My eldest son and I are estranged because he demanded I bail him out 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 <[email protected]> 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?
