http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7979483.stm
Quote Leaders of the world's largest economies have reached an agreement to tackle the global financial crisis with measures worth $1 trillion (£681bn).
To help countries with troubled economies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will get extra resources worth up to $750bn.
There will also be sanctions against secretive tax havens and tougher global financial regulation.
And the G20 has committed about $250bn to boost global trade.
The deal was announced shortly before the European stock markets closed and gave leading indexes a significant boost.
London's FTSE 100 index of leading shares ended 4.3% higher. In Paris, the Cac 40 jumped 5.4% and in Frankfurt the Dax rose 6%.
The deal
On behalf of the G20, Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the following steps:
* Bankers' pay and bonuses will be subject to stricter controls
* A new Financial Stability Board will be set up to work with the IMF to ensure co-operation across borders and provide an early warning mechanism for the financial system
* There will be greater regulation of hedge funds and credit ratings agencies
* A common approach to cleaning up banks' toxic assets has been agreed
* The world's poorest countries will receive $100bn extra aid
* G20 countries are already implementing the biggest economic stimulus "the world has ever seen" - an injection of $5tn by the end of next year.
There were also noises about cleaning up off-shore tax havens, which is pushing the already strained bounds of credibility. Sure Sarkozy and Brown and Obama and the rest like to play it like they're "national interest" hard-headed statesmen, but they don't have the brass balls necessary to start going after such people. There is a good case to be made that too much power in so few hands is necessarily dangerous to the state, but like I said, the so-called statesmen are
surrounded by financial system insiders. None of them is ruthlessly Machiavellian enough to go after their own backers, even when they've got 98% of the population calling for their blood.
I don't know where the catch is, not yet. But I
will find out, and when I do, I wont shut up about it. I get the feeling the hidden hook in the bait will be located in the IMF, but obviously its still early days yet, and even when the details do come out, they'll be hidden among a ton of paperwork and written in Economicesque Legalese.
*Sigh*
Good thing I'm not busy or anything.
Go into journalism, Cain.
Not shitting you.
Yeah, go into journalism. A thriving field where you can make a difference.
Take it from me, it's fun, rewarding and profitable.
Oh, no wait, it's a goddamn nightmare and there are no jobs. Also if you try to actually do your job you stand a fair chance of getting fired because you did your job.
You want to help? Start a news organization yourself. Do everything right. Get solid information with reputable sources. Do your goddamn homework.
Fuck going into journalism but feel free to actually be a journalist. Just don't expect anyone to pay you for it right now.
Quote from: Slanket, destroyer of internets. on April 03, 2009, 06:12:41 AM
Yeah, go into journalism. A thriving field where you can make a difference.
Take it from me, it's fun, rewarding and profitable.
Oh, no wait, it's a goddamn nightmare and there are no jobs. Also if you try to actually do your job you stand a fair chance of getting fired because you did your job.
You want to help? Start a news organization yourself. Do everything right. Get solid information with reputable sources. Do your goddamn homework.
Fuck going into journalism but feel free to actually be a journalist. Just don't expect anyone to pay you for it right now.
Point.
Except that with his major, Cain isn't trying to fly on a journalism degree, but as an expert in a given field.
And if that doesn't work, there's always the Daily Mail, and he can write about how Obama is a communist atheist Muslim Kenyan.
I actually know fuck all about economics, officially at least (unofficially have I a dozen textbooks and a decent grounding in political philosophy).
I just know how people in power think. The IMF is getting bigger, nastier teeth and half a billion in funds, and our leaders are cowards incapable of biting the hand that feeds them due to ideological-regulatory capture of government thinking and planning. So there will be a hook, somewhere. The IMF already has one, in the form of "structural reforms", which means countries wont get the money unless they follow certain policies. Usually these policies are designed to create (or in the current case, exacerbate) economic and financial problems, causing a crash, followed by "privatization" whereby rich western firms (who coincidentally bankroll major political parties in America and Europe) buy up these companies and previously held government functions on the cheap, then proceed to milk the population for all its worth via massive price rises.
This is pretty well documented, so I have to wonder if they're just giving them more money so they can perform these reforms on more countries, or if they're going to step up their game some.
Equally well documented is the use of offshore banking for individuals with fantastic sums of money they want to hide or illegitimate ventures they want to launder money from, or both. BCCI and Clearstream, for example. Intelligence services, political-industrial kickbacks and bribes, drugs and gun-running, oh my. None of the current leadership look like JFK's in the making, so I can only assume there will be loopholes that will avert any grassy knoll scenarios occuring.
And who's going to be in charge of this new global regulator, and what exactly will their powers be? Are they going to be some sort of independent judge, or another heavy for the big powers, shutting down competition for their personal darlings, like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and the Bank of Scotland?
Sounds too good to be true.
Quite frankly, the coverage I saw of the G20 on the news just made it look like a load of political posturing. Especially all the bullshit with the "first wives," that just seemed pretty ridiculous.
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2009, 11:35:05 AM
I actually know fuck all about economics, officially at least (unofficially have I a dozen textbooks and a decent grounding in political philosophy).
I just know how people in power think. The IMF is getting bigger, nastier teeth and half a billion in funds, and our leaders are cowards incapable of biting the hand that feeds them due to ideological-regulatory capture of government thinking and planning. So there will be a hook, somewhere. The IMF already has one, in the form of "structural reforms", which means countries wont get the money unless they follow certain policies. Usually these policies are designed to create (or in the current case, exacerbate) economic and financial problems, causing a crash, followed by "privatization" whereby rich western firms (who coincidentally bankroll major political parties in America and Europe) buy up these companies and previously held government functions on the cheap, then proceed to milk the population for all its worth via massive price rises.
This is pretty well documented, so I have to wonder if they're just giving them more money so they can perform these reforms on more countries, or if they're going to step up their game some.
Equally well documented is the use of offshore banking for individuals with fantastic sums of money they want to hide or illegitimate ventures they want to launder money from, or both. BCCI and Clearstream, for example. Intelligence services, political-industrial kickbacks and bribes, drugs and gun-running, oh my. None of the current leadership look like JFK's in the making, so I can only assume there will be loopholes that will avert any grassy knoll scenarios occuring.
And who's going to be in charge of this new global regulator, and what exactly will their powers be? Are they going to be some sort of independent judge, or another heavy for the big powers, shutting down competition for their personal darlings, like Citigroup and Goldman Sachs and the Bank of Scotland?
Beautiful on target analysis right there ^ Also the following:
Quote from: Cain on March 16, 2009, 11:01:40 AM
The Editors makes an excellent point:
QuotePAUL SOLMAN: Of all the cultures you've studied that have tried to deal with severe economic dislocations, what's the marker of resiliency?
JARED DIAMOND: It seems to me that one of the predictors of a happy versus an unhappy outcome has to do with the role of the elite or the decision-makers or the politicians or the rich people within the society.
If the society is structured so that the decision-makers themselves suffer from the consequences of their decisions, then they're motivated to make decisions that are good for the whole society, whereas if the decision-makers can make decisions that insulate themselves from the rest of society, then they're likely to make decisions that are bad for the rest of society.
...
And also because fuck them.
Sadly it's easy for individuals to hide behind organizations or systems (via mob mentality). The IMF (international mo'fuckers) can make policy decisions without being responsible on an individual breathing human level. Just as some stupid health insurance company can make decisions on whether or not a peron should receive life or death medical treatments. Hiding behind the AMA, insurance company, the bottom line or whatever, when, if this decision was up to an individual - most would never be able to make that kind of decision.
Just noticed the typo peron should be person. Freudian slip? Juan or Eva Perón?
That mob mentality awarenenss also seems to work in reverse on a psychological level (with me anyhow) or sometimes used to garner sympathy. For example, although disgusted when light was shed on some of the more greedy & stupid individuals involved in the current economic fiasco, I still found it hard to stomach when the mob was turned against some of the worst offenders using personal harassment (even more so when their families were targeted).
True.
But on the other hand... http://exiledonline.com/class-war-101-meet-the-reptiles-who-are-making-meat-out-of-you/
QuoteIn 1967, unions were much stronger, income disparities were much narrower, and Americans didn't culture-hump their bosses. Back then, Al Dunlap tried to apply his "chainsaw" to a company called Sterling Pulp & Paper. He proposed mass firings of its unionized workforce to bring down costs and boost the owners' share. But Sterling's 1967 workers weren't like Sunbeam's or Scott Paper's in the 1990s. They didn't roll over and accept the downsizing with a sullen grumble. Instead, to quote from Dunlap's own book, "There were also physical threats of violence. We received anonymous calls and letters from nuts who said they were going to blow up my car or shoot me in the parking lot." It worked: Dunlap caved in to the "nuts," the workers weren't downsized, and Dunlap eventually was forced to retreat. (A biographical note: according to the book Testosterone, Inc., Dunlap's first wife divorced him on grounds of "extreme cruelty" after he allegedly took a knife to her and said, "I've always wondered what human flesh tastes like.")
Agree.
But Testosterone, Inc.? :lulz:
Quote from: Cain on April 03, 2009, 02:13:12 PM
True.
But on the other hand... http://exiledonline.com/class-war-101-meet-the-reptiles-who-are-making-meat-out-of-you/
QuoteIn 1967, unions were much stronger, income disparities were much narrower, and Americans didn’t culture-hump their bosses. Back then, Al Dunlap tried to apply his “chainsaw” to a company called Sterling Pulp & Paper. He proposed mass firings of its unionized workforce to bring down costs and boost the owners’ share. But Sterling’s 1967 workers weren’t like Sunbeam’s or Scott Paper’s in the 1990s. They didn’t roll over and accept the downsizing with a sullen grumble. Instead, to quote from Dunlap’s own book, “There were also physical threats of violence. We received anonymous calls and letters from nuts who said they were going to blow up my car or shoot me in the parking lot.” It worked: Dunlap caved in to the “nuts,” the workers weren’t downsized, and Dunlap eventually was forced to retreat. (A biographical note: according to the book Testosterone, Inc., Dunlap’s first wife divorced him on grounds of “extreme cruelty” after he allegedly took a knife to her and said, “I’ve always wondered what human flesh tastes like.”)
Yep. Nowadays, it's coming down to job apathy. People are so miserable at their jobs that they do just enough, the bare minimum, to not get fired, and if they do then they're like, "Well, this shit sucks. Time to go find another meaningless depressing job so I can make a small amount of money and be taxed almost 10% in sales tax while the state takes 30% initially"
I think we need to get into a better work ethic, be more productive, allow our citizens to buy more at a lower tax rate and maybe that will boost our economy better than people working bare minimums and buying bare minimums with the high taxation.
And if the people start getting abused, they need to fucking DO SOMETHING. THey won't here in Cali though, because we had a grocery store strike at Stater Bros that ended in disaster from horrible unionizing and people are scared. something like a 6 month strike that ended in people getting lower wages than before they started the damn thing.
Quote from: Slanket, destroyer of internets. on April 03, 2009, 06:12:41 AM
Yeah, go into journalism. A thriving field where you can make a difference.
Take it from me, it's fun, rewarding and profitable.
Oh, no wait, it's a goddamn nightmare and there are no jobs. Also if you try to actually do your job you stand a fair chance of getting fired because you did your job.
You want to help? Start a news organization yourself. Do everything right. Get solid information with reputable sources. Do your goddamn homework.
Fuck going into journalism but feel free to actually be a journalist. Just don't expect anyone to pay you for it right now.
The Huffington Post.
The Daily Beast.
I hate to bang my drum on this more, but actually, what the people need is decent fucking education, so they actually KNOW when their asses are getting raped from behind and then handed them to them sliced on a platter for a shit sandwich.
Government in the US no longer requires students in K-12 to learn about government. Yes, that's right--we only are required in public school to learn and teach the "3 'R's"...so imagine how dangerous that is, a bunch of citizenry who already know next to nothing about WHO runs their government and HOW, now turning into a whole collective of no-nothings on top of no-care.
It's not just apathy about the system, it's apathy about why we're in the system, and how the system BECAME the system. And getting anyone to care beyond a neocon talking point shot out of the ass cannon that is Rush Limbaugh or his new man-at-arms, Glenn Beck, is a literal and sometimes virtual circlejerk.
Panic and hysteria can very easily overcome an undereducated populace--that's how the post-9/11 tomfuckery happened. The "ONOZ TEH MOOSLIMS WILL RAEP OUR BABEEZ AND EAT OUR WIMMENZ" panic of the early 2000's continued unchecked for years, and still resonates today, even if the rhetoric has cooled down somewhat.
The IMF and World Bank have ALWAYS been a hegemon, and it's pretty sad that the media never gets to bust out exactly how insidious their ways are to any large degree. Oh sure, the spots on NPR will highlight some of the shinanigans that are made public re: the past two IMF chiefs have not been able to keep their dicks out of their business. But as to the backroom dealings with multi-billion international corporations, drug-and-arms running of said corporations for nefarious pursuits of some nation or other, and helping same corporations bilk millions from thousands of poor and indigent in 3d world countries...yeah, no, you rarely hear about that.
Well, I started out ranting about something or other, and now I'm babbling, so I'll stop.
Quote from: Jenne on April 04, 2009, 12:52:10 AM
I hate to bang my drum on this more, but actually, what the people need is decent fucking education, so they actually KNOW when their asses are getting raped from behind and then handed them to them sliced on a platter for a shit sandwich.
Government in the US no longer requires students in K-12 to learn about government. Yes, that's right--we only are required in public school to learn and teach the "3 'R's"...so imagine how dangerous that is, a bunch of citizenry who already know next to nothing about WHO runs their government and HOW, now turning into a whole collective of no-nothings on top of no-care.
true - i just went through a jury duty selection and 95% of what they were doing and saying was to teach
basic civics to the people that have to serve
sad unbarably fucking sad it was like Barney for adults,
do you know what innocent until proven guilty means? - can you say innocent until proven guilty? :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
Quote from: fomenter on April 04, 2009, 01:48:19 AM
Quote from: Jenne on April 04, 2009, 12:52:10 AM
I hate to bang my drum on this more, but actually, what the people need is decent fucking education, so they actually KNOW when their asses are getting raped from behind and then handed them to them sliced on a platter for a shit sandwich.
Government in the US no longer requires students in K-12 to learn about government. Yes, that's right--we only are required in public school to learn and teach the "3 'R's"...so imagine how dangerous that is, a bunch of citizenry who already know next to nothing about WHO runs their government and HOW, now turning into a whole collective of no-nothings on top of no-care.
true - i just went through a jury duty selection and 95% of what they were doing and saying was to teach basic civics to the people that have to serve sad unbarably fucking sad it was like Barney for adults, do you know what innocent until proven guilty means? - can you say innocent until proven guilty? :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
"White."
What? Did I say it wrong?
Quote from: the other anonymous on April 04, 2009, 03:16:29 AM
Quote from: fomenter on April 04, 2009, 01:48:19 AM
Quote from: Jenne on April 04, 2009, 12:52:10 AM
I hate to bang my drum on this more, but actually, what the people need is decent fucking education, so they actually KNOW when their asses are getting raped from behind and then handed them to them sliced on a platter for a shit sandwich.
Government in the US no longer requires students in K-12 to learn about government. Yes, that's right--we only are required in public school to learn and teach the "3 'R's"...so imagine how dangerous that is, a bunch of citizenry who already know next to nothing about WHO runs their government and HOW, now turning into a whole collective of no-nothings on top of no-care.
true - i just went through a jury duty selection and 95% of what they were doing and saying was to teach basic civics to the people that have to serve sad unbarably fucking sad it was like Barney for adults, do you know what innocent until proven guilty means? - can you say innocent until proven guilty? :argh!: :argh!: :argh!:
"White."
What? Did I say it wrong?
:horrormirth: The scream is silent this time.
:lulz:
Couldn't even wait 48 hours to start sucking up to the banking industry again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303910_2.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials....
The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.
Although some experts are questioning the legality of this strategy, the officials said it gives them latitude to determine whether firms should be subject to the congressional restrictions, which would require recipients to turn over ownership stakes to the government, as well as curb executive pay.
Quote from: Jenne on April 04, 2009, 12:52:10 AM
...
The IMF and World Bank have ALWAYS been a hegemon, and it's pretty sad that the media never gets to bust out exactly how insidious their ways are to any large degree. Oh sure, the spots on NPR will highlight some of the shinanigans that are made public re: the past two IMF chiefs have not been able to keep their dicks out of their business. But as to the backroom dealings with multi-billion international corporations, drug-and-arms running of said corporations for nefarious pursuits of some nation or other, and helping same corporations bilk millions from thousands of poor and indigent in 3d world countries...yeah, no, you rarely hear about that.
Well, I started out ranting about something or other, and now I'm babbling, so I'll stop.
I agree & it
is quite annoying when the media reports on trifling bullshit (some viagra popping good ole boy waving his dick around, oh my! how unusual?) & neglects to report on the bigger issues, those that continue to effect the big picture & world dynamic involved. Bread & circuses. Is there a meme that reflects this concept of bread & circuses? Just wondering.
Quote from: Cain on April 04, 2009, 02:58:15 PM
:lulz:
Couldn't even wait 48 hours to start sucking up to the banking industry again.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303910_2.html?hpid=topnews
QuoteThe Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials....
The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.
Although some experts are questioning the legality of this strategy, the officials said it gives them latitude to determine whether firms should be subject to the congressional restrictions, which would require recipients to turn over ownership stakes to the government, as well as curb executive pay.
I think the case can be made that tax payers (via Freedom of information act, Sunshine laws, et cetera) are entitled to know just how this whole thing goes down. A big obstacle is, by the time people know, it's a done deal. That's one of the reasons it's valuable (I think) to see how these things played out in the (recent) past. The Savings & Loan fiasco of the 1980's? is a good example where some of the players haven't changed & you can trace the laws enacted to protect (& pamper) the guilty. Unfortunately, everyone is more entrenched in the outcomes.