps: actually, 2 days later Geoff is in the quoted state of mind still, see # below
4. Insurance funds create moral hazard. ----
piet: in your topsy turvy -- post mental crash wherein qualifications (LIMITATIONS)
mentioned above would apply -- world perhaps Geoff. - /piet
Piet: After reassessing a few posts i conclude Gardiner can sound quite Beckerathian/Knappian on liquidity (december 8 Re: JFD and Greenbacks):
The certificates, of all varieties, were sold to the public, not given to them, a point often forgotten. It is well-known that
the public has always been ready to go without interest for the convenience of having a handy means of exchange for relatively small transactions. Therefore governments do in effect borrow interest free to the limit of the fiduciary note and coin issue. It is not cost-free as the notes and coin wear out. The limit is set by the public's demand for such notes and coin, and cannot be exceeded if one does not want to debase the currency. The loan to the government, represented by the fiduciary issue, is a one-off until either expansion of the economy, or even more likely, inflation, increases the demand for notes and coin. What proportion of government debt the fiduciary issue represents depends on how one calculates the National Debt. Not more than 7.5 per cent, in Britain, but a lot less if one includes
the value of accrued pension rights in the National Debt.
Piet: i take his distinction "between bank
capital adequacy and bank liquidity"- to be
one between fiat/feduciary moolah and liquidity and to mark/mean the diff between the mere goodwill/promise and actual delivery (particularly stark when on weighty matters wether gratuitous/precipitous, tectonic or lifted by common goings on without sayings sense). Or if you need a more cerebral example: cpus (clock/processor power/speed) on the one hand and print-outability on the other.
5. The central bank must be the supervisor of the banks it may have to help. --------- Tim discusses whether a privatised central bank, capitalised by the banks, would be better as the banks would pay for the consequences of their indiscretions. Of course the FED is funded by its member banks but as the FED is totally controlled by the President's appointees the sort of prudence Tim contemplates is not generated. My feeling is that if I were finance minister I would want control of interest rates myself.
Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:31 pm --- Subject: congdon and QE -- Good evening Geoffrey and all, Many thanks for sharing the Congdon article. It makes for extremely stimulating reading, because he describes the mechanisms in detail and because he leaves me puzzled. His description of Bernanke and Gertler’s article – stressing the role of credit but disadvising the study of credit aggregates - is masterful. He rightly distinguishes between credit and money. He identifies and rejects the ‘lending-determines-spending view’ and sides with the monetarist view that it is deposits that matter, not assets (loans), since money is deposits. His contention is that ‘the money supply and bank lending are different things’ (p.44), and that even
if bank lending were static or falling, spending could be revived. The sequence he has in mind is that the BoE buys gilts from institutional investors, who try to rid themselves of the (low-return) money so received by buying equities (say, stock). This pushes up equity prices, strengthening firms’ balance sheets, and so on so that ‘the cash strains throughout the economy are eliminated’. ---- I cannot square this with my understanding of credit and money, but on the other hand Congdon is a clever financial-market insider so let’s say I can learn something here. --- So, my questions: - if pension funds want to rid themselves of the money they receive in return for gilts or T bills, why would they want to sell them in the first place? In times of crisis these are desirable assets. - Congdon assumes that the excess
supply of money and excess demand for securities pushes up the price of securities (say, stock). But where does the money come from to pay for these higher stock prices? There has to be additional bank lending to monetize these transactions (even though not to the full amount of capital market valuation, as stocks prices are set by the fraction traded). - Congdon jumps from rising stock prices (which indeed we have seen) to rising output and employment (p. 45) – as if that were not a problematic link! The asset markets and the economy for him seem one. They are not. They have bee out of sync for over a year now, some would say much longer. --- Congdon’s conclusion that even if bank lending were static or falling spending could
be revived, is not convincing. It assumes optimistic scenarios and leaves unexplained where the extra money to monetize higher stock prices would come from. ---- On the other hand it is true that deposits ultimately is what matters, since this is ‘money’. The key question is whether gilt buying is a sufficient and necessary condition to increase deposits (it is not, is needs to be accompanied by bank lending to create those deposits).
piet: fucit, i aint taking out invisible brs manually any longer .. .sorry .... oh, wait, i know a smarter way ....
Richard, if I remember well this is also at odds with your analysis
of QE BoE-style – which is about bank-to-bank transactions, not bank-to-economy
transactions. It is also at odds with your emphasis on assets, not deposits.
Geoffrey, do you have Congdon’s email so these questions could be put
to him? I would be curious. -- I recommend all to read this article. This
is independent thinking. -- best, Dirk -------------
Back to Geoff:
Subject: Re: Financial fraud, not liberal do-goodism ----- Michael, I do not dispute the fraud. But inept do-gooding and fraud are conjoined twins. The one creates the opportunity for the other. ---- Take off the blinkers and you will see it was not campaign contributions which made Gordon Brown do everything the bankers wanted. It was egoism. He wanted to appear clever to his banker friends. No one has even suggested that Brown got a pay off for his actions. Brown gets his main financial support from the mainly public-sector trade unions, so he became skilled at acting as an extreme free-marketeer while pretending to the voters he was a left-winger. ---- Simone Mirabeau wrote a paper with Dean Baker of the CEPR in Washington. Can you get hold of it? She works for the FT in new York. ---- Geoff
Chris Cook w Gesell and WIR sympathies resettled
in this central part of London ----------
part of a longer conversation (the Baltics are
frequent topic at gang8 yahoo group) Michael Hudson:
Dear Arno, My co-organizer Jeff Summers writes: The difference, I think, is that these countries deliver significant social benefits for these taxes, whereas Latvia does not. Moreover, the Scandinavian countries have progressive taxations systems (Latvia’s is regressive), capture revenue through property and capital gains, thus enabling them to build infrastructure, etc. Of course the biggest difference is that Latvia’s labor productivity is so far behind West Europe’s, thus its costs need to be kept down (through alternative taxation) while they catch up on productivity and to attract FDI into manufacturing… -
10-04-30 Gardiner to Gang
Last night the truth came out. Gordon Brown said in a televised debate that the bankers told him their only problem was liquidity. He said he had never been so angry, i.e. he lost his infamous temper, and he insisted they increase capital. It seems he loses his temper with anyone who disagrees with him. --- But it was a liquidity problem, and that shortage was entirely the fault of the government. It funded the government deficit too quickly, and that stripped the banks of liquidity. I remind you that bank liquidity fell to £20bn in 2007. Barclays today announced that its liquidity is £152bn, but that probably is using a definition which includes more than cash at bank. It also said its core tier one ratio is 9.8%. As this is far too high it seems to have been again reducing tier two to compensate and made a profit from doing so of £102mn to add to the £2bn or so it has already made from retiring debt. --- Geoff -------------
Mon May 3, 2010 5:06 pm --- Subject: Growing like China
- State banks buy foreign bonds, lacking belief in private sector ---- Interesting argument allegedly based on observation: --- STATE banks prefer to loan to STATE companies. STATE companies are being driven out by more competitive PRIVATE business. STATE banks have less STATE companies to loan to. STATE banks buy foreign STATE bonds, like US treasuries. So, STATE banks must start to loan to PRIVATE companies. STATE banks must overcome their dislike and disbelief in PRIVATE enterprise. Arno -------- http://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/7149.html Abstract This paper constructs a growth model that is consistent with salient features of the Chinese growth experience since 1992: high output growth, sustained returns on capital investments, extensive reallocation within the manufacturing sector, falling labor share and accumulation of a large foreign surplus. The theory makes only minimal deviations from a neoclassical growth model. Its building blocks are financial imperfections and reallocation among firms with heterogeneous productivity. Some firms use more productive technologies than others, but low-productivity firms survive because of better access to credit markets. Due to the financial imperfections, high-productivity firms - which are run by entrepreneurs - must be financed out of internal savings. If these savings are sufficiently large, the high-productivity sector outgrows the low-productivity sector, and attracts an increasing employment share. During the transition, low wage growth sustains the return to capital. The downsizing of the financially integrated sector forces a growing share of domestic savings to be invested in foreign assets, generating a foreign surplus. We test some auxiliary implications of the theory and find robust empirical support.
message 15025 From: Michael Hudson Date: Mon May 3, 2010 6:31 pm Subject: Re: Growing like China - State banks buy foreign bonds, lacking belief in private sector ---- Dear Arno, Wait a minute! Banks don’t HAVE to create credit and loan money. What of infrastructure, mixed companies, etc? Michael ------------
Yes, Michael, there is a difference between the US and GB bank crises, and Brown's mistake was to assume they were the same. Interestingly both crises were caused by government incompetence. In the US it was indeed an asset problem and the most significant cause of that was the implementation of the Community Reinvestment Act which forced banks to make even more bad lendings than they chose to make without government encouragement, and in Britain it was the implementation of the crazy European agreement to forbid central banks from lending to their governments, a rule which the British Government implemented ruthlessly through the operations of the Debt Management Office and with the result that bank liquidity fell in August 2007 to a mere £20bn. It is now £157bn. ------ Lloyds wrote off another £24bn in their last half year, so 'clean slates' are appearing, but only on one side of the balance sheet. Deposits are still inviolable. ----- Chris is wrong in his statement of the balance of numbers, probably because he is treating all the depositors in one bank as one entity, and similarly with all holders of insurance policies and pension fund members. I cannot accept that as valid. There are far, far more savers than borrowers, the reason why 'clean slates' are politically such a non-starter. I remember the first time I was asked by my bosses in Barclays to do an analysis of saving in Britain, back in 1972. Even then there were 23,000,000 holders of endowment life insurance policy-holders out of an adult population of under 40,000,000. Although hardly noticed by economists whose analysis of capitalism goes no further than 1848, popular capitalism is now the ruling model and will remain so. OK some people, including our present companies minister, Lord Myners, became very rich from providing services for popular capitalism but the present situation is that almost every citizen is effectively a rentier and has a personal incentive to maintain the popular capitalist system. Can it be maintained, and if so how? Those are the vital questions. Saving is currently bigger than real investment, so Brown is trying to restore a debt-created boom, that being the only kind one can have in a society where the gross saving rate exceeds demand for real investment. Brown's solution can only be a short-term fix. The fact that profits have risen sharply could be a good sign, as it will encourage real investment and that with bring about a rise in wages, which, as the figures have shown, have fallen as a percentage of GDP. Old fashioned analyses are far too simplistic. Let us eschew them. --- Geoffrey
M Hudson: Here, the PRETENSE is that it is a liquidity problem. But a junk mortgage in default doesn’t face a liquidity problem. It was fraudulent to begin with. Its zero-value doesn’t come from liquidity, but from the massive fraud at all levels that permeates the financial system here, the regulatory system (Geithner, Summers, Rubin and their gang) and Congress whose political campaigns are bankrolled by these crooks. The political system is being corrupted here by the financial system. You’re describing a financial system there mismanaged by political ideologues. Nothing quite so innocent here. Goldman Sachs ENTIRE $13 billion profit in 2008 came from the bailout. Geithner said “A contract is a contract,” meaning between AIG and Goldman. But there was no contract saying that taxpayers had to bail out these crooks. So Geithner was deceptive. Goldman’s new CEO testified that Goldman’s customers were “adults” and were TOLD that Goldman “might be” betting AGAINST the CDOs it was selling them. Entire cities are now bankrupt from these swaps. Michael
Michael, The legal case against Goldman should shed some much-needed light on the detail of why, for instance, ABM AMRO and the like bought investments which any half-intelligent investor would know were fake. I do not restrict blame to individuals but attribute it to a culture of reward by meeting targets, and it extends from top to bottom of the system, and does not exclude the public sector. OK, one CEO took the decision to market by targets, but it is the people below him who do the actual selling and tell lies in order to meet their targets. The CEO often blinds himself to the fact that he has given a huge incentive to corruption. I was deeply involved in this field, indeed in a way pioneered cross-selling in banks, so I speak from hands on experience. --- If a broker offers you an investment in a fund with an upfront charge of say four per cent, you can take it that he or she is getting 2 per cent at least. Britain has now banned commission sharing in the retail market so investment advisers have to charge a fee, not take a share of commission. My experience was that the public does not like paying fees,, so if that is still true, expect sales to fall. But I am not sure what the situation is in the world that Goldman inhabits. --- The US is far from being an ideology-free zone. A tendency to be taken over by ideology is the downside of higher education. Few academics are totally pragmatic. Ideology is well-funded in the US, Georgism being one major example, even though political corruption does seem to have the edge. ----- All corruption leads to the advocacy of extreme solutions involving state interference, and that creates more opportunities for corruption. Populism leads to dictatorship, does it not? Can we break the downward spiral or is a new Hitler, a new Stalin or some ghastly theocracy inevitable? I think I might prefer to put up with Goldman Sachs. Such institutions tend to destroy themselves as did Lehman and AIG, and they are bailed out, not solely because they bribe the politicians directly, but because the public wants the good time to continue. Think of the jobs the bank-financed construction boom created. The voters want them restored. Here we have had a massive debt-financed boom which has crashed, and what is Gordon Brown's determined policy for dealing with the crash? It is to restore the boom by more debt-financed spending. He referred to this solution time and time again during the TV debate with Cameron and Clegg. And there are plenty of economists who agree with him. Vince Cable, the very popular Lib-Dem finance 'expert' - he is actually a lawyer - get cheers every time he advocates ordering the state-aided banks to lend to more to business, as if the banks had not been incautious enough. The two 1977 Acts of the US Congress were inspired by the same blind philosophy. Geoff
Dear Geoffrey, Your analysis is brilliant, and grounded in your practical experience as a banker. I don’t think any academic could have thought up this formulation. But you are absolutely, wonderfully right – I should say, uncomfortably right, because the institutional-behavioral points you make do cut across nice beautiful simple theories! What you write about anti-corruption laws paving the way for new corruption is precisely what is happening now with the Republican-Democratic dance. That was the point made by many at the Minsky conference here. It is INEVITABLE that the government will bail out the next “too big to fail” and even middle-size failures in order to save the SYSTEM – by putting the crooks even more in control. --- Their hope is that when only one Mafiosi (your “Hitler”) runs things, they will take the whole picture and gain into account. This was a theory developed a while ago by an economist who recently died. --- It didn’t work in Rome. ---- And re Brown in America: the solution to debt deflation is – to REflate housing prices with even MORE credit (90% guaranteed by the government in the past year), making debt deflation even WORSE. --- The “bad guys” always say, “our solution failed because you didn’t go far ENOUGH down the wrong path.” --- Re Brown, why don’t the Conservatives say that his “solution” is to turn Britain into Greece? That should get some mileage … Michael
A substantial chunk of Gardiner bon-mot stringery can be found searching
for "primacy of trade debt"
works i have not found free online (yet) are:
1976 paper, 'Tax and British Farming' (Thompson, Goodenough and Gardiner).
"Towards true monetarism"
large september, when Michael Hudson blew up at/on
Krugman with fall-out across a number of sites, a fruitfully clarifying
exchange between MH and GWG spun out at gang8plus
# message 14790:
From: "G W Gardiner" <geoffrey.gardiner@...>
Date: Sun Jan 10, 2010 12:05 pm
Subject: Re: Henry Liu on money and credit
Henry's wish to call fiat money 'sovereign credit' may sound weird and confusing to the average accountant, but it actually fits in with the point that Adam Smith made. The man with a golden guinea is like a man with a bill drawn on every trader in his neighbourhood. That is he looks to his neighbours, not the government, to honour the fact that the holding of fiat money shows he is a creditor of society generally.
I fully understand what Henry is trying to argue, and for practical purposes am happy to regard fiat money as only a technical debt, something the public is more likely to understand than denying it is debt at all. The community requires a certain amount of fiat money and in a well-run state no attempt will be made to raise the level of issuance of fiat money above what the public requires. Above that level it quickly becomes Mugabe Money.
In every other way I admire what Henry says and rate his remarks as a good exposition of creditary economics even though I think the wording may sometimes confuse the inexpert reader. I imagine Richard is pleased with his exposition.
In one respect I may go further than Henry does, and assert that all private rights are at the whim of the state, and are revocable. That does not mean that the state should not honour commitments. I am sure Machiavelli would have argued it was normally in the best interest of the Prince (i.e. state) do do so.
It is a pity there are always minor qualifications to the best statements, even Henry's. In the UK one cannot use fiat money in the form of coins to pay taxes. Regal coins are only redeemed when worn out. Surplus coins accumulate in bank vaults, as Beryl and I have seen. See George Selgin's book. From 1787 for three decades or so privately issued coins were preferred to the state issues and the private issues were redeemable. Apparently the reason the state preferred to let private issues take over was because the UK government issued coins on terms which rendered no seigniorage, so all coin issues were loss-makers. Selgin also credits the lack of regal coins to the laziness of the sinecure holders who ran the Mint. When the state did stop the issue of private tokens and got to work to supply what was needed, the sad result was that the coinage became dull and boring.
Coins and notes are still the most popular means here of making small payments, according to recent research. But the amount of notes in issue, as I have commented before, is far , far more than ought to be needed. What happens to them?
more stuff i will be attempting to find:
Prospect article by Davies:
a Proboscis Difference series paper:
Waiting for Crisis by same (potlatch
the time has come for a parting
salvo, message 15009 (Gunnar Tómasson):
The late Icelandic economy's dying wish was to have its
ashes scattered over Europe!
Dirk Bezemer: "We asked for cash, not ash."
... Wait, I am not quite done (well ... i was,
Oh, the diaboalony, half a trill conjurethrilleuro'zeur'o
(life changing money folks!)
Do we have Pre(con)tenderers to tender some of that vitally top tier consensus? Sure we do. Up where 'it' counts, specially where 'it' are efforts to stem and mop up the specuslothery (f)lows.
If you haven't already, please visit (a cornerstone/staple
of )my (quickenkinconstellable) time-space parable (from
micro extent to perennial, terrestrial, even universal ones) for
a cleare see-through: jewdas.com (the joseph story in particular - a first miraculous, totally exceptional rank-rise causing disownment, de-autonomization, ungardenculturation and labour reserves simply by stockpileage and storage on a massive scale, later worsened, extended and aggravated by destilleries and enslaving slavics and whites to spirits). I'll quickly show you what i thought when i first found this page in 2005, during them good
old haloscan days at Mary's, (who is now at palestinethinktank.com by the way) .. gone in favor of social networking tweaks buttons, AIDS and choices that require ... wait for it ... .speedier processors and so less integrity (Robin Dunbar) more siliconhell.com type stuff ... which i should revisit to see if they caught on to the autism epidemic there (bay-area) besides the pollution they used to harp on a decade ago already .. I mention jewdas in the 11th file since then by the way.
sticking feathers enemies let fly at you to attempt derogation and bad light painting in your hat is a pride taking process caught in the single dutch word 'geuzennaam' (from the days they fought/inundated the spanish, then very much under semito expansion spell and sponsorship ((ask the
forest sprites how lovely they think that word)),
pretty irrelevant wether Moor or jew no? They certainly had to learn deal with waves of both since then), an anglo-recent example would be 'queer'. *jewdas.org/joseph.htm short but highly enlightening file; here's a quote: "Joseph’s story teaches that security comes not from aligning yourself with those with power and strength, but from working together with the poorest in society and promoting justice for the oppressed. If you seek only your
own welfare, and persecute others to achieve it, you may become persecuted yourself. The text contains a timeless message: none of us are free until all of us are free."--- typical case of left ziomarxism scolding the left ziocapitalism? Anyway, I was onboard for this part already, it goes a little farther than that thoug: "Rather than simply a means to survive a famine, Joseph’s plan can be read as a self-fulfilling prophecy. By taking away the people’s surpluses , they were forced into agricultural overproduction, and the over farming of the land is the chief cause of the resultant famine. The programme is
simply a means for the state to take control, to overthrow a localised , autonomous society, and turn it into a centralised autocracy, similar to the use of enclosure in English history."
We better hope the presently magiced 'safetynet', I'd call it an eruptissue if i might -- change-money to pay for turnarounds or maybe not, just carry on the retirement of a once very green/great civ, quickly following/approaching the former Nimrod environs in degrees of barrenness as is all of southern europe, a little longer --, ... we better hope it will not only, as sure as gems and glitter attract magpie, lure and attract but actually catch and cure speculators, the gambling spirit, a cerebral mindgame route to autism quite as effective as tecnical tinkering with ... cough ... models (both the type tooled away at in backyard sheds and the ones taken to be fed ((rather than taking)) to the rich of cities).
Will the euro-safety take speculators by suprise and in .. rather than the other way around? Better not wait to see .. the
absurdity of expecting this super duper hyper central compact miniaturized
abstraction to apply a squeeze forcefully enough to make the recipient/subject feel wanted needed and energized about perspectives offered and open.
The tangible non-abstract presymbolicized, crude and vulgar parallel for this mimetic substitution and ritualized guessing at the allpassword is, as always, instructive .... and so terribly tenderizing ... invitatious ... sigh .. how can we allow paralysis, all the stealing from and pre-emption of its/her (i prefer) foolbloom ... of true loveliness??
This equivalent and precursor (making its absence and derivative surrogates look, feel and taste like so many curses) lays down a not merely virtual dimension-poor and lacking drill-down, etcetera (Art Brock) credit as the substrate and basis for growth organization - reduction - distribution - etcetera and appears hot and precipitous (volcanic) as easily as icy and slow (glacial).
Now imagine loads of real dust (instead of heaps of promissory/goodwill/buffer euros that came about bycause of 20 signatures on a single piece of paper ((kinda like the hard work of turning suitable rock into ready dust, quite dangerous unless kept moist and down vigilantly ... but not really)) are representing a vague and vereinzelt, literally verzettelt to the point of a mere virtual attempted put(ting a stop to uncommonly mean-spirited egotism, wonder if that is at all easier than capping and corking the oil geni under a very well weighted and flexing ocean floor - schluchz and othe throat reflexes reflecting apprehension) ...
... where was i ... oh .. right ... Now imagine loads of real dust and
the space it can take up ... which just might take too much room away from mentioned process (earth formed by and as temporary waystation ((in a cycling)) of mountain tops on their way to ocean floors and round and round up and down) .. which needs a little elbow room and exposure to turn it into everything else ... just cause you neglected sprinkling freshly crushed handfuls of powder for millenia across your daily 'needs' (euphemism in holland for dump/stool)does not mean that getting that backlog in one humongous helping will not be the equivalent of a Mt St Helen magnitude overdose and disaster ... no matter how sensible the admonitions hopes and pledges expressing intent to henceforth be as good as that and for it daily, are.
Any real estate not inundated and buried by such credit might become prime, peaking of which postpeakage debt charge and interest crud is intolerable and completely unnecessary. Take Greece, add Permaculture candidates, people who understand Wessel di Wesseli, etcetera, to its nearly desertified coastlines and sell a few slivers and chunks here and there. Voila, debtburden evaporated, country in the clear, budget resolved, all on short order, all spoofers poofed and all bubbles travelling upwards in straight and orderly fashion, inexorable but harnessed and disciplined and we don't need Louis van Gaal to train them little Pusteboosters.
But it has been a week since i heard sovereignty and eminent domain mentioned (by way of BBC-WorldService, where someone proffered selling off a few islands as the best and very quick solution) and all such secession type border discussion are taboo so the person responsible is prolly out of a job as we speak.
Beauty is easy.
Sigh, ... a career in service of tectonics is toning but taxing too, staying a humean humedian course betwen volcano and glacier is pioneering periodically well-charted but on the whole totally fragmented paths. Hope we will share a stretch or two.