about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.
Another way you know that it wasn't really about economics is that the league's economic public case
for its position became more and more preposterous as the weeks went by, and even the public began
to notice that it was being taken for a fool. The hilarity hit high tide for me when David Stern
started going around explaining that 22 of his 30 franchises were losing money.
Tell me, do you suppose that when Stern sat down and chatted with the Nike corporation, or with the
People's Republic of China, to name only two of the wildly successful authoritarian operations with
which the league does its business, the first thing he explained while pitching the NBA to them was
that 73 percent of his league was in the red? Did you, at any time, expect to see Herb Simon, the
shopping-mall billionaire who owns the "small-market" Indiana Pacers a team that he bought for $11
million and which is now estimated to be worth $269 million swiping the leftover bourbon chicken
off abandoned plates in his various food courts unless the players surrendered to him a chunk of
Of course you didn't, because your mother didn't raise a fool when she raised you.
(Can the NBA produce financial documents testifying that Simon and his fellow plutocrats were
perilously close to selling apples on Fifth Avenue? Yes, because almost anyone could, if they hired
Philip K. Dick to do their accounting.)
And the third and most important reason why you know that the lockout was not really about economics
is that there was a lockout at all. Because 30 years of propaganda thanks, Ronnie! have
convinced most people under 50 that unions are for losers, it eluded many of the people covering
these events that lockouts are, and will always be, things willed into being exclusively by
management. They are not natural phenomena. They are never truly unavoidable. They don't "just
happen," and they certainly do not occur because "both sides" are at fault. Lockouts occur when
management believes that unions are too strong, and they occur when management believes that unions
are too weak, and they occur when management doesn't want a union to exist at all.
Lockouts are not devices of economic correction. That's just a byproduct. Lockouts are attempts by
management to exercise control over their workers. Period.
[SOURCE:Grantland.com | Charles A.
Pierce | 28 November 2011]
Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 11h 50m 22s
The idea of transference means "the action of transferring something or the process of being
transferred" . The branch of psychology called transference neurosis is "the redirection to a
substitute of emotions that were originally felt in childhood" . I got this idea from the
television series Law & Order that I will watch sporadically throughout the year, when I have time.
The show deals with human psychology and the devolution of unresolved social and personal issues
becoming transformed into monstrous consequences. The particular show involved an older gentleman
who transfered his traumatized notions of his mother having an affair with a jew into a hatred for
jews in general. The man thought his secretary mother was raped by the jewish owner rather than
becoming a willing accomplice, unable to admit that life is more complicated, irrational, and
hypocritical then what he might have wanted. The man devolved when his mother died and he carried
out a series of 7 deaths against hebrews -- which is a rather extreme end to this set of events, but
then what do you expect from a tv show that needs to attract eyeballs. To be fair, the show did a
good job evincing the characters involved in the script.
But it got me thinking about transference. This might be an innate human mechanism of dealing with
very painful events. We redirect the challenging emotions towards a substitute, for whatever
reason, and there are many different reasons. The mind makes its own connections and hypotheses of
events; therefore, the mind finds and accepts its own substitutes.
Emotions are like water. Some persons control their flow of water at a regular constant drip.
Others spray all over the place at different irregular intervals, or rush out, and some even turn
off the spigot for most of their entire life. But when emotions fill an underground reservoir of
pain, the deposits accumulate and grow. Soon the enormous amount of water has to go somewhere, and
where it goes may or may not be the choice of the water carrier. Drainage systems have to be
installed, and they are usually installed without any plan, on an as needed basis. So after a
while, the drainage system becomes dysfunctional and has to be rebuilt or re-routed. This involves
having to make decisions and choices that are difficult because of historical associations and
various other personal attachments. However, whatever decision that is made, dictates the drainage
construction and infrastructure (or lack thereof) that proceeds afterwards.
Ignoring the inevitable is the most frequent strategy. Lacking any absolutely necessary reason to
change or reassess, the human species will merely drift, carrying on the current traditions and
practices with which we have become imbued.
Tuesday, 22 November 2011 at 19h 7m 12s
Reality sets in
Saturday, 19 November 2011 at 15h 50m 46s
Occupy San Francisco's Facebook page
Saturday, 19 November 2011 at 15h 31m 2s
19 attempts to evict versus 200 occupations.
We report you decide.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Click here for the source of the map provided by Daily Kos. The 200 events stem
from the 4th of October when the Kos post occurred.
Friday, 18 November 2011 at 21h 39m 13s
Idiots and history
These guys who shoot these guns at public officials , going back to Ronald Reagan, are all nut bags.
Using violence against authority is counter-productive because it always produces a different
series of events other than anticipated, and once the desecration occurs the shame will be
inescapable. Adherents to the cause diminish. Violence is a tool for utterly impoverished
civilizations suffering underneath massive dictatorial regimes; but it is nevertheless is poor
choice. Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi must be the way forward if any meaningful change is
to evolve. Minds do not change when sensibilities of the national institutions are desecrated.
But the fact still remains, crazy violence against public officials has been a fact in American
History going back to 1881 when James Garfield was shot outside a train station by a nut bag
supposedly upset because he thought he should be appointed consul to Paris despite lacking any
qualifications for the role.
Theodore Roosevelt became President when McKinley got it from another crazed moron. The
contemporary newspapers carried a speculation that the nut bag was angry about the Phillipines
occupation, but it is hard to know for sure. Myths do however at least say something about how a
sizable minority saw the event.
Burr was a very aggressively egoistic fellow who rubbed Hamilton the wrong way and Burr saw Hamilton
in particular as a foe and adversary. Jefferson was going to drop Burr as Vice President in the
1804 election, and Burr became sore after Burr failed in his bid for Governor because of what he
felt was a smear campaign organized by Hamilton. On July 11, 1804 the two met on a duel and
Hamilton was fatally wounded. A sitting Vice President had just shot and killed not only a
civilian, but also a very well regarded American and historically important figure in the creation
of the Republic, as well as political competitor.
This reminds me of when Dick Cheney once shot at de-winged pheasants in rural Texas and accidentally
wounded a friend of his who joined him. Cheney waited until the next day to break the news to the
press. Rumor was that Cheney was drunk.
But what happened in July of 1804:
Burr immediately fled to South Carolina, "where his daughter lived with her family, but soon
returned to Philadelphia and then on to Washington to complete his term as Vice President. He
avoided New York and New Jersey for a time, but all the charges against him were eventually
Can you imagine that?
Friday, 11 November 2011 at 10h 42m 48s
The Robots are Coming
Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 20h 25m 38s
It is so sad
Watch as Herman Cain earns the pay he gets for pretending to run for President. He looks so pathetic
being the hired Uncle Tom to make the Republicans look non-racist. He will probably net more than 10
million for his efforts, and now that the secrets of this man's dysfunctional predation rise to the
surface, we begin to learn of how this man was blackmailed and used to serve the purposes of his
The top 0.5% are not all of the same mindset. Some are enlightened and willing to spend time trying
to understand other people and the best interconnected system between people. Others have seriously
deranged personality issues and detachment disorders, and prefer to spend significant sums of money
trying to take over the media, spread propaganda, and corrupt all democratic institutions. Some are
The system runs because the power struggle evolves and goes to the default position absent any
active resistence. It does not take a lot of persons with billions of dollars to influence society
and the political culture. If there is nothing standing in the way, those who try to influence the
movement to aristocracy will succeed.
Monday, 7 November 2011 at 20h 21m 25s
That was Then
This ad was before they over-leveraged their capital assets and took bad bets on sovereign debts.
If you put a down payment of 10% on a loan, you can essentially get 9 times more money instantly.
Use this money to purchase some security or something marketable, make some money, keep the down
payment, and pay off the loan with whats left plus interest.
For example: with a $10 down payment you get $90 more dollars for $100 total, and must pay 0.25%
weekly interest rate on the $90 at the end of the week. Buy a series of stocks with the $100 that
result in a net gain of 2% and you have $102. Subtract the $90 loan and the 0.25% of $90 (0.225).
You made $11.775 that week on $100. Now in the real world, you actually had $10 million, which is
100,000 more, and you made $1,177,500. A whooping 11.7% gain in funds.
And this is a low-end. Quite often money managers can get more than 2% gain if they are
knowledgeable, have a large supply of funds and ample time, and also lucky. Of course, they lose
two or more percent as well. But losing $1,177,500 for 20 weeks and making $1,177,500 or more the
other 32 weeks is still a minimum of $14,130,000 a year for flipping assets worth $10 million.
That's a 41% increase for the year. The banks will roll-over the loans, no problem, if they are
confident of a 41% yearly gain..
Now consider that the FED begin to limit downpayment requirements to 2% or less. Thus enabling this
skimming of froth to remain profitable longer. The banks and large asset funds like MF Global had
their geniuses flipping assets and marketable paper with hordes of cash reserves chasing these
profits. And the the Price got so far above the actual profitable value of the asset, or the
dividends per share.
Would you want an asset that paid you $1 every 3 months, if the asset was $150? At $4 a year, you
are getting less than 3% a year. Or would you want an asset that had no dividends? What if the
stock tanks or the business goes bankrupt? You might as well buy bonds, which are loans made by
governments and various large businesses. Bonds are safer because governments and large businesses
defaulting on their loans occurs much less often than the general population of various businesses
that sell stock on the various stock exchanges.
Instead of insisting on the down payment regulations, however, they lowered them, because all the
big boys were loving the game, and started to justify their foolish speculative mania, and thereby
threw kerosine on the fire.
A bond is a loan that is sold to various investors who trust that institution receiving the loan
will pay off the debt. Say you need $100 and are willing to pay $5 for the use of the $100 at the
end of the week. This is 5%. So you divide the $100 into 20 bonds at $5 a piece, with a promise
that you will pay a extra quarter at the end of the week, or 5.25. In the real world this is
actually relected against the initial value. Hence a $5 bond is worth $5 when redeemable after a
week, but you only pay $4.75.
A stock is a business's initial method of raising funds to pursue a certain business operation.
Once the business is in operation, the business can obtain loans against capital or against revenue
streams. The business might also sell commercial bonds, rather than getting funding from a bank,
because they might get a favorable interest rate. After the initial offering, the value of a stock
is that it allows you an income stream based upon dividends. Stocks that don't yield dividends are
only valuable if the stock goes up in value over time. In these cases, there might be valid reasons
to believe a stock is solid because the company is solid; but still without dividends, the only
point of owning a stock can be that you expect it will gain in value over time.
Now what if it becomes overly difficult for all of these brokers at computers to generate 1% gains
and more often to get 3% loses. Then it becomes difficult for banks to roll-over loans, because
everyone is doing it. And then all of the inflated assets begin to slide. The whole house of
puffed up assets begins to fall, exacerbated by the vast 35 to 1 loan to asset ratios coexisting
with decreasing asset prices.
Now why did the tax payers bail-out these morons? So they could do it again? Have we learned a
lesson at all?
The lesson : you can only skim the froth from the investment dollars of the nation and misallocate
investment for so long before the system crashes. When the various markets of asset classes and
marketable paper become valued for the price more than their profitability, the market becomes a
time bomb that will burst beyond the containable bounds of man's making.
Saturday, 5 November 2011 at 18h 32m 37s
Government did not cause the Mortgage crisis ...
THE FINANCIAL SECTOR DID !!!
Mayor Bloomberg:It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and
simple, Congress, who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp But
they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if
you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody.
It seems there are people who cant accept that some markets, particularly financial ones, are
disastrous when completely unregulated and thus find any far-fetched excuse to blame the
government instead. Since this line of argument continues to pop up, how should one respond to the
idea that Congress and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac caused the housing crisis? Here are six facts to back
[SOURCE:Mike Konczal | BigPicture
blog | 5 November 2011]
The rest of the story is awesome. Click here for the exemplary and irrefutable analysis. (If you go to the link,
make sure you also read the comments. Even the idiots and propagandista of the commentariat are
amusing, and well worth the poignant awesome points made by various other responses.)
In the comments, Barry Ritholtz, proprietor of the Big Picture blog, himself weighs in on the matter:
Some pesky details worth considering:
-The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non bank lenders not covered by the CRA;
-The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom (2001-05), were by
these same non-bank lenders
-When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from
the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw.
-Prior to late 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street NOT Fannie &
Freddie. Why? Because prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages.
-After 2005, Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start buying these non-conforming mortgages
in order to maintain market share and compete with Wall Street for profits.
-The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or
marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It
was the profit motive that led them to this action.