of debt and my lawyer said "no". So he blew up along with his bridge
to me and his brothers and sister. And I have heard similar stories.
$5. sounds okay. :-)
On Oct 1, 7:35 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.bcg.com/documents/file87307.pdf
>
> The above link is to a paper put out at Boston Consulting Group
> (BCG). Survivors of business strategy lectures may remember their
> stars, cash cows, dogs and question mark portfolio management. The
> summary might read that our politicians aren't telling us the truth on
> world debt and are playing for time. The big problem is facing up to
> the facts. These facts have been known to some of us for a couple of
> decades and in more ideological form since 1900. The US and Europe
> need to cut debt other than through IMF austerity lunacy by amounts so
> large most banks will be bankrupt and their shareholders left with
> whatever market value left. The banks would go into temporary
> nationalisation to be cleaned up and set back on truly regulated
> keel. A lot of debt will just have to be written off, as in cutting
> what's owed on mortgages and the rich will have to take a big haircut
> through assets taxes (one off).
>
> Names to look for if interested include Steve Keen and David Graeber.
> It's been established a long time that we haven't been growing much
> through work in 30 years,instead transferring investment to sweat shop
> economies and speculative bubbles including housing and organised
> crime banksterism. Our governments must know.
>
> So-called 'moal hazard' is involved in any solution to the mess -
> debts have to be forgiven and this raises the issue of rewarding daft
> or irresponsible borrowing. This feels wrong. I had an incidence
> with my grandson who put a month's allowance into buying a new guitar
> (Crafter - great tone) but turned up demanding it. He got a fiver,
> but should really have gone away empty handed. We could get in
> discussion on moral hazard, but we really ought to consider that the
> banks are duplicitous about it - they've been highly irresponsible and
> don't want to face the consequences any more than a poor family facing
> eviction and foreclosure.
>
> There are a lot of moral issues like this where we can establish the
> principle - but also see powerful groups evading the principle, often
> with threat that national or global collapse will occur if they are
> treated like everyone else. This is not capitalism under rule of law,
> or democracy but oligarchy. We are generally quick to scorn the
> spendthrift (as in that story on the grasshopper and ant), but what
> stops us getting after it on the massive scale of global banksterism?
> The facts are as clear as in the more or less neo-con BCG The only
> place, other than in detail, I disagree concerns the notion that
> uncompetitive countries should cut wages - we need Aa more complex
> formula that puts liquid assets (more or less cash) back in the hands
> of the less well off. Roughly, we have seen this decline from 14% to
> 1% in the bottom have-nots comprising 50% of our peoples. A return to
> this through New Deal work projects is needed.
>
> Substantial cowardice is involved in being prepared to slate peers for
> indiscretions and fall for the lies told by the powerful. And this is
> why I'm not a democrat. Our systems need to change away from this
> form of govern-mentality in which arguments are directed at ignorance
> to garner votes. But how can we do this without another form of
> elitism?
0 comments:
Post a Comment